hi! my name is devanshi (she/her), i'm a current junior at mcgill university (it's in montreal) and i debated policy at lexington before that. if you're reading this, i'm probably your judge.

if the round's about to start:

- email: devanshisbhangle@hotmail.com

- be organized - subpoints, good line by line, etc.

- tech > truth - if you win the flow, you win the round.

- p l e a s e be clear. if you don't think you can be clear, slow down a little: you're better off going at 80% speed where i can understand everything you're saying as opposed to 100% where i can understand maybe half. i'm not shy about asking you to be clear but tbh it's not a good experience for any of us so please let it not come to that.

- pf specific: speed is fine. theory is fine, progressive args are fine, identity args are fine: i'll vote based on what's on the flow; simply reading any of these arguments doesn't guarantee a ballot for or against you.

- my topic knowledge is p limited - i study microbiology + immunology, so i get epidemiology / pandemics / public health, but outside of that, assume my understanding is what you'd expect for ur average college kid

- please don't make arguments or engage in behavior that threatens the safety and wellbeing of the people in the room or marginalized folks writ large. this includes, but is not limited to: making racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic comments, deadnaming / (intentionally) using incorrect pronouns, saying slurs, etc. i will not tolerate it, and doing so will result in an automatic loss, laughably low speaker points, and a word with your coaches.

- if your opponents are making you feel uncomfortable or unsafe, please let me know! i believe every video conferencing system has a function where you can privately send people messages. you can also email me. similarly, if there's anything i can do to make your experiences better (including using correct pronouns, avoiding certain topics, etc.) please let me know in whatever way is comfortable for you.

- disclosure = good - show me you disclose, and i'll give you + your partner +0.2 points

- speaks are fluid and arbitrary, but i do my best to default to higher speaker points :')

- for pf specifically: i have 0 idea what defense being "sticky" is ??

other stuff / if you have more time:

- an aff has to do two things: 1) create change; 2) be tied to the resolution in some way. beyond that, i don't really care whether it's a k aff or not. either ways, you should be able to defend your model of debate.

- i won't meticulously comb through your evidence for you. if there's a specific card that's really good for you or damning for your opponents, point it out to me in round.

- kritiks --> i'm minimally familiar with antiblackness, cap, and feminist literature, but beyond that, assume i have a very basic understanding (except for pomo, in which case, i know literally nothing). either ways, i find jargon confusing + unnecessary - in my experiences, the best k debaters have also been the ones who could most clearly explain what their theories are and how they link to the aff

- i do my best to consciously distance my decisionmaking from any preconceived biases. that being said, here are the ones i won't budge on: death is bad, racism/sexism/homophobia/genocide/bigotry is bad, climate change is bad, cancer/disease is bad.

- impact calc <3

- i like when counterplans have a solvency advocate that's specific to what the text mandates.

- not a huge fan of dodgy politics disads; make sure they're extended well and supported by your evidence.

- try not to be aggressive?? especially to novices / younger debaters / people with obviously less power in the situation than you. if you need to make someone feel small to look better, you're probably not a good debater lol

- recommend me a book/show: if i've read/seen it, +0.1 points; if i haven't, +0.2 points; if it's one of my favs, +0.3 points.

- tell me how to vote in the 2nr/ar!

good luck, be nice, have fun! <3

Email: manasvigunnala @ gmail.com - yes, please add me to the email chain.

General

TL;DR - Do what you like, and do it well.

**Novice specific: This year is all about learning and experimenting. Don't worry too much about impressing me, just flow well and try to answer arguments in a line-by-line fashion. If you have any questions about what any of these terms mean, feel free to ask!

General thoughts: my partner and I have defended both a K aff and a big-stick policy aff, and gone for everything from framework to a consult CP, so I’d say I’m pretty middle-of-the-road in terms of debate ideology. I'm arguably more knowledgeable about K's, but I'll listen to just about anything. I value analysis over tagline extensions - an argument is only an argument if it has a claim, warrant, and impact. I will not vote on a dropped argument if you don’t explain it. I think a well-warranted analytic can beat a blippy explanation of a card. 

