Amogh Dendukuri Paradigm

Last changed 2/25 8:54A PDT

ABOUT ME: I debated policy for 4 years at Milpitas (CA) and am currently the president of speech and debate team at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign where I compete and coach NFA-LD and NPDA-Parli formats of debate.

I coached the policy debate team Woodlands MR (TX) from 2017-2019 who ended up earning 4 bids to the TOC and winning the Michigan RR their senior year. I currently coach the policy debate team Hebron BS (TX) and the LD debater Evergreen Valley SS (CA)

Please put me on the email chain – amoghden@gmail.com – feel free to email me with any questions you might have before or after the round. If there's anything I can do to make this round more accessible, please let me know!

GENERAL VIEWS: My debate career and involvement as a coach has been almost exclusively invested into kritikal and/or performative styles of advocacy, but I actively try to not have any fixed biases that cannot be changed with good debating. I won't have a problem understanding or evaluating most traditional arguments, but this is an area of debate that I do not have too much personal investment in. I tend to get preffed for Policy vs. K (on either side) and K vs. K debates. If your idea of an ideal debate is a nitty-gritty Policy vs. Policy round, I'm a competent flow judge to have in the back of the room but you should still probably pref me mid/lower. With all that being said, I will do my best to evaluate any argument you want to make without any preconceived biases as long as it isn't problematic.

**If this is a Novice or JV round, I would much rather you stick to arguments that you are comfortable with than try to poorly adapt to what you think I'll want to hear.

TLDR: I am more familiar with and invested in the kritikal side of debate, but you do what you do best and I'll do my best to evaluate it objectively. Regardless of what you choose to defend, specificity and depth are key to my ballot.

WHAT I LOOK FOR IN (GOOD) DEBATES:

- I generally believe that tech > truth.

- Organization, specificity, evidence comparison and argument interaction are key to amazing debates.

- Framing (at every level) is crucial in my decision-making process. Tell me how I should view the debate and why.

- The debate is not determined by evidence in a vacuum; it's up to YOU to explain (or spin) warrants, regardless of how amazing (or unfortunately terrible) your cards may be.

- Cross-x is an underutilized art. Destroy your opponents with precision. Be one step ahead. Be a witty asshole.

SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS:

POLICY AFFS: Not the types of affirmatives I read, but I'm open to evaluating them. I appreciate well thought out and creative approaches to the topic (if I wanted to listen to uninspired garbage every round, I would probably be judging public forum). I would much rather you read one or two well developed and strategic advantage(s) than several mediocre ones. I've noticed a troubling trend of terrible/outdated evidence in the policy rounds I've had the opportunity to judge – I appreciate teams that put in the effort to utilize and debate out the merits of evidence. I don't default to any particular framework when evaluating the round – it's up to the debaters to tell me what is important and my ballot ought to prioritize.

Because the policy rounds I judge usually end up being versus the K, here's some specific thoughts on those debates:

- Defend your affirmative - while a certain degree of adaptation/pivoting can be strategic, you're probably better off sticking to your guns. Avoid resorting to vague permutations and shifty link defense.

- Utilize/Apply the affirmative - take the time to make specific link/impact turn arguments.

- I have a high standard for perm articulation from the Aff and link articulation from the Neg -- that means in addition to not letting lazy K teams get away with bad link analysis, you need to do the work to truly explain how the permutation functions.

- Substantive 2AC framework arguments are more likely to influence my decision than whiny procedural stuff.

KRITIKAL AFFS: These are the types of affirmatives I am most familiar with and find most interesting. I strongly believe that there is a level of investment with the literature and knowledge about debate as an activity necessary for successful execution of kritikal affirmatives – while I fully encourage you to experiment and go for whatever you'd like (in the pursuit of creativity and education), just know that I will not uncritically vote for you just because of your choice or style of argumentation.

I've debated, written, and judged a variety of kritikal Affs (both on the level of form and content), so you do you. I tend to think that the most interesting and strategic K-Affs are unique to the resolution in some way (whatever that may mean to you). If you're looking for an idea of literature bases I'm most familiar with, look to the "Kritiks" section of my paradigm below.

