Neha Boyapati Paradigm

Last changed 14 March 2021 8:38 AM MST

Tarun Ratnasabapathy's Pre-Kindergarten Academy '22

The way I make my decision is complex. I keep a very light flow, then I take the number count, multiply it by 2, divide it by 3, add 17, subtract the number of speaker points I gave each of you, flip a coin six times, take the results and add the number of tails from the original number then divide by the number of heads, ask Alexa to pick a very specific number (420), subtract it from the total, and then vote aff/prop.

If you roast Pranav Kaginele I will be very happy and amused and reward you with a very prestigious 25 speaker points.

Also this^ is my very very very legit paradigm. The one below this is definitely not my real one.

--------------

Southlake Carroll '22 // she/her

nboyapati04@gmail.com (put me on the chain please) || Messenger: Neha Boyapati ( < feel free to ask me any questions you might still have)

Background: Hi! I'm Neha. I debated for Southlake Carroll for 4 years, 3 in PF and 1 in worlds. I qualified for TFA state in PF my freshman and sophomore years and for Worlds in my junior year. I broke at a few bid tournaments in PF. In worlds, I'm the 1/4 for Southlake Saffron and the TFA state 2021 champion. Some of my friends whose paradigms I generally agree with are Pranav Kaginele, Shabbir Bohri, Jay Namdhari, and Neel Kanamangala. I'm also a fan of tarun (southlake carroll TR)

My view on debate: To steal a quote from Shabbir, "debate is a game, you make the rules, i attempt to make the least biased decision possible based off those rules." My role as a judge is to evaluate arguments based on how you present them in the round without bringing in external biases. That means I'm tech > truth and all dropped arguments are true. I will vote for unwarranted arguments and arguments that aren't true if they're dropped (this may not apply for WSD - see my worlds paradigm) -- it's your burden to call out these arguments

The ONLY exceptions to that are arguments that are morally irrepressible. Debate should be a safe space for everyone. I have 0 problem dropping you if you or your argument are exclusionary - including, but not limited to, sexism, homophobia, racism, purposely misgendering, etc. I promise you it's not hard to not be a jerk.

I flip a coin for presumption, heads is aff/prop tails is neg/opp. Feel free to make arguments otherwise. If you're questioning whether to send a doc, err on the side of yes - I reserve the right to ask for one

-PF-

Substance: I'll never not be happy to judge a pure substance round. The flow is important - extending through ink is 100% not a thing. Second summary gets way too much leniency, no new frontlines to responses from first rebuttals and new terminal defense in this speech. If you don’t give me a full extension of offense in summary AND final focus (full extension = uq, link, internal link, impact) I’m probably not voting on it. I'm ok with giving novices leeway on this but if I'm judging you in varsity then no excuses. Defense that isn't frontlined in second rebuttal is sticky in first summary. No new arguments (including weighing) can be in final focus. I couldn’t care less about cross

Progressive: I think progressive arguments have a place in PF. The only non-negotiables I have here are that I won’t vote on ad homs or arguments about things that happened outside of the round (except disclosure), speech times are set, "bUt tHiS iS pF" isn't a response, and I will evaluate the debate after the second final focus (unless you're tryna concede, not debate, and settle the round with a game in which I feel you). That aside, I can evaluate pretty much anything. I default drop the debater, competing interps, and no RVIs on theory. Overexplain high theory and non-T/performance Ks. Dumb rhetoric on T-FW is annoying. Perfcons are incredibly persuasive. I don't like tricks but I won’t intervene on the flow - just on your speaks. I default comparative worlds, permissibility negates, flip a coin for presumption

-WSD-

Given that my background is in PF, I am 100% more tech than your average worlds judge. This could either be a good or bad thing for you.

What do I want to see in each speech? The one is pretty self-explanatory, I expect the opp 1 to start some refutation to the prop. I don't expect the 2 to have voters but if you give me a 2 that does a very good job of refuting your opponents points/frontlining your own and you also do it by grouping arguments into voters, I will be impressed and probably give you higher speaks over a straight line by line 2. The 3 absolutely should not be straight line by line. Same with the 4. However, I'm inclined to give you a little leeway bc I personally enjoy line by line debate better, but it is worlds so I'll have to dock you points

What kind of arguments do I buy/How do I assign points? Any argument really. My tech over truth philosophy applies here, argue whatever you want no matter how ridiculous it sounds on face. If you win it on the flow then you win it. That said, I won't by assertions that are blatantly wrong like saying the sky is red - notice the difference between assertion and argument. If you say something wrong but argue it with reasons/warrants and you win them then I'll give you the argument, if you just assert something wrong I won't buy it. I think practical arguments are kind of dumb because 95% of the time the principle outweighs, but I won't be biased against them (I know especially for impromptu it can be hard to think of another argument). If you want me to vote on the principle you have to weigh, if I'm given no weighing then I default practical > principal

To be honest, I don't really vibe with the points system. I'll probably just judge how I judge PF (giving the win to whoever wins on the flow). Style does not factor into my decision, only for speaks. I don't like judging off style because I believe 1) it's too subjective and 2) it becomes so easy to fall prey to implicit biases. If your strategy and your content points are good, your style points will be good too. Good rhetoric/humor and style may be more persuasive and make me like you, but if your strategy relies on pretty speaking and rhetoric, you will never get my ballot over a team with better argumentation. If this is a problem strike me

Speaks: I'm pretty generous on these, as long as you don't annoy me you'll be fine. Auto 30s if it's a bubble round but only in PF, sorry WSDers speaks inflation is just not as common in this event :(

Conclusion: While I have a special place in my heart for this activity, debate is super stressful and toxic, so please try to and do whatever you can that makes sure you have fun, because if you're not then there really is no point :) and finally, as the great aamir mohsin once said, "call me sticky cause I'm always posted" (I'm ngl idk what that means

Full Judging Record

Tournament Lv Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Edgemont PF Intramural RR HS 2021-03-16 PFRR R6 EdgJun BC EdgJun GJ Con
Edgemont PF Intramural RR HS 2021-03-16 PFRR R2 EdgJun GV EdgJun IP Con
Pinnacle Debate 2020-08-06 PF R2 Master de-Baters MR Karl and the Marxists ZW Aff
Pinnacle Debate 2020-08-06 PF R1 Karl and the Marxists KN Master de-Baters RS Neg
Plastic TOC PF Invitational ONLINE HS 2020-04-24 PF Quarte National Institute of Lay Appealing Youth (N.I.L.A.Y) GR BOB DOLAN ACADEMY RW Aff Aff 5-0
Plastic TOC PF Invitational ONLINE HS 2020-04-24 PF Octos Brandon Lu KS National Institute of Lay Appealing Youth (N.I.L.A.Y) GR Neg Neg 2-1
Plastic TOC PF Invitational ONLINE HS 2020-04-24 PF Double Planko Wets KK Memorial Novices CY Neg Neg 3-0
Plastic TOC PF Invitational ONLINE HS 2020-04-24 PF R3 Walter Dog SD Camel Independent IB Aff
Plastic TOC PF Invitational ONLINE HS 2020-04-24 PF R2 WeChat School of Medicine MC BOB DOLAN ACADEMY RW Neg
Plastic TOC PF Invitational ONLINE HS 2020-04-24 PF R1 BBB AL Millard Independent MZ Aff