Procedural stuff: be a good person, don’t steal prep, don’t clip cards, you know the drill. I don’t take prep for flashing, unless you’re taking a ridiculous amount of time. I will yell clear twice during your speech before I start docking speaker points. 

I have a terrible poker face, use that to your advantage. +0.1 speaks if you successfully make a joke about Kevin Lu :)

K Affs

I enjoy listening to K affs. I read a K aff for the majority of my debate career, but that being said, I expect you to understand and be able to explain your affirmative and your method clearly. Do not rely on K jargon and blocks your coach wrote for you; contextualize your arguments to what’s been said in the round. I love it when debaters are able to give concrete empirical/real-life examples of abstract theoretical concepts, and will boost your speaks if you consistently do this.

K vs. K debates - the aff should probably get a permutation, but I’ll have a higher threshold for permutation solvency/explanation. The neg needs to have a link to the aff besides a link of omission.

Framework

My partner and I have gone for framework numerous times, and I’m willing to vote on it. Both teams should do impact calculus and explain to me how I should be framing the round. I think debate is a game, but it has the potential to be more than just a game, given its unique pedagogical benefits. Make of that what you will.

For the neg:  I’m a better judge for softer, “T-USfg” type framework shells - I think they’re less susceptible to the impact turn and probably less exclusionary. I think advocacy skills and decision-making are terrible impacts, and I’m not the judge for you if 2nr is going to be 5 minutes of Lundberg 10. However, I think truth testing, debatability/fairness, and clash are winnable impacts on their own. If you have a solvency advocate for your TVA, I will give it a lot more weight. Please actually engage with the aff’s impact turns and disads on the flow, instead of just reading the same blocks you read every round.

For the aff: Explain to me why your vision of debate is a better pedagogical model, whether it be because it’s less exclusive or fosters better/less violent education. I particularly like arguments about how debate can shape the way we view and interact with the outside world.  I prefer aff-specific impact turns, but I’m willing to vote on Grimm and Kappeler and all the rest if you can contextualize them to your form of debate. Please point out the logical flaws in the neg’s internal links, because they’re usually pretty terrible. I won’t be happy if you make silly counter-interpretations (only our aff is topical, res + our aff, etc.)

Kritiks

Most of what I said above for K affs applies here. Please have specific links to the aff. This does not necessarily have to be a card - you can pull lines from their evidence, reference their rhetoric in round, recontextualize their arguments as links, etc. I’m far more impressed by specific analysis of the aff than I am by a rereading of a 10-point carded link wall. I’m not as familiar with high theory as I am with race and setcol lit, so I’ll need more explanation from you with these arguments. I'm not a fan of giant K overviews, just do the explanation on the line-by-line. I think the K needs an alt, otherwise it’s a non-unique disad and the aff will almost certainly outweigh. The aff should probably get to weigh the 1ac, but I can be convinced otherwise.

Counterplans

Aff-specific counterplans will make me happy. I don’t particularly like generic CPs, but given the size of this year’s topic, I’m open to the states CP. I think advantage counterplans are a largely underutilized strategy. Most policy affs have terrible internal links, and you should take advantage of that fact. I’m okay with process counterplans, but I’d much rather you read a topic-specific consult CP than your delay CP backfile. 

Disads

Do impact calc! The more specific the link analysis, the more weight I’ll give the disad. Aff teams should exploit holes in disad internal link chains, I think this can take out large chunks of the neg’s offense even without specific evidence. I enjoy warranted and nuanced turns case debating.

Case Debate 

A necessity. Please don't drop case, even if you're debating a K aff. 

Topicality / Theory

Have a clear interpretation and well-articulated internal links to your impacts. Explain what your vision of debate is - have a list of specific practices your interpretation encourages and why they’re good. These debates tend to get messy, so please slow down and keep your speeches as organized as possible.

T - I typically default to competing interpretations, but I’m willing to vote on reasonability.