I think that taking the time to make smart and offensive application of your Aff's criticism and explaining the unique friction between your methodology and the Neg's argumentation is a necessary component of effective K-Aff execution – supplement your blocks and cards with smart in-round analysis and contextual application of your theory.

KRITIKS: My favorite argument in debate – most of my debate career consisted of various 1-Off K strategies.

I have a general understanding of most K's read in debate, but my personal knowledge and interest lies in criticisms dealing with identity and/or structural positionality (various branches of theory dealing with Anti-blackness, Asian/Indian American Identity, Necropolitics, Settler Colonialism, Feminism, Queer/Quare/Kuaer-ness, Disability...etc). If the edgy and unintelligible works of old/dead white dudes is your cup of tea, I'm not a terrible judge for you either – feel free to read your post-modern sludge in front of me, but I'm going to hold you to a higher standard for explanation and contextualization (due to the often dense nature of these works).

Regardless of what I'm familiar with in terms of literature bases, if YOU understand your criticism and YOU do the work to explain and contextualize your offense, you'll probably be fine.

Specificity and depth are key to good K debates – you can probably make generic link arguments and still get me to vote for you, but the best debates happen when you generate unique links to the Aff and are able to reference specific warrants or lines in your opponents' argumentation and evidence. I appreciate creative link stories. I'm down to listen to long overviews. You don't always need an alternative if you win your framing. I will reward you generously with speaks if you are really well versed in your literature and are able to demonstrate your knowledge by making smart analytic claims and arguments in your speeches and cross-x. I value 2NC/1NR's that are less card-intensive and more focused on explanation and contextualization.

DISADS/COUNTER-PLANS: Although I didn't personally go for these types of strategies during my high school career, I have no problem evaluating them. I don't have too many thoughts on these debates – the more specific and less generic your strategy is, the happier I will be. I'm a computer science student whose involvement in debate revolves mostly around critical theory – this means that I may not be super familiar with any specific political terminology of scenarios you may be talking about, so be sure to explain things and be precise. It would make me happy to not have to listen to politics-esque DAs unless you genuinely believe your evidence is hyper-specific or hyper-recent – I'll evaluate them to the best of my ability, but I think they're incredibly boring and often a product of ridiculous assertions/terrible evidence.

TOPICALITY: I have and will vote on well developed and impacted out topicality arguments. If you're reading T as an aimless timesuck argument, I will probably know and be very salty that I'm having to waste a perfectly good sheet of paper. I expect both sides to be taking the time to do real comparative work on the level of interpretations and standards.

I am more than excited to listen to any innovative or unconventional topicality arguments about identity, body politics, agency, boredom, death, simulation, education...etc.

FRAMEWORK (VS. K-AFFS): Despite almost always being on the other side of this argument, I see the value of Framework arguments and find the clash of civilizations debate to be an enjoyable one to evaluate.

For decision-making purposes, I evaluate these debates as a question of competing models for debate on the level of form AND content. My ideal Framework debates consist of well-executed procedural offense supplemented with tailored methodological arguments about institutional knowledge/political engagement. Explain to me what your model looks like in the context of the affirmative's criticism. I find well developed TVA and SSD arguments to be very persuasive and an easy place to vote neg in procedural debates. The TVA probably has to solve the Aff or at least be comparatively better (but I'll leave it up to the debaters to tell me what "better" really means).

Framework can get really stale, so I appreciate specificity and innovative approaches to the argument (Street-T, Black Framework, Embodiment, Counter-Tactics, Materiality, Utopianism...etc).

