Ananth Panchanadam Paradigm

Last changed 4/21 9:54P EDT

Ananth Panchanadam

Unionville High School’15 New York University in New York’19

Constrains: Stuyvesant, Unionville and NYU, Ransom Everglades 

Scroll down for ld philosophy.

CX Judge Philosophy:

I love debate and If you love debate then I will love you.

But In reality I want to support those who work really hard to come up in debate. I know that many of y’all have many interesting and complicated stories as to how you got here both in debate and to this tournament. I WILL GIVE YOU MY UNDIVIDED ATTENTION AND IF YOU DON’T THINK I AM FEEL FREE TO CALL ME OUT. I want to give you the respect you deserve. Debate is about the students at the end of the day and you need a fair judge.

PLEASE BE VERY CLEAR AND SIGN POST WHAT PART OF THE DEBATE YOU ARE ON (Ie: Perm Debate, Framing). 

Updated Paradigm 4/21/17:

I’ve decided to give my paradigm a much needed update for the TOC. I’m going to try and keep this short and to the point.

I don’t have particular biases towards arguments and I have coached performative, critical and policy based arguments. I decided that this paradigm update is better suited to address how you should approach deploying arguments.

However I will say I’ve always enjoyed watching Policy on Policy, Clash of Civs and Impact turns against ks.

First, You should write my ballot for me. This is more than just saying “we win a risk of solving dehumanization impact so vote aff”. I want you to resolve issues in these debates. So tell me why winning a risk that you solve dehumanization is important against other pieces of offense. Otherwise I am just left with a bunch of standalone arguments that I have to match together. That just increases the possibility that I may not see the debate the same way you do.

Second, Framing is everything: You should give me a way to visualize the debate. This can be ROB/ROJ or just offense that tells me what I should prioritize. This is usually the first thing I look for before making a decision. I highly suggest you use Framing arguments to resolve other arguments on the flow.

Third, Impact your arguments: You will have a very hard time winning on your offense if you don’t impact it out for me. They should have some sort of tangible impact. This is especially important for the K.

Fourth, Saying a bunch a big words and calling that a link doesn’t mean it’s a link. If you are not able to fundamentally tell me why the aff is bad then I don’t know why I should care or why I should vote neg. Link arguments should have external impacts. (Ex. X word is racist and using that word causes psychological violence) That is something I can vote on but reproducing the same jargon heavy language of the 1nc evidence doesn’t tell me why the affirmative is particularly bad.

Fifth, I put a big emphasis on the link debate. In K debates I am willing to look past the link debate if I am given a reason to. I also treat K links like linear disads. I also treat T and theory standards like linear disads.

Sixth, I dig strong spin but I will call for evidence in close debates.  

Old Paradigm:

AFF

Non-Traditional:

Race/Queer/Ability etc… (What white people call “performance”): This is my jam. Don’t how ever think that just because you read these types of arguments you will automatically win against framework.

Intersectionality Perms: My Biggest pet peeve is when teams read a bunch of evidence about white women and then read 1 intersectionality card. It is a pathetic copout and won’t be rewarded. Your lesbian separatism or reproductive futurism aff isn’t intersectional and you shouldn’t try and make it. But if you do try and claim you’re intersectional and are facing against an actually intersectional aff then you have an uphill battle. You have prove that to me on a methodological level.

Flowing: While I don’t prefer doing this, If you do ask for me to not flow the debate round and the other team agrees as well I will entertain an alternative mode note taking. If the other team wants me to flow the round, I will flow unless you win a reason as to why I shouldn’t. If you do I will put my flows away and then judge the round without them. Unfortunately, I doubt winning that arg means you’ll necessarily win the debate but I can be persuaded otherwise.

Framing: To me your knowledge production is the way you “frame your work” so I like to hear meta-level framing questions. In terms of the ballot the judges conceptualization of debate etc… It is important you prioritize what your aff looks like in terms of my ballot.

