I keep my old paradigms on the site as a means to provide more understanding of my judging- my thoughts haven't radically changed but its still important to keep them on here

PF Specific

So uhhhh I guess I got put into the PF pool, so the best I can tell you is you do you, if you want to speak faster im down if you don't im down, run a counterplan Idk.

Disclose your stuff before the round and on the wiki, prepared debaters are good debaters.

The only line I will draw is if cheating occurs in a round (mark your cards) and actions that make a debater feel uncomfortable. If any of those happen I will intervene either through verbal warning or by deducting of speaker points. (If in the case of clarity, I will stop the round if its necessary)

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Email: Rohinbalkundi@gmail.com

Coppell' 18

UT'22 ( I don't debate)

Pronouns He/Him/His

Topics Debated: Oceans, Surveillance, China, Education

Add me on the email chain. rohinbalkundi@gmail.com. This should be done before the round.

I like pre-round music and I'll be happy if you play some. +0.1 if you have good music (ask me what this means).

If you make fun of my friends (Het Desai, Vishvak Bandi) I will respect you for it

- Don't be rude to each other

- No -ism's good (if you have to think if your argument is morally reprehensible it probably is)

- Not the most well-read on K's but I still like them.

- This is sparse on purpose, I'm a big fan of debater adaptation (aka I will adapt to you)

- The only line I will draw is if cheating occurs in a round (mark your cards) and actions that make a debater feel uncomfortable. If any of those happen I will intervene either through verbal warning or by deducting of speaker points. (If in the case of clarity, I will stop the round if its necessary)

- Questions? Please feel free to email me or ask me before the round.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Coppell '18

UT '22 (I don't debate)

Topics Debated: Oceans, Surveillance, China, Education

- Have not judged the topic/ first time judging in a while

- Say actual words at the beginning but speed up

- I like good CP/ DA and T debates, If you want to go for the K I'm not deterring you but don't speak in generalities (ask me before the round for more clarification)*

- Other than that I tend to be relatively pliable in terms of what is allowed

- Key exception to the above statement is on behavior if you're being mean ill be mean to your speaker points

- If you have any questions feel free to email me at the top

*Addendum to this- I don't actually hate the K, but I would rather hear a deep K debate on something such as Cap and Security versus that of whatever the flavor of the month is. If you want to know what I think about your strategy before the round email me as soon as pairings come out and ill tell you if I like it or not (not if I think it is viable or not).

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Coppell '18

yes I want to be on the email chain

Email: Rohinbalkundi@gmail.com

Most of this is gonna be what I think the topic is/was and my thoughts on it. Y'all are better off reading the short version, I just wrote the Long version as a form of keeping my thoughts in one place.

Paradigms you should probably read if you don't think mines makes any sense

Brian Bloss (I'll vote on a K aff tho, don't worry I'm close to convincing him to do the same)

PJ Martinez (He understands the K, I don't so)

Nick Pereda (Literally my debate twin)

Short Version

You do you, I've been fortunate to have a coach who is a policy hack (Brian Bloss) and a coach who is a k hack (PJ Martinez). Most of my 2nrs have been policy arguments, this isn't to discourage reading the K but if you pursue this route it might be worth it to read the K part of the longer version.

Long Version

Speed/Thoughts on clarity and its benefits

I'm fine with speed as long as you are clear, Clarity helps everyone, it helps me because I can make sure I can hear all parts of the argument/ explanation, it helps you because in case of a clipping or ethics challenge garbled words won't be misconstrued as non-verbal, and it makes the debate overall much better because half of cross-ex isn't focused on what you did or did not read or what arguments you made. Also while I do ask for the speech doc I seldom look at them until after the round. Spin is awesome and I think makes good debaters into great debaters.

Topicality/ T USFG

Yes.

Read topicality, extend topicality, go for topicality. I've found that this topic lends itself to a T debate because of its nature of T Must be QPQ or T must not be QPQ. I've won and lost on both arguments and I still at the end of this topic can't determine which is better. I don't default to anything unless I'm told I should. I don't think teams need to prove actual abuse but I need some explanation on why your view of the topic is good. If this isn't there I grant the aff a lot of leeway even if they don't meet. Case lists would be preferable

T USFG Addendum- There needs to be an external impact, I've found that teams lost on T USFG because they are repeating the "Debate is a game procedural fairness" impact. I think these debates come down to what I said above but needs some form of "why the world the K aff tries to strive for is bad and why forcing an engagement of the state is good" this can be done either through straight limits or a more theoretical way (Cede the political). I think that Limits is easier to win but in the end I can see myself voting either way on that or methodological reasons to reject.

