Siddhartha Vemuri Paradigm

Last changed 1/9 3:41P EDT

siddhartha@svemuri.com

Debated 2014-2018 at Alpharetta High School

General Notes: I haven't yet judged a round on the immigration topic, so please start from the assumption that I have little to no topic knowledge. I want to see a clean, organized debate with great clash and in-depth explanations of arguments from both sides. I am generally open to any argument, but I have a few predispositions that I'll cover below. Keep in mind that those predispositions will only help you if you call your opponents out on things they do wrong and actually answer arguments.

T/Theory: I prefer reasonability just because I've seen teams use T and theory way too often as a means to get out of actually engaging an opponent's case/offcase. If you go for T or a theory violation, you should have a good explanation of exactly what the other team did that made the debate unfair and why you're making this the central point of the round. That being said, this is not an excuse to brush off your opponent's theory violations/Topicality arguments, and if you're doing something shady, I won't hesitate to vote on theory.

Condo: I made this separate from the T/Theory section just to make my stance on it clear. Having up to 2 conditional advocacies is fair in my opinion. However, if you run 2 condo with a blatant case of perfcon, then I think it's fair for the aff to make it an issue, especially if you're using their answers to one of your advocacies to generate offense for the other one. If you're using 3 or more condo, you're playing with fire.

CPs: I like counterplans, but not as much if you're basically just stealing the aff and generating a disad off of a tiny part you changed to make it competitive (consult/process CPs). However, if the aff says to do x, y, and z but you want to use a CP that says only do x and y and make a disad off of z, then go for it. I really like advantage counterplans, so feel free to use those.

Ks: I don't like it if you're just stealing the aff through a PIK or if you get wishy-washy with the alt and end up changing what it is throughout the debate. If you're running a K, you should have specific links to the aff and a clear explanation of your alternative and how it generates uniqueness for your links. I tend to like Ks that attack the epistemology of aff like the security K. In terms of ontological and identity Ks, I'm not very well-versed in the literature, so you'll have to explain them very well. Also, those Ks really should have clear, specific links to the affirmative, otherwise it seems to me like this K is the only thing you came into this round ready to go for and you didn't plan on engaging the affirmative. If an affirmative is unfair enough that you can only use a generic K as an answer, that's probably a sign you need to go for T.

Non-resolutional affs: I generally believe the resolution should be the starting point for the debate. I don't mean to discourage you if you have an aff that you really want to read, but if your opponent knows how to properly leverage framework or T, you can expect an uphill battle.

Disads: I like a good old case vs DA debate. What makes disads stand out to me is specific links and a realistic internal link chain. If you are aff and you see a ridiculous DA, rip it apart and show me how absurd it is. If you're neg and going for a DA, make the story of the DA clear and show how the aff will absolutely cause it to happen.

Case: Same as the DA section, great affs have a well thought out internal link chain. Make sure the story of the aff is clear and use it to increase the probability of your impacts happening. If you're neg, explaining how ridiculous the story of the aff is using solid evidence and common sense will defang it and make it easy to beat with your offcase.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament 1/12/2019 NCX Quarte USN CL Montgomery Bell MB Neg Neg on a 3-0
Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament 1/12/2019 NCX R5 Montgomery Bell EB USN KW Neg
Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament 1/12/2019 VCX R3 Montgomery Bell YM Westminster PI Neg
Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament 1/12/2019 NCX R2 USN CL Decatur TS Neg
Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament 1/12/2019 LD R1 Hoover AH Indian Springs GB Neg
University of Georgia HS Bulldog Debates 3/9/2018 NCX Quar USN CH Cambridge MR Neg Neg on a 2-1
University of Georgia HS Bulldog Debates 3/9/2018 NCX R6 Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart MC USN CH Neg
University of Georgia HS Bulldog Debates 3/9/2018 NCX R5 Cambridge MR Montgomery Bell KM Aff
University of Georgia HS Bulldog Debates 3/9/2018 NCX R2 Northview HR Cambridge ST Neg
University of Georgia HS Bulldog Debates 3/9/2018 NCX R1 USN BK Cambridge DP Aff
Raider Round Robin 2/2/2018 R2 AlpHS Thompson & Jin AlpHS Higuera & Lisso Aff Aff on a 3-0
Alpharetta Treasure Hunt 1/20/2018 JCX R2 Cambridge GM Woodward KG Neg
Alpharetta Treasure Hunt 1/20/2018 JCX R1 Woodward RG Montgomery Bell HY Aff
Alpharetta Treasure Hunt 1/21/2017 NCX R4 George Walton Comprehensive DK Pace BM Aff
Johns Creek One Day 9/9/2016 NCX R4 WesSch MV JohCre Sh Neg
Johns Creek One Day 9/9/2016 NCX R2 USN HM Calhou TG Aff
Johns Creek One Day 9/9/2016 NCX R1 WesSch KB JohCre PD Aff
Autumn Argument 11/7/2015 NCX Elims Milton RV Killian Hill Christian NC Aff Aff on a 3-0
Autumn Argument 11/7/2015 NCX R4 Wheeler PG Marist SM Aff
Autumn Argument 11/7/2015 NCX R3 Dunwoody RW Killian Hill Christian SK Neg
Autumn Argument 11/7/2015 NCX R2 Arabia Mountain Rams JT Wheeler CP Aff
Autumn Argument 11/7/2015 NCX R1 Milton RV Marist AJ Aff
Alpharetta Treasure Hunt 10/24/2015 NCX R3 Marist PC Northview GS Neg
Alpharetta Treasure Hunt 10/24/2015 NCX R2 Wheeler PK Milton RV Neg