Answering Framework: Saying “framework is racist because it excludes people of color” isn’t a very persuasive argument and is probably easily answered by any decent framework team. I think you all need to go on a more nuanced level as to how framework is problematic. I think contextualizing the aff in terms of the world under their interp is important. I also think its very important to spend the time to engage with the Topical version of the aff.

Overviews: I know we love reading verbose overviews and it is a really bad practice that trades off with other parts of the debate. If you are reading a pointless 2-3 minute overview I will just be really annoyed and probably doc speaker points. 

Policy:
I enjoy these and like affs that are deployed smartly. So do your thing.

Inherency: the Squo is not the same as inherency. I hate when debaters think that inherency is a waste of your time its not so don’t tell me it is when it comes up.

I like advantages with specific internal links and impacts that actually relate to the link story you have provided. In heavy impact comparison debates I tend to lean towards a team with a stronger and more specific impact with a clear mechanism to overcoming the internal link level. I prefer when affs go after internal links on Disads and engage in very specific evidence comparison.

Neg:

Inherency: I would prefer inherency take-outs to be a theory argument. Why is it wrong for the aff to not provide an attitudinal barrier? Why should I test the aff through a stock issues paradigm. These are things you need to foundationally establish to get my ballot. These are all things I am open to listening.

DA: I love well articulated Disads. I think they can and should be used very strategically. To win a DA the neg needs to win the Uniqueness Link/Internal link and impact and outweigh and turn the case. If the aff can solve the internal links of the DA then I don’t think a 1% risk of a link is enough to vote for the neg. I think specific DA + CP combo’s with internal link take outs on case are a thing of beauty

CP’s: I think the CP should be functionally and textually competitive. I they should solve the case and resolve the impacts/link level of the net benefit.

Case Debate: I think this is one of the worst aspects of debate now. People honestly read the same terrible open evidence impact defense. I like specific internal link takeouts over impact defense. I love impact turns. To me be specific. This also includes Kaff debate.

Kritiks:

I  love these debates but I will only reward you if you know what you are talking about and you provide a CLEAR articulation of the alternative. Specific is always better. Even if you are reading a generic K make your link analysis specific with the case. I don’t like long verbose overviews. I think you need to link to the aff but if you frame it the right way I can evaluate your k as a competing method to the aff. The Role of the ballot/Framework debate most likely the first mode of evaluation. If you are winning framework and at least one reason why the status quo is better than the aff in terms of that framework then I will vote neg. Be tactical with it.

Language Args (Gendered language, ableist language etc…):

I think you should avoid using those words in general. If you are called out I may reduce .5 speaker points. If it becomes an argument in the debate I will vote on it but I don’t necessarily find it very persuasive if you aren’t somehow trying to overcome the structures that they are perpetuating. An easy way to avoid these debates is to NOT USE THEM. It’s easy way to be less oppressive.

I am also very protective of ESL/Foreign students in these situations. If they apologize and say they don't quite have a grasp of English I suggest you don't make it a voting issue and talk to them after the debate. If you keep pursuing it then you are making the space unsafe for these debaters and I'll probably vote you down on racism/xenophobia.  

Moral Abhorrence/bad arguments:
I will not vote on arguments such as racism good, sexism good or homophobia good. I think debate is an important space and these arguments are psychologically violent and should not be tolerated in an academic setting.

In round etiquette: I’m very relaxed with prep. Prep ends when you say “end prep”. Don’t be that kid who steals a minute of prep. I think being nice is a good idea. I think personal attacks should be based in something. Don’t be racist/sexist/homophobic etc… towards another debater.

Other than that just take a deep breath and enjoy your chance to debate because soon enough it will be gone.    