DA's

Read them, the more specific the link the harder it is for the aff to use their aff

Aff teams: Use your aff to beat DA's, they are there for a reason, you probably don't need to read 15 cards on the DA unless it doesn't interact with the aff, in that case still use the aff to make case outweighs arguments

CP's

As someone who has debated all 4 positions, I'm torn on this question on what constitutes an "Abusive" counterplan. I am open to arguments either for or against CP's

Other than that read them, make sure they solve the aff and have a net benefit.

Aff teams: Just beat the net benefit and you access the perm.

I think the CP to be defense but I will not kick it unless told to do so.

K's

I will be honest and say I have never really considered myself a k expert but it is something I will vote on.

Links: I am sick and tired of teams reading a generic link and then using 5 minutes of the block to try to convince me that your state bad link is somehow contextualized to the affirmative. Links of omission are especially related to this but so are most links on the K. I give the aff team a lot of leeway on the perm in these debates, I won't give them leeway if you use evidence from the 1ac to prove your links, while I won't give them leeway I will give you high speaks.

Impact: Need to have some framing, I will usually default to weighing the aff against the K but I won't default to what I should prefer

Alt: I'm fine with this, if its a floating pik ill be a little open to voting on new theory in the 1ar but it has to be mishandled in the 2nr for me to vote on it, also Aff just ask them in cx and we will all be happy campers (except if you're neg, oops)

K "tricks": if they get dropped explain them in the 2nr and ur Gucci

Final thoughts (Novice RR 17 specific):

At the end of the day this is an activity I take huge pride in competing in and judging, I understand debate can get intense but I ask for the sake of everyone to try not to be egregiously rude, if you have a mountain load of questions after the round I will definitely answer them and If I can help in anyway let me know.

Any questions? Look at my email at the top.

Add me on the email chain: jayashreeg120@gmail.com

I debated policy for 4 years at Coppell High School and am a current student at the University of Texas.

I am open to just about any argument.

Ks

I will evaluate any K and will vote on a generic link if it's insufficiently answered or dropped. That being said, make your links specific, I like Ks. Make sure the permutation debate is clear; if I don't know what the permutation does by the end of the debate then I'm less likely to vote for you.

CPs

CPs are good, nothing really special. Make sure your debate on PIC theory or condo is clear and slowed down, so I can flow and evaluate it. Be clear on the severance debate.

DAs

They're good, not really super special. There really aren't many good ones topic besides elections, but go off.

T

Yea, I don't particularly love T, but I will vote on it. I default to competing interps on T. Make sure to explain how the interp maintains education and fairness in the debate space. Even stupid T arguments win debates if they are answered badly.

Theory

My least favorite 2NR/2AR to judge, but again, I will vote on it. Go slow so I can flow.

DISCLAIMER: Debate is awesome, and I would hate to vote you down for throwing racial slurs, being sexist, clipping, etc.

PF Specific

I am a pretty tab judge, so whatever you want to read is cool by me. Impact calculus is really important. I'll evaluate new arguments in the summary based on what previously happened in the debate but just for a baseline, new arguments in the summary never really go well for debaters anyway.

Be on time to round.

I debated for Grapevine High School and then at the University of Texas.  At UT, I majored in philosophy and economics.  I am a big fan of existentialism (Neitzsche, Camus, Sartre) and Karl Marx.  That doesn't necessarily mean that I like the way these philosophers are used in debate--debate typically presents bastardized versions of philosophers.  I have coached CX at Grapevine High School for the past 4 years.  I coach debate for fun--my full time job is as an Internet lawyer where I help individuals and businesses who have been attacked online.  I earned my law degree from the University of Chicago Law School.