THEORY: Not really a big fan of most conventional theory arguments, but if it seems particularly strategic or necessary in your round, feel free to go for it.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/23/2019 JCXRR R6 Berkeley Prep TW Niles North SF Aff
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/23/2019 JCXRR R5 New Trier DW Little Rock Central GP Neg
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/23/2019 JCXRR R4 Notre Dame DT New Trier JW Aff
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/23/2019 JCXRR R3 Okemos LY West Des Moines Valley ES Aff
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/23/2019 JCXRR R2 Shawnee Mission South SS Cypress Bay BD Aff
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/23/2019 JCXRR R1 Chesterton JV Niles North UA Aff
Cal National Debate Institute 7/8/2019 CX 3-Octo Yetis CX Harp Seals SF Aff Aff on a 3-0
Cal National Debate Institute 7/8/2019 CX R6 Yetis BP Golden Bears LC Neg
Cal National Debate Institute 7/8/2019 CX R5 Yetis CX Yetis ScKa Neg
Cal National Debate Institute 7/8/2019 CX R4 Harp Seals KW Harp Seals HD Aff
Cal National Debate Institute 7/8/2019 CX R3 Yetis GG Golden Bears BG Neg
Cal National Debate Institute 7/8/2019 CX R2 Yetis SK Arctic Foxes LL Aff
Cal National Debate Institute 7/8/2019 CX R1 Yetis KJ Komodo Dragons JM Aff
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 JVLD Octos Harrison MR American Heritage Plantation NR Aff Aff on a 2-1
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 JVLD Octos Marlborough EY Bradley Tech MS Aff Aff on a 3-0
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 JVLD R6 Marlborough ST Bettendorf NR Neg
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 JVLD R6 New Trier CS Ardrey Kell GS Neg
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 JVLD R2 New Trier TS Bradley Tech JH Aff
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 JVLD R1 Lakeville South AE West Des Moines Valley KC Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX R7 Maine East MR Univ Of Chicago Lab CC Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX R5 Lindblom Math and Science DS Little Rock Central AK Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 NCX R3 Univ Of Chicago Lab NB New Trier DW Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 NCX R1 Glenbrook South OV Maine East GM Aff
SCU Spring Philalethic Invitational 3/23/2018 POLV Final M. Hernandez Independent WW Goldberg Academy of Verbal Pugilism MA Neg Neg on a 3-0
SCU Spring Philalethic Invitational 3/23/2018 POLV Semi Goldberg Academy of Verbal Pugilism MA M. Hernandez Independent NR Aff Aff on a 3-0
SCU Spring Philalethic Invitational 3/23/2018 POLV Quar M. Hernandez Independent JD Goldberg Academy of Verbal Pugilism VM Neg Neg on a 2-1
SCU Spring Philalethic Invitational 3/23/2018 POLV Octo St Francis KR Saratoga LH Aff Aff on a 3-0
SCU Spring Philalethic Invitational 3/23/2018 POLV R5 St Francis KR Hernandez MW Aff
SCU Spring Philalethic Invitational 3/23/2018 POLV R4 M. Hernandez Independent WW Goldberg Academy of Verbal Pugilism VM Aff
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/17/2018 VCX Triple Univ Of Chicago Lab HU Interlake HS - Bellevue YR Aff Aff on a 3-0
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/17/2018 VCX R5 Asian Debate League CP Cypress Bay BB Neg
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/17/2018 VCX R4 Presentation AR St. Vincent De Paul CB Neg
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/17/2018 VCX R2 Rosemont WR Chaminade CP AT Neg