LD Paradigm:

Since I am judging at Apple Valley I will address LD issues:

Theory:

I think theory arguments should have a fully fleshed impact scenarios. I treat theory standards like a disad (Uniqueness, link/internal link and impact). Tell me why “education” or “fairness” matters and why it is a reason to vote down the team not just the argument. I think the abuse explanation should be clear. I prefer actual abuse to be articulated. That doesn’t mean that I will not vote on potential abuse but you really need to win what potential abuse is enough to for me to vote for you. I guess with the rise of theory come RVI’s. You need to do comparative impact calculus between your abuse story and the other team’s abuse story.

I’ll personally think that “theory heavy” focus debate is not a good model. That being said I will vote on it if you win the arguments.

If you are reading a K argument, make sure you don’t double turn yourself with your theory.

Topicality:

Topicality is not a reverse voter, it is an affirmative burden to be topical! I want a clear reason why they violate. I need an outlined story. I am open to critical responses. If you want to impact turn away more power to you. If you want to K of T more power to you.

If you are reading a T/FW style argument, I have voted both ways and I am not really biased any particular way. That being said, I think saying I’m not persuaded by “k affs make people quit arguments”. I think there needs to be some depth.

I think you should isolate net benefits to the interp over there’s    


Role of Ballot/ Role of Judge/Framework:

Just like T and Framework I want net benefits to your framing of debate. Explain to me how your framing influences what I prioritize or how it influences the way I evaluate meta and micro level issues. I think it is important to explain your framing to the substance and the other T and theory arguments in the debate. 

Policy Style Arguments:

I am cool with policy style arguments. I think you should be clear as to how you solve your harms. If you want more as to how I evaluate them check out my policy paradigm.

Kritik:

I am cool with them. I explained it above in policy paradigm

 