Theory - I don’t like it, but I’ll vote on it. If you want theory to be a viable option, you need to do actual analysis instead of spreading through your 1ar condo extension and calling it a day. Two condo is fine, three or more is probably abusive. I'm neutral on 50 states fiat. 

I am a parent judge, so I am not super great on the technicalities of debate. I will flow the round as best as I can. I know a bit about immigration law but I'm not well versed in all the technical terms, so please limit acronyms. I'm fine with ks but explain what you're talking about. I won't vote for you if I don't understand your argument.

Some things I like to see from debaters:

-BE CLEAR!!! I will flow, but I need you to be clear enough (especially with your tags) that I can follow your argument.

-Be kind. I don't want to see kids being assholes to each other. I will dock speaks for this. I understand that cx can get heated but try to keep your cool.

-I would like to see 2NRs/2ARs that tell me what my ballot will be. That makes my job as a judge much easier, and your speaks will thank you.

-No thanks to being on the email chain. If I want to see your evidence, I will ask for it.

jon sharp

Director of Debate @ GDS (the actual GDS, not the camp, not the affinity group, not the cultural phenomenon...well, maybe the cultural phenomenon...)

(Relevant) Background: Debated in HS (program doesn't exist any more) and college (Emory); coached at Emory, West GA, USC, New Trier, Kentucky, and GDS; taught around 75 labs (including, but not limited to the Kentucky Fellows, SNFI Swing Lab, Berkeley Mentors, Antilab, and the forthcoming Quantum Lab). This is what i do - i teach, coach, and judge debate(s). This is both good and bad for you.

This is Good for You: One could say that i have been around, as it were. If you want to do something that people do in debates, i got you. If you want to do something that people don't do in debates, i won't freak out.

This is Bad for You: This ain't my first rodeo. If you want to do something that people do in debates, i have seen it done better and worse. If you want to do something that people don't do in debates, i probably remember the last time that somebody did it in a debate.

Are You For Real? Yah, mostly...i just don't think judging philosophies are all that helpful - any judge that is doing their job is going to suspend disbelief to as great an extent as possible and receive the debate in as much good faith as they can muster...but almost nobody is upfront enough about what that extent looks like.

Well, that's not especially helpful right now. OK, you make a strong point, imaginary interlocutor. Here are a few things that may actually help:

1 - Flow the Debate - I flow the debate. On paper. To a fault. If you do not take this into account, no matter how or what you debate, things are going to go badly for you. Connecting arguments - what used to be called the line-by-line - is essential unless you want me to put the debate together myself out of a giant pile of micro-arguments. You Do Not Want This. "Embedded clash" is an adorable concept and even can be occasionally helpful WHEN YOU ARE MANAGING THE REST OF THE FLOW WITH PRECISION. There is no such thing as "cloud clash."

2 - Do What You are Going to Do - My job isn't to police your argument choices, per se; rather, it is to evaluate the debate. If debaters could only make arguments that i agreed with, there would not be much reason to have these rounds.

3 - If you are mean to your opponents, it is going to cause me to have sympathy/empathy for them. This is not an ideological position so much as an organic reaction on my part.

4 - "K teams," "identity teams," and non-traditional/performance teams pref me more than policy teams - Make of that what you will.

5 - Stop calling certain strategic choices "cheating" - This is one of the few things that just sends my blood pressure through the roof...i know you like to be edgy and i respect your desire to represent yourself as having no ethical commitments, but this is one of the worst developments in the way people talk and think about debate since the advent of paperlessness (which is essentially The Fall in my debate cosmology). Reading an AFF with no plan is not cheating; reading five conditional CPs in the 2NC is not cheating; consult NATO is not cheating. Clipping cards is cheating; fabricating evidence is cheating, consulting your coach in the middle of the debate is cheating. An accusation of an ethics violation (i.e., cheating) means that the debate stops and the team that is correct about the accusation wins the debate while the team that is wrong loses and gets zeroes. This is not negotiable. Ethics violations are not debate arguments, they do not take the form of an off-case or a new page and they are not comparable to anything else in the debate.

Also - just ask.