hi everyone!

my email is: aaathreya2@gmail.com

pronouns -she/her

background: currently a sophomore @ uc berkeley - I competed in speech and debate for four years on both the CFL and national circuit, with my main events being parliamentary debate, policy debate, and congressional debate by the end of senior year. I finalled at two TOC bid tournaments and State my senior year, and qualified to the TOC in Congressional Debate.

Here are a few of my judging preferences:

1.speaking: first and foremost, be respectful in round, and in cross-examination. If you bring harm to the debate space in any way, I will drop you. You’re in the round to further your point to your side, and fully participate in the round. Don’t use canned speeches or intros - I value original, unique, and nuanced arguments over delivery every time and will rank as such. Try to show some variety in the types of speeches you give (first few cycles vs. crystals)

2.cross-examination: don’t treat cx as throwaway time! I judge on the quality of all aspects of round engagement, including asking quality cross examination questions to further your argument, as well as poking holes on the other side. be present and engaged - it makes a huge difference!

3.argumentation: just to reiterate what I mentioned earlier: make original, unique, and nuanced arguments. please don’t rehash arguments late into the round. if you cite credible sources, tag them as such - they’re crucial to validating the argument you’re making.

I love clash and weighing (a lot)! please make an effort to integrate it in your nuanced argumentation. At the very least, be organized and understandable.

if you’re introducing a unique impact to the round, make sure to explain the link chain thoroughly; if you’re rehashing/validating a previous impact brought up on your side, make sure to be explicit for how your impact/argumentation is different from previous speakers. I don’t mind either, but the goal is to add depth to the round.

(For Congress) POs: I default to tournament rules on POs, but I tend to rank POs highly if they are well-paced, engaged, and prepared.

Parliamentary Debate:

Look above for my prefs on argumentation
Don’t use time in between speeches for prep
Plans/evidence whatever you want to use is up to you!
make sure you properly cite sources & empirical examples
Don’t evidence dump in speeches, I’ll give more points for warranted reasoning/connecting to the larger ideas of your case (two world analysis in rebuttals)
Ask and answer at least 2 POIs in the constructive

policy
Be clear on taglines & condense off cases in later speeches

Archbishop Mitty ‘21

Wake Forest University '25

Been both a 2N/2A

Done both Policy and LD ( 4 years policy, 1 year LD )

Yes Email Chain: archbishopmittydr[at]gmail.com -- please format the subject As “Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School [team code] vs Neg School [team code]. Example: “Berkeley -- Dubs -- AFF Archbishop Mitty DR vs NEG Interlake GQ”

--

* Updated for Military Presence Topic * -- Arguments in support of zionism or that argue for the ongoing occupation of Palestine will warrant an automatic L and 25 speaks

"Coach for Break Debate: Conflict List---Barrington AC, Carnegie Vanguard LH, Durham SA, Flower Mound AM, Garland LA, L C Anderson LS, L C Anderson NW, Lexington MS, Lynbrook BZ, Lynbrook OM, Monta Vista EY, Oak Ridge AA, Sage Oak Charter AK, Scripps Ranch AS, Southlake Carroll AS, St Agnes EH, Seven Lakes VS."

I find paradigms to be largely useless because no one is ever transparent and 99% of times debaters and judges put way too much value into these things. I could care less about argumentative preferences -- I have coached, judged, and participated in debates where teams have gone for everything from Politics DA, Process CP’s, K’s, Trix, Phil NC’s to T. TLDR: Stick to your guns and you do you.

At the end of the rebuttals -- I start by looking at what the teams have flagged as the most important pieces of offense. 2NRs and 2ARs rarely do enough judge instruction. The best type of RFD is where I don't have to do too much work and I can parrot back to you what the rebuttals said.

I guess I’ll do the thing about argument Preferences (although it would behoove you to stick to what you are good at). In the words of Debnil Sur “Above all, tech substantially outweighs truth. The below are preferences, not rules, and will easily be overturned by good debating. But, since nobody's a blank slate, treat the below as heuristics I use in thinking about debate. Incorporating some can explain my decision and help render one in your favor”.

Speed: Fine -- just make sure you are clear (especially true in the context of e-debate). Yes I will have the doc open, but no I will not be flowing off it -- only what you say will be on my flow.

Insert or Read: All portions of evidence that has already been introduced into the debate get to be inserted. This is a way to provide an incentive for in depth evidence comparison while also creating a strategic incentive to read good quality cards. Any portions of evidence that hasn’t already been introduced into debate should be read.

Paradigm Issues: I will almost always default to an offense defense paradigm -- if you argue about stock issues, I will most likely get bored.

Tech vs Truth: Seems like one of the most asinine things on everyone's paradigm. Obviously if you drop an argument or something on the flow it is considered true, but in a world where another team clashes with you Truth (argument/ev quality) becomes an important tie breaker.

Policy Affs: Do your thing. 1AC’s with 3 minute advantage and framing page is fine, but please do not just make it a bunch of probability indicts have some offensive framing in either an alternative understanding of ethics or a kritik of the way that impact calculuses are framed. Affs with as many impact scenarios stuffed together as possible probably have terrible ev that should be re-highlighted and pointed out.

K Affs: Not dogmatic about whether or not you follow the resolution. Make sure you have offense on framework that isn’t just you exclude our aff. I’m fine for impact turn or counter interp strategies -- just do impact calculus. The easiest way to lose reading a K aff in front of me is just saying buzzwords in the overview without unpacking what the aff does -- I am not scared to say I vote neg on presumption because I don’t know what the aff does. Neg teams debating K affs do whatever you think is best -- just remember impact calculus wins debates. Going for framework is fine, fairness can be an impact, but oftentimes it's a better impact filter, and having something external to fairness will be more persuasive. I've thought about this a little bit more now that I finished my first year of college debate and the 3 most convincing AFF turns to FW are 1] K v K debates good + offense about the model of clash they produce 2] An Indict of the performance of the Negative team that i should evaluate prior to the debate and proof of how violence gets naturalized in debate and 3] A critique of FW that articulates its relationship towards the history of debate and why the negative team shouldn't get to kick out of such baggage.

K v K debates are dope -- make sure you have offense on why the perm doesn’t shield the link.

Topicality: While freshman and sophomore year being my least favourite argument that I dismissed as negative teams whining, it has honestly become one of my favourite arguments in the activity. My senior year I was undefeated going for T-Substantial. I think a lot of teams do not put enough practice into debating teams making it one of the most strategic arguments for neg teams. I probably lean towards competing interps -- reasonability is a defensive argument for filtering how I evaluate interps. 2NR’s and 2AR’s shouldn’t go for every argument on the T page but collapse to one impact and do thorough weighing. I am a huge sucker for a precision 2NR/2AR.

Counterplans: Love em -- go for em. Cheaty Counterplans are cheaty only if you lose the theory debate. Having a solvency advocate or core of topic cards will go a long way to helping you win that debate. No strong predispositions on counterplan theory -- its up to the debaters.

Disads: Yes -- Do them. Not sure what's a good topic DA on this year’s policy topic. I have a soft spot for politics DA with a thick link wall -- just do impact calc. Teams don’t do enough of link turns case analysis that if conceded is just gg.

Kritiks: Despite my reputation as a K hack, I’m pretty agnostic here. My decisions tend to start from the framework debate and this guides how I evaluate the other parts of the flow. This determines the threshold needed for link UQ, whether the aff gets to be weighed, etc. That being said if you impact turn the K -- you can make f/w largely irrelevant. K teams should do more link turns case analysis -- it allows you to short circuit a lot of offense on the case page. If not make sure you make persuasive framing arguments about why the case doesn’t outweigh. If you are aff, your best bet is either to go for a big framework + Extinction outweighs push or just impact turning the K. Not the best for a team that wants to go for link turn and perm because I typically don't tend to find a net benefit to voting aff that the alt doesn't solve.

Theory/Trix: Not my favourite argument in the world, but I will vote on it. I’m pretty neg leaning on conditionality in traditional policy vs policy debates, but have heard some pretty fire kritiks of condo by some K teams. No real dispositions regarding anything else. Theory interps need to be impacted out and have a claim warrant and an impact.

Speaker Points: I’m gonna steal Debnil’s scale which makes a lot of sense to me.

“Note that this assessment is done per-tournament: for calibration, I think a 29.3-29.4 at a finals bid is roughly equivalent to a 28.8-28.9 at an octos bid.

29.5+ — the top speaker at the tournament.

29.3-29.4 — one of the five or ten best speakers at the tournament.

29.1-29.2 — one of the twenty best speakers at the tournament.

28.9-29 — a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would barely clear on points.

28.7-28.8 — a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would not clear on points.

28.3-28.6 — a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament.

28-28.2 — a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.”

Ev Ethics: Clipping will receive a 25 L. The team going for ev ethics needs recording as proof and must be willing to stake the round on it.

Any other alleged ethics violation, I will ask the team going for the ethics violation whether they would like to stop the debate and stake the round on it. In this case, like Debnil, I will let both teams offer a written defense of their practice and decide based on such defenses. This is important because I feel that this will disincentivize ethical disintegrity, while also letting the accused have a chance to defend themselves (especially when ev ethics has been weaponized against small schools using open ev or otherwise widely circulated ev cut by bigger schools that has a flaw that the debaters didn’t know when receiving the ev). If teams would rather let the debate continue (which would be my preference), I will evaluate it like I would any other theory debate.

.

Edited: September 29, 2023

Add me to the evidence chain! pranav.govindaraju@gmail.com / mittypolicydocs@gmail.com

I probably won’t look at any of the docs you send unless there’s a disputed card / you say something that piques my curiosity.

General Stuff:

• FRAMING IS SUPER IMPORTANT. Define things. Tell me what to weigh. Tell me why I should weigh it a certain way. Do the weighing for me.
• Clearly extend and defend your arguments. If I hear something new in the last speech, I’m going to ignore it, and will likely give you a disapproving look.
• WARRANT EVERYTHING USING CREDIBLE SOURCES.
• MAKE SURE YOUR LINK CHAINS MAKE SENSE.
• Signposting is a bare minimum requirement.
• Quality > quantity 100% of the time.
• Be fair. Be courteous. Be smart.

Theory Stuff:

• They're not my favorite, but I evaluate K’s the same way I evaluate any other argument. If you’re gonna die on the K hill, make sure it’s worth the fight. I will judge you harshly if your shell is generic, and poorly linked.
• Please try and only run theory arguments when your opponent is legitimately being abusive, unfair, etc. It’s not enough for an interpretation to be “potentially abusive,” it has to be demonstrably so.
• Topicality:
• T is a voter. But please only bring it up if you genuinely believe there’s a violation. For instance, I won’t really buy arguments about how an aff interpretation is abusive if you clearly still have enough grounds to debate on.
• Please do not run a RVI. I rarely buy them. If you do decide to run it, make sure you make an absolutely gorgeous argument that’s just so compelling, it moves me to tears.
• K Aff arguments are fine, just make sure they stem directly from the resolution (at minimum).
• Open to arguments about the “role of the ballot,” but within reason. My ballot is only as powerful as you can convince me it is.

Parli Specific:

• If you win conclusively on framework, you have an exceedingly high chance of winning the round.
• Justify and defend your weighing mechanisms right from the get go. If it’s a value round, I better hear a value criterion.
• Make observations whenever necessary. Tell me what the topic does or does not imply/assume.
• I love direct clashes. Go line by line as much as possible in the rebuttals.
• Quality of argumentation >>> quantity of cites. I will not penalize you for being unable to find multiple pieces of carded evidence during a 20 min prep period, but I will penalize you for having poor argument selection and weak rhetoric.
• Use POIs strategically. If your question does nothing to trip up your opponent/help your own case, you’ve wasted your time.
• I flow everything. If something new is brought up in the last speech, I will notice. Feel free to make a Point of Order if you hear a violation as long as you’re not rude with it.
• Last speech should JUST be framework + voters. All I want are the key issues, and an explanation for why you’ve won when viewed through the prevailing framework.
• Refer above to my thoughts on theory usage

PF Specific:

• Use cross-ex strategically, and effectively. If a debate is too close to call on the flow, I sometimes use cross-ex as a tiebreaker. If cross-ex is also evenly matched, I vote on speaks.
• Every claim should be warranted with high quality evidence. Don’t paraphrase or insert your own analysis. Source indictments are encouraged and are sometimes enough for me to drop an argument.
• Creativity is rewarded. I love nuanced arguments as long as they are topical, and have credibility.
• Quality of argumentation >>> quantity of cites.
• Avoid ridiculous terminal impacts. You know what I’m referring to.
• Extend arguments through every speech if you want me to weigh them (sike! You should be doing the weighing for me. Extend if you want me to listen to you).
• Stick to voters in the FFs as much as possible. Just tell me why you win.
• Refer above to my thoughts on theory usage

Speed:

• Has a place in circuit policy and LD, has a place in PF on rare occasions, and has no place in Parli whatsoever.
• If you do go fast, please slow down on tags and cites, and pause between claims. If you’re unintelligible while spreading, I’ll say clear. If you get egregiously bad with it, I’ll just stop flowing.
• I haven't judged fast rounds in a couple of years, so I do prefer a moderate pace if possible.

Speaker Points:

Speaking well is important to me, irrespective of the event. I view speaker points as being 25% coherence/effective articulation, 25% organization (does your flow and order make sense) and 50% strategic decision making/argumentation.

Here’s an rough estimate of how I will score:

29+ → Top 10 speaker, should make it to late elims

28+ → Should at least break

27-28 → Average

Below 27 → You did something I didn’t like and I took punitive measures

If you are openly disrespectful towards your opponents, the judges, spectators, or even your own partner, I will kill your speaks. If you do something egregious, I won’t hesitate to drop your ballot. Doesn’t matter how good you are. This doesn’t include the occasional stray facial expression of course. Just use your best judgment.

Edited: September 29, 2023

Add me to the evidence chain! pranav.govindaraju@gmail.com / mittypolicydocs@gmail.com

I probably won’t look at any of the docs you send unless there’s a disputed card / you say something that piques my curiosity.

General Stuff:

• FRAMING IS SUPER IMPORTANT. Define things. Tell me what to weigh. Tell me why I should weigh it a certain way. Do the weighing for me.
• Clearly extend and defend your arguments. If I hear something new in the last speech, I’m going to ignore it, and will likely give you a disapproving look.
• WARRANT EVERYTHING USING CREDIBLE SOURCES.
• MAKE SURE YOUR LINK CHAINS MAKE SENSE.
• Signposting is a bare minimum requirement.
• Quality > quantity 100% of the time.
• Be fair. Be courteous. Be smart.

Theory Stuff:

• They're not my favorite, but I evaluate K’s the same way I evaluate any other argument. If you’re gonna die on the K hill, make sure it’s worth the fight. I will judge you harshly if your shell is generic, and poorly linked.
• Please try and only run theory arguments when your opponent is legitimately being abusive, unfair, etc. It’s not enough for an interpretation to be “potentially abusive,” it has to be demonstrably so.
• Topicality:
• T is a voter. But please only bring it up if you genuinely believe there’s a violation. For instance, I won’t really buy arguments about how an aff interpretation is abusive if you clearly still have enough grounds to debate on.
• Please do not run a RVI. I rarely buy them. If you do decide to run it, make sure you make an absolutely gorgeous argument that’s just so compelling, it moves me to tears.
• K Aff arguments are fine, just make sure they stem directly from the resolution (at minimum).
• Open to arguments about the “role of the ballot,” but within reason. My ballot is only as powerful as you can convince me it is.

Parli Specific:

• If you win conclusively on framework, you have an exceedingly high chance of winning the round.
• Justify and defend your weighing mechanisms right from the get go. If it’s a value round, I better hear a value criterion.
• Make observations whenever necessary. Tell me what the topic does or does not imply/assume.
• I love direct clashes. Go line by line as much as possible in the rebuttals.
• Quality of argumentation >>> quantity of cites. I will not penalize you for being unable to find multiple pieces of carded evidence during a 20 min prep period, but I will penalize you for having poor argument selection and weak rhetoric.
• Use POIs strategically. If your question does nothing to trip up your opponent/help your own case, you’ve wasted your time.
• I flow everything. If something new is brought up in the last speech, I will notice. Feel free to make a Point of Order if you hear a violation as long as you’re not rude with it.
• Last speech should JUST be framework + voters. All I want are the key issues, and an explanation for why you’ve won when viewed through the prevailing framework.
• Refer above to my thoughts on theory usage

PF Specific:

• Use cross-ex strategically, and effectively. If a debate is too close to call on the flow, I sometimes use cross-ex as a tiebreaker. If cross-ex is also evenly matched, I vote on speaks.
• Every claim should be warranted with high quality evidence. Don’t paraphrase or insert your own analysis. Source indictments are encouraged and are sometimes enough for me to drop an argument.
• Creativity is rewarded. I love nuanced arguments as long as they are topical, and have credibility.
• Quality of argumentation >>> quantity of cites.
• Avoid ridiculous terminal impacts. You know what I’m referring to.
• Extend arguments through every speech if you want me to weigh them (sike! You should be doing the weighing for me. Extend if you want me to listen to you).
• Stick to voters in the FFs as much as possible. Just tell me why you win.
• Refer above to my thoughts on theory usage

Speed:

• Has a place in circuit policy and LD, has a place in PF on rare occasions, and has no place in Parli whatsoever.
• If you do go fast, please slow down on tags and cites, and pause between claims. If you’re unintelligible while spreading, I’ll say clear. If you get egregiously bad with it, I’ll just stop flowing.
• I haven't judged fast rounds in a couple of years, so I do prefer a moderate pace if possible.

Speaker Points:

Speaking well is important to me, irrespective of the event. I view speaker points as being 25% coherence/effective articulation, 25% organization (does your flow and order make sense) and 50% strategic decision making/argumentation.

Here’s an rough estimate of how I will score:

29+ → Top 10 speaker, should make it to late elims

28+ → Should at least break

27-28 → Average

Below 27 → You did something I didn’t like and I took punitive measures

If you are openly disrespectful towards your opponents, the judges, spectators, or even your own partner, I will kill your speaks. If you do something egregious, I won’t hesitate to drop your ballot. Doesn’t matter how good you are. This doesn’t include the occasional stray facial expression of course. Just use your best judgment.

hello! i am a first-year at uc berkeley and i debated for mitty high school. throughout high school, i was most competitive in public forum debate, but i also did congressional debate as well as speech events like original advocacy and duo interp.

public forum debate:

- tech over truth (i try my best)!

- i vote for the team with the most offense at the end of the round by granting each team some (if any) offense for each offensive argument presented and taking into account the efficacy of the defense put on each. ez pz!

rebuttal:

- i expect frontlining all key pieces of offense in second rebuttal.

- if you want to add offensive overviews, please make them very thorough and well-warranted.

summary:

- even with three-minute summaries, please collapse.

- i expect full extensions of links, warrants, and impacts, when you are extending case.

- in terms of whether or not defense should be in first summary, i think it is strategic to do so if you want to blow up on it, but i will extend it anyway even if you don't.

final focus:

- this should be *and i cannot emphasize this enough* a carbon copy of the summary.

- i recommend more weighing in final focus than summary.

weighing:

- comparative weighing is super important! weigh as early as possible!

- link-weighing is even better than impact weighing! do both!

cross-fire:

- i will probably be on facebook so put it in a speech if you want it on the flow!

- be nice! that is all.

speaker points:

- this is an activity where we should all genuinely care about the words we are saying, so sound like it! for high speaks, sound passionate and genuine when you speak. also, be polite!

- make me cheese for more speaks!

speed:

- i can handle a good deal of speed, but not spreading. if you really want to go ham on the speed, start off slow then speed up.

- if your opponents do not feel comfortable with speed, you should be respectful and accessible and refrain from going too fast for them.

theory & kritiks:

- i do not have much experience with these arguments so explain them very well.

- for k's, read specific links since i want tangible proof that voting for you will contribute to the larger scale impacts you will probably talk about.

evidence:

- please do not miscut evidence! i will only call for evidence if one team tells me to do so or if i am really sussed out by it, so if you genuinely think it is miscut, tell me to call for it in one of your speeches. otherwise, i