My decisions are often influenced by my legal background.  I view topicality as a debate over what the resolution is as opposed to what it ought to be (and I vote on T more than most judges).  And because I deal with nasty people every day, I do not like to see it when I judge debates.  I will vote you down for being a jerk.  That should not be a difficult burden to meet.  Be respectful of everyone in the room and in the community.  If I am on a panel with one judge who doesn't like spreading and one judge that is okay with spreading (I prefer spreading), if you spread to appeal only to the two spread judges, I will not like it because by doing so, you will have disrespected the non-spreading judge.  I get it--it sucks when you have a judge that doesn't like speed, but that is life and the non-spread judge is a person too.  Also, please make sure your disclosures on the wiki are up to date and easy to navigate.  If you play games on the wiki, I see that as the same as being a jerk before the round begins.  Please don't be a jerk.  And if you like to bash people in the debate community on the Internet or otherwise, you are a bad person and should not be in the activity.

If you were to ask my debaters what they should do in the round with me judging, here is what I think they would tell you:

1. I love topicality.  I vote on T more than most judges, and I generally have a much more narrow view of the resolution than other judges.  If your plan has non-topical tricks to evade specific DAs, then I see that as distorting the debate by excluding that specific DA.  You can run the most common Aff on the topic, but if the other team runs T based on a trick in the plan, and they win that debate, I am happy to vote you down.  T is never a reverse voter.  I will only vote on that if the argument is completely dropped by the Neg, but you will get terrible speaks.  All the Neg has to say is "that's stupid."

2. If you are trying to decide between running your critical aff and your policy aff, you should probably pick the policy aff.  If you only have a critical aff or want to run it out of principle, good for you.  You may enjoy the debate, but you probably won't find my RFD very satisfying.  It's not that I have anything against critical affs--I don't--it is that I do not understand most of them and how they can function within a competitive debate setting. Let's say that you affirm that the Holocaust is a bad thing--I would agree with you, but I don't see why that has anything to do with the resolution or how that leaves any ground for the Neg.  I know there are people much smarter than me that love critical affs and think they are good for debate.  I wish I was one of those people, but sadly I am not.

3. Go out of your way to go line by line.  Sign post your arguments.  If you are the 2NC or the 1NR, say something like 2AC #1 says "No Link" - We say ______.  2AC #2 says "Uniqueness overwhelms the link" - We say ______.  Standing up and reading a bunch of arguments without actually applying them to the other team's arguments is not good debate.  In fact, it is sloppy.  I think "embedded clash" is interesting in theory, but in practice I see it as an excuse to not go line by line.  I suggest that you avoid embedded clash in front of me.  That being said, feel free to group arguments, especially in the 1AR.  So you can say, "Off 2AC #3, Group It (the Neg's arguments against 2AC #3). 1. ___ 2.___ 3.____".

4. I enjoy theory debates so long as they are not blippy.  If you take the time to really explore a theory argument and explain how it applies in that specific debate, I will vote for you more than other judges will.

5. Rhetoric Ks make a lot of sense to me, more so than other Ks.  I am not a fan of Ks with Candy Land alts.  Because of that, I rarely vote for the Cap K.  I agree with the thesis of the Cap K - Cap definitely exploits people on a worldwide scale.  But the alts I have seen seem to be simply wishing problems away.  I do not find that very compelling when the Aff identifies specific problems and ways to solve them.  That being said, if you can attack the Aff's epistemology and show why their knowledge is flawed, and thereby take out the premise of their harms, that I can find compelling.

6. Please be clear on who the actor is for the alt.  If the Aff can show that the alt uses a different actor from the Aff, and says, "Perm do both," then the Neg better have a really good reason why two different actors cannot do different things.

7. I generally do not find Ks based on the fact that the Aff uses the USFG compelling. 

8. Open CX is fine, but please do not abuse it.  I'm not a fan when one partner dominates all of the CX for the team.  Prep time stops when you pull the flash drive out or when you hit send on your email.

9. Tell me what to do in your 2NR and 2AR.  Tell me why you win.  I like reading cards, and I think I read cards more often than I should.  So if you are winning the evidence comparison debate because the other team has not explained their evidence and you have, tell me to not read their cards.  If I agree with you that they have not explained their evidence, then I will not read their evidence.  If you tell me to read certain cards, I probably will as long as you have explained the cards in the round.

10.  I do not enjoy framework debates, but I blame that on the Aff instead of the Neg.  Framework should have a T component, and that is really how I evaluate framework.

As a final comment, I generally think mutual judge preference is a bad idea.  While I think sharing judge philosophies is a good idea, I think judge preference has encouraged debate on the extreme ends of the spectrum.  If you are a policy team, you can pref policy judges.  If you are a critical team, you can pref critical judges.  Given the way the system is structured, you would be foolish not to do that.  But the result is that we end up siloing ourselves within echo chambers that conform to our own philosophical or political views.

TLDR; Put jkwon0301@gmail.com on email chain, I will usually vote for the better technical debaters, and BE CLEAR.

Me -

policy debate for 4 years as a 2N at Greenhill

primarily went for "policy" strategies but a very open listener

new to the resolution

Topicality -

flesh out the impact debate

give caselists, examples of aff/neg ground lost, etc.

Counterplan -

give detailed solvency explanations

aff should ask what's kickable early

if you want judge kick put it in the block

tricky/well-thought-out cps (ex. advantage cps using 1AC evidence, smart pics) will get more fiat/theory leeway and more speaker points

Process Counterplan -

perm + theory as a justification 2ARs are infinitely better than theory 2ARs

Disadvantage -

politics DAs are awesome!!!

make turns case arguments specific

please compare evidence

Kritik -

if the framework debate is perfectly debated by both sides, I'm gonna weigh the aff

K tricks are lame so don't drop them

ESPECIALLY for the K: explanation > evidence

T-USFG -

fairness makes sense to me as long as debate is a game

explicit (and early) impact calculus is important

K-Affs-

I'm not the best for these

Other -

no need to read rehighlightings

write my decision at the top of the 2NR/2AR and please clean up unresolved issues

Beomhak Lee

Updated March 2021

Affiliation - Dallas Jesuit.

If you have any concerns/questions/asking for email chain: lbh7746@gmail.com

CJR topic - Very interesting topic. I have pretty good exposure to the topic. Yet, this still does not justify teams in speaking jargons. Personally, I find DA and CP literature on this topic quite disappointing (unless the link narrative can be specific to the aff). So I believe this perhaps is a good opportunity for some teams to engage in critical literature deeper than before.

Stylistic Issues:

- Speed is fine. But clarity >>> speed. Especially given the virtual-ness of debating, I would suggest going a bit slower.

- Please line by line. If you don't even at least attempt to line by line, your speaks will suffer.

- Depth outweighs breadth. One well-warranted argument beats numerous poorly explained/constructed arguments. This applies to the cards too. Poorly and disjointedly highlighted cards are bad. Call them out on it.

- No I don't take prep for emailing/flashing unless it's excessive.

- Usually, it is tech > truth but not all the time.

- Stop being a jerk. There is a fine line between being passionate/competitive vs. being a total jerk.

- I am totally fine with any style of argument. You do you. I am here to listen. Obviously, this excludes arguments like racism or sexism good :)

- This is probably obvious but I think it's important. For me to vote on an argument, it has to make sense in my head. While I will probably understand the general thesis for most of your arguments myself, every argument (K, DA, CP, T, K aff, etc.) requires a nuanced explanation that is different, depending on the circumstances of the round. So, spend some time doing that in the round.

Topicality

Love them if done well. Personally think they are very underutilized in this topic. Will default to competing interpretations if not convinced otherwise. T is all about weighing your interpretation versus theirs. Specificity (i.e. examples of how the aff would explode limits or gut grounds) is good. Just saying meaningless phrases like 'they explode limits' won't be convincing at all.

Counterplans/Disadvantages

Most of my 2NRs were CP+DA or DA alone. More specific your evidence (solvency advocate or link) is to the aff, the better. I think solvency advocate for the CP should be a thing most of the time. If you don't, it's not really a theoretical reason to lose but rather a solvency question. Impact calculus on DAs usually is really really really important. Use the impact debate to frame the ballot and be comparative (especially if you are going for the DA without the CP with only the case defense, which by the way is heavily under-utilized). Good link narratives on DAs will be awarded. Smart analytics will be awarded as well.

Kritiks

Love them. But, if you start to talk in disjointed vocabularies without contextualizing the K to the aff, then the K is not so loving. I think that aff should generally get to weigh the action of the plan, though I can be convinced otherwise in many ways - so put in the work.

Winning a general explanation of the world is not enough. Use the specific link and internal link narratives to prove why the aff would make X worse. To do that, I think real-world manifestations or examples help a ton. Way too many teams just assume "if I win a link, then the impact happens" - welp, a good internal link work will be awarded. Long overviews are mostly useless. Line by line is good.

K/Non-traditional affirmative

Personally, I find these affs way more interesting than listening to generic process CP debates per say. Clarity on what the aff does (i.e. the mechanism of the aff) is the single most important thing to explain to me. Personal narrative, music, poetry - anything is fine with me. Just have a particular reason why you included those parts in 1AC. You need to have at least some relations to the topic, and some reason why you don't use governmental institutions. You still need a reason why your ROB is good, and for the neg teams going for FW, that must be challenged. As always, impact debates on FW must be comparative.

Theory

Chill for a second and SLOW DOWN

Don't run New Affs bad in front of me - I'm not gonna vote on it.

Conditionality is usually good - unless multiple conditional contradictory world is a thing (but is it a theoretical reason to reject the team? Eh - though I think it would benefit you substantive-wise if used well)

Other theory arguments (generally) probably are a reason to reject the argument, not the team UNLESS I'm convinced otherwise. If they drop theory, then the story is quite different (assuming that you invest some time into it).

ETC.

I really love this activity. There probably is a reason why I keep in touch with debate and the community even though I decided not to debate in college. If I happen to judge you, know that I will judge debates as fairly as I can Please respect each other and have fun.

Also, for more nitty-gritty judging philosophies on the style of arguments, look into these judges’ philosophies: Tracy McFarland, Ryan Gorman, and Dan Lingel. They introduced/influenced me a lot (like debate + life) that we almost have a similar "view of debate" if that makes sense. If three judges contradict in their judging philosophy, it would be on my therapy list.

here’s the right paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=121462

Alandro Valdez

Jesuit College Prep '17

Email: atvaldez2011@gmail.com

Water Topic specifics:

It has been awhile since I debated and I don't have much experience about how this year's topic has developed, but I am a current Masters student that studies environmental policy, so I do have some background knowledge. Please explain the nuances of your specific position, but I don't need a crash course on water policy.

General Things:

I really enjoy debate and I hope that you do too. So don't be a horrible person and ruin it for others, be nice to each other in round or you might get docked speaker points. Respect your partners and opponents. I really enjoy smart arguments and if you do too, make them and explain them. Yes I want to be on the email chain - see above. Flashing is not prep unless its getting to be ridiculous. I will try to be as flow centered as possible so keep that in mind when you are making arguments. You should make them and not just your evidence. I really enjoy seeing good evidence and really hate seeing really bad evidence. The weight of your argument will depend on that judgement. Most of all, have fun! What are we doing here if we didn't think it was? Stealing evidence is wrong and cheating will be punished.

Speaking:

I prefer clarity over speed because if I can't understand what you are saying, it won't get on my flow and thus wasn't in the debate. Look at me when you speak (not in a weird way but as if I was the subject that you were trying to convince of your argument). My face might betray a lot about how you are currently explaining something (for online tournaments, this is less important as you can't look at me directly per-say). I think that speaker point inflation is a real thing that has happened to the community. I don't believe that I should be complicit in it as well. If you speak well, you will get better points (ie you did line by line, you were clear, etc). Speaker points will begin at 28.3. Obviously, if you are being offensive or racist or something horrible like that, you will receive sub 25 and a stern explanation on why that's not ok. CX should be thought of as a way to explain important distinctions to the judge as get at essential weaknesses in the other team's arguments. I'll pay attention to know when this happens, and it should be incorporated in your next speech.

Theory:

I think that theory should have a clear direction and point of comparison like literally any other argument. This should probably take the form of an interpretation, a counter interpretation, and some standards with real impacts. If your theory shell in the 2AC is less than 5 seconds, think again about reading it. I like good theory debates with substantive impact calculus and interpretation explanation like a good T debate and that will be reflected in my evaluation of theory. Don't be discouraged, you can read theory just make it a real argument. Condo will get less weight than multiple conditional contradictory off-case. Some theory is much less persuasive than condo, looking at you hypotesting. Also, new affs bad is a horrible argument that will not be voted on.

Topicality:

I really like a good T debate that gets into the merits of any particular definition. T should be thought of like a CP and a DA debate. Your interpretation is like a CP that solves some harm and avoids some NB. Your standards are this harm and net benefit. Impacts should be flushed out. T debates suffer and we all suffer when teams only use buzzwords when referencing impacts. What does a good limit mean and what can we get out of it? etc.

Counter plans:

Love them when done well. You should have a decently robust explanation of what the CP does, what part of the aff it solves, and how it avoids the net benefit. I prefer case specific CPs that have solvency advocates because of the depth and nuance that those debates can have. Thus, I am less hip to some really sketchy CPs like Con Con, Veto Cheeto, and other process cps. I think delay and consult cps fall somewhere in the middle. However, I can be convinced otherwise through good theoretical justification or really good solvency advocate. Some people really don't like pics, but I think that they are pretty awesome if done correctly with proper evidence/explanation and competition. Most CPs should be textually and functionally competitive.

Disads:

DAs were my bread and butter argument in my last year of debating. Great if done well. You should have an as specific as possible link to the aff (obviously if its a new aff there will be some changing of standards). If you don't have a specific link, your explanation must compensate and apply the aff to the DA as closely as possible. More diverse links are better (to a point). I will more likely vote on a DA that has a good base of evidence that is being presented. Impact calculus should be case specific and comparative. Give me a frame to order the debate for or against the DA. Offense for the aff is good but might not be sufficient if you can't go deep on it. I think that DAs can be whittled down to a non-argument with enough defense and effective aff argumentation.

Ks:

Some might think that because of my perceived policy centered debate history that I might not like Ks. On the contrary, we were very flexible in what we could do so we read our fair number of Ks. I like specific K links like DA links, they should be as aff specific as possible or generics explained in the context of the aff. Framework is something that should order how I view the rest of the K flow but could also be a victory path almost on its own. Your frameworks should be comparative with actual impacts. The K should have a robust impact explanation as to why it accesses/solves/turns the case. One of the most vulnerable parts of a K is its alternative so the affirmative should attack that and the neg should have a reasonable explanation as to why they solve. Perms can be strategic but they must explain how they solve the links/K itself. I do not like a K debate with only buzzwords without explanation. Also, reading a K does not exempt you from doing line by line. If you avoid those two traps, you will be rewarded. I like less Ks that have a large death/suffering good basis.

Non-traditional affs/Framework:

I have run and been on the receiving end of non-traditional affs and framework. The two seem to come in a pair most of the time. I think that non-traditional affs should have a basis and grounding in the topic because that's what its for but if its not, be prepared for your framework debate. I will judge your non-trad aff just like I would any other aff, but its merits in evidence, impacts, and solvency etc. Framework is probably not violent in and of itself. Each team should have a reason why their version of debate is good and reasons why the other is bad. These distinctions should be compared like any other impact calculus. Framework neg teams should really invest time in answering the ROB or method debate or risk bearing the full weight of the aff's impacts. A defense of not having a plan will probably be necessary.

I will vote on literally anything as long as you debate it out. I will definitely take speaks off if you run something really weird and don't know what you're talking about (aka hoping to cheese a win instead of proper debating) although I'd still vote on it. I'm all up for theory, if you think you can win it. 

A few specifics

K-Aff's - If you're reading this paradigm you're probably a novice. If you seriously think you can pull it off, I actually love good k-affs, if it's blatantly obvious that it was something you found online/you're varsity wrote it for you and you didn't have it explained fully to you, expect my general attitude towards you to drop and deducted speaks.

Policy Aff's - Sure why not?

Theory - I really enjoy condo, winning it is obviously up for debate though.

CP's - I'm fine with them, I'm pretty easily swayed by abusive perms from the aff though if it's a conditions/consult CP.

DA's - If they're policy, sure why not? If they're some weird k without an alt, sure why not? 

K's - Love 'em. See above though.