Longhorn Classic at the University of Texas Austin 12/1/2017 NCX Semis Little Rock Central RB Crossings Christian BR Neg Neg on a 3-0
Longhorn Classic at the University of Texas Austin 12/1/2017 NCX Quarte Crossings Christian NC Trinity Valley BH Aff Aff on a 2-1
Longhorn Classic at the University of Texas Austin 12/1/2017 NCX Octos Trinity Valley BH LC Anderson KL Neg Aff on a 2-1
Longhorn Classic at the University of Texas Austin 12/1/2017 CCX R4 Crosby JM Caddo Magnet KL Neg
Longhorn Classic at the University of Texas Austin 12/1/2017 NCX Rd 4 Robert Vela OS Dulles ZS Neg
Longhorn Classic at the University of Texas Austin 12/1/2017 CCX R3 Liberal Arts and Science AV Moore SD Aff
Longhorn Classic at the University of Texas Austin 12/1/2017 CCX R2 Kinkaid PS Westside PN Neg
Longhorn Classic at the University of Texas Austin 12/1/2017 CCX R1 Ronald Reagan LK Jenks BM Neg
7th Annual Robert Garcia Invitational 9/16/2017 Pol R5 Sonoma IS Nevada Union MN Neg
7th Annual Robert Garcia Invitational 9/16/2017 Pol R3 Sonoma ES Leland WP Neg
7th Annual Robert Garcia Invitational 9/16/2017 Pol R2 Dougherty Valley YS Sonoma SF Aff
7th Annual Robert Garcia Invitational 9/16/2017 Pol R1 Dougherty Valley LM Harker LB Neg
SCU Spring Philalethic Invitational 3/31/2017 POLN Final Rosemont FP Lynbrook WW Neg Neg on a 3-0
SCU Spring Philalethic Invitational 3/31/2017 POLV Quar Rosemont SC CK McClatchy VK Neg Neg on a 3-0
SCU Spring Philalethic Invitational 3/31/2017 POLN R4 Lynbrook CZ Monterey Trail LM Aff
SCU Spring Philalethic Invitational 3/31/2017 POLN R3 Monterey Trail HP Rosemont HP Aff
SCU Spring Philalethic Invitational 3/31/2017 POLN R2 CK McClatchy RG West Campus SG Aff
Western JV and Novice National Championship 3/11/2017 JCX R4 St. Vincent De Paul BP Sonoma SF Aff
Western JV and Novice National Championship 3/11/2017 JCX R3 Dougherty Valley SB Notre Dame HS - Sherman Oaks HS Neg
Stephen Stewart Middle and High School Invitational at Milpitas 1/21/2017 N LD Final Palo Alto RV Pinewood SB Aff Aff on a 3-0
Stephen Stewart Middle and High School Invitational at Milpitas 1/21/2017 N LD Quar Palo Alto NK Young Genius NKo Neg Aff on a 2-1
Stephen Stewart Middle and High School Invitational at Milpitas 1/21/2017 N LD Octo Palo Alto KV Young Genius AH Aff Aff on a 3-0
SCU Dempsey Cronin Invitational 11/18/2016 POLN Quar CK McClatchy AW Oak Grove AA Aff Aff on a 3-0
SCU Dempsey Cronin Invitational 11/18/2016 POLN R6 Lynbrook CZ Cupertino FS Aff
SCU Dempsey Cronin Invitational 11/18/2016 POLN R5 Rosemont LP East Palo Alto Phoenix YC Aff
SCU Dempsey Cronin Invitational 11/18/2016 POLN R4 Nevada Union HF CK McClatchy MF Neg
SCU Dempsey Cronin Invitational 11/18/2016 POLN R3 Rosemont FA Harker KZ Neg
SCU Dempsey Cronin Invitational 11/18/2016 POLN R2 Natomas Charter DS CK McClatchy RM Neg
SCU Spring Philalethic Invitational 4/2/2016 POLV Quar Nevada Union MM Leland KM Neg Aff on a 2-1
SCU Spring Philalethic Invitational 4/2/2016 POLV R5 Rosemont DJ CK McClatchy NV Neg
Western JV and Novice National Championship 3/12/2016 JCX Octas Notre Dame PP Harker OK Aff Aff on a 3-0
Western JV and Novice National Championship 3/12/2016 JCX R5 Skyline CW CK McClatchy VK Aff
Western JV and Novice National Championship 3/12/2016 JCX R4 Lynbrook GC College Prep MP Neg
Western JV and Novice National Championship 3/12/2016 JCX R3 Bay Area Urban Debate League RV Oakland Tech FS Neg
SCU Philalethic Invitational 3/28/2015 POLN Octo Rosemont RS Everest HR Aff
SCU Philalethic Invitational 3/28/2015 POLN R5 Rosemont JW BASIS Independent Silicon Valley IK Aff
SCU Philalethic Invitational 3/28/2015 POLN R4 Eastside CP FB Lynbrook KW Neg