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
NCFL Grand Nationals 5/26/2018 PF R3 4022 4103 Neg Neg on a 2-1
NCFL Grand Nationals 5/26/2018 PF R3 4109 4036 Neg Neg on a 3-0
NCFL Grand Nationals 5/26/2018 PF R2 4066 4117 Aff Aff on a 3-0
NCFL Grand Nationals 5/26/2018 PF R2 4226 4056 Neg Neg on a 2-1
The Princeton Classic 12/1/2017 VLD Dubs Princeton DL Walton JA Aff Aff on a 2-1
The Princeton Classic 12/1/2017 VLD Run-of Lexington NK Roslyn BL Neg Neg on a 3-0
The Princeton Classic 12/1/2017 VLD R4 Hunter MN Success Academy Manhattan AB Aff
The Princeton Classic 12/1/2017 VLD R3 Half Hollow Hills AK Byram Hills MF Neg
The Princeton Classic 12/1/2017 VLD R1 Southern Lehigh ZK Roslyn YB Neg
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/13/2017 LD Octos Lake Highland Prep AA Gilmour SW Aff Aff on a 3-0
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/13/2017 LD Sextod Lexington RW Newark Science BA Neg Aff on a 2-1
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/13/2017 LD Sextod Phillips Academy Andover TC Lake Highland Prep MK Neg Neg on a 3-0
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/13/2017 LD R7 Strath Haven WL Lexington CC Neg
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/13/2017 LD R5 Lake Highland Prep JN West Des Moines Valley KK Aff
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/13/2017 LD R4 Isidore Newman SG Sayville ES Neg
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/13/2017 LD R4 Lexington SA Success Academy Manhattan LL Neg
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/13/2017 LD Split Newark Science TOg Byram Hills LG Neg
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/13/2017 LD Split Millburn AH Byram Hills LP Neg
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/13/2017 LD Late 2 Lake Highland Prep MS Oakwood ME Aff
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/13/2017 LD R1 Gilmour SW Lake Highland Prep MK Neg
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/13/2017 LD R1 Hunter ML Cypress Bay KS Aff
Tournament of Champions 4/29/2017 CX R2 Berkeley Prep EM Lexington LG Neg
Lakeland Westchester Classic 3/2/2017 VCX R6 Lexington ZH Georgetown Day BS Neg
Lakeland Westchester Classic 3/2/2017 VCX R5 Lane Tech College Prep H.S. CH Lexington JR Neg
Lakeland Westchester Classic 3/2/2017 VCX R4 Georgetown Day FV Lexington BB Neg
Lakeland Westchester Classic 3/2/2017 VCX R3 Lexington SK Washington Urban Debate League SH Aff
Lakeland Westchester Classic 3/2/2017 VCX R2 Lexington LG Newark Science MA Aff
43rd Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament 2/18/2017 JVP R6 Evanston LR Asbury Park MR Aff
43rd Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament 2/18/2017 VPD R4 Lexington WT North Star Academy BS Aff
43rd Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament 2/18/2017 VPD R3 Okemos RR Lexington GZ Aff
43rd Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament 2/18/2017 JVP R3 Edgemont Jr./Sr. RP Little Rock Central CH Neg
43rd Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament 2/18/2017 VPD R1 Groves BM Dulles ZV Neg
43rd Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament 2/18/2017 JVP R1 Albuquerque JS La Salle College VM Aff
42nd University of Pennsylvania Tournament 2/10/2017 VLD Double Millburn AW Thomas Jefferson HSST AK Neg Neg on a 2-1
42nd University of Pennsylvania Tournament 2/10/2017 VLD R6 Hunter TF Princeton EZ Aff
42nd University of Pennsylvania Tournament 2/10/2017 VLD R6 Thomas Jefferson HSST NB Newtown AH Aff
42nd University of Pennsylvania Tournament 2/10/2017 VLD R3 Success Academy AB Livingston JV Aff
42nd University of Pennsylvania Tournament 2/10/2017 VLD R2 Bishop Shanahan LS Holy Redeemer TC Aff
42nd University of Pennsylvania Tournament 2/10/2017 VLD R2 Haverford WC DuPont Manual DY Neg
Newark Invitational 1/5/2017 VLD Partia Harvard-Westlake JN Lexington NG Neg Neg on a 3-0
Newark Invitational 1/5/2017 LD RR R6 Newark Science OA Byram Hills JB Neg Neg on a 2-0
Newark Invitational 1/5/2017 VLD R6 Ridge VT Lexington SA Aff
Newark Invitational 1/5/2017 VLD R5 Lexington NG Holy Cross TL Aff
Newark Invitational 1/5/2017 LD RR R5 Success Academy SC Harvard-Westlake AM Aff Aff on a 2-0
Newark Invitational 1/5/2017 VLD R4 Success Academy LL Lexington JM Aff
Newark Invitational 1/5/2017 LD RR R4 Harvard-Westlake JN Edgemont ML Neg Neg on a 2-0
Newark Invitational 1/5/2017 VLD R3 Byram Hills LP Harriton BF Aff
Newark Invitational 1/5/2017 VLD R2 Ridge VK Lexington NN Neg
Newark Invitational 1/5/2017 LD RR R2 Lafayette RR Scarsdale GZ Neg Neg on a 2-0
Newark Invitational 1/5/2017 VLD R1 Ridge JY Lexington KL Aff
Newark Invitational 1/5/2017 LD RR R1 Lexington NB Lafayette RR Aff Aff on a 2-0
NY Fall Face Off at Mamaroneck HS 12/3/2016 Open R5 Hunter CS Newark Science AA Neg
NY Fall Face Off at Mamaroneck HS 12/3/2016 Open R3 Lexington RJ North Star Academy MO Aff
NY Fall Face Off at Mamaroneck HS 12/3/2016 Open R2 North Star Academy SB Edgemont SM Neg
NY Fall Face Off at Mamaroneck HS 12/3/2016 Nov R1 Baltimore City AG Lexington HC Neg
Apple Valley MinneApple Debate 11/3/2016 VLD Dbls West Des Moines Valley SC Dougherty Valley CS Neg Neg on a 2-1
Apple Valley MinneApple Debate 11/3/2016 VLD R6 Lakeville South EH Lexington AK Aff
Apple Valley MinneApple Debate 11/3/2016 VLD R5 Greenhill BZ Lexington KL Aff
Apple Valley MinneApple Debate 11/3/2016 VLD R4 Bettendorf RN Dougherty Valley CS Neg
Apple Valley MinneApple Debate 11/3/2016 VLD R3 Strake Jesuit CP CL New Trier AP Aff
Apple Valley MinneApple Debate 11/3/2016 VLD R1 Byram Hills JB West Des Moines Valley KK Aff
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/14/2016 CX Octos Lexington RZ Boston Latin Academy (HS) PB Aff Aff on a 3-0
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/14/2016 CX Runoff S. Eugene H. S. LS North Star Academy CP BS Aff Aff on a 3-0
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/14/2016 CX R6 College Prep CG Newark Science MM Aff
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/14/2016 CX R5 Brooklyn Technical BP Gulliver Prep BG Neg
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/14/2016 CX R2 North Star Academy YD Lexington RZ Neg
Georgetown Day School Invitational 9/23/2016 CX Semifi St George's MD Baltimore City YE Neg Neg on a 3-0
Georgetown Day School Invitational 9/23/2016 CX Quarte Baltimore City YE Strath Haven GM Aff Aff on a 3-0
Georgetown Day School Invitational 9/23/2016 CX R4 Cathedral Preparatory AS Baltimore City GC Neg
Georgetown Day School Invitational 9/23/2016 CX R3 Baltimore City DR Brooklyn Independent Debate YD Neg
Georgetown Day School Invitational 9/23/2016 CX R2 Thomas Jefferson HSST AJ Brooklyn Independent Debate BP Aff
Georgetown Day School Invitational 9/23/2016 CX R1 Baltimore City YE Cathedral Preparatory LS Aff
Yale Invitational 9/16/2016 CX Rd 5 Strath Haven PZ Lexington BB Aff
Yale Invitational 9/16/2016 CX Rd 4 Lexington ZH Gulliver Prep MP Neg
Yale Invitational 9/16/2016 CX Rd 3 Bronx HS Of Science YL Strath Haven GM Aff
Yale Invitational 9/16/2016 CX Rd 1 Fox Chapel PM Bronx HS Of Science ND Neg
Columbia Invitational RESCHEDULED 3/4/2016 VLD Octos Byram Hills PE Harrison RP Aff Neg on a 2-1
Columbia Invitational RESCHEDULED 3/4/2016 VLD Dubs Stuyvesant KW Harrison AE Neg Neg on a 3-0
Columbia Invitational RESCHEDULED 3/4/2016 VLD R2 Monticello KC Hunter NG Aff
Columbia Invitational RESCHEDULED 3/4/2016 VLD R2 Harrison RP Monticello DA Neg
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/16/2015 CX Finals Brooklyn Technical CQ Blake SW Neg Neg on a 4-1
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/16/2015 CX Quarte Baltimore City College DI Pitt Central Catholic MW Neg Neg on a 2-1
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/16/2015 CX Runoff Brooklyn Technical ZP S. Eugene H. S. LS Neg Neg on a 2-1
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/16/2015 CX R6 Brooklyn Technical TN Baltimore City College SK Aff
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/16/2015 CX R5 University MB Brooklyn Technical ZP Aff
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/16/2015 CX R4 Baltimore City College DI Brooklyn Technical CQ Aff
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/16/2015 CX R3 S. Eugene H. S. LS Lexington LH Neg
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/16/2015 CX R2 Lexington ML Cypress Bay KK Aff
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament 10/16/2015 CX R1 Newark Science AM Lexington ZW Neg
Yale Invitational 9/18/2015 CX R4 Newark Science AM Lexington ZGi Neg
Yale Invitational 9/18/2015 CX R3 Lexington JR E. L. Meyers LD Aff
Yale Invitational 9/18/2015 CX R2 Bronx Science RY Hawken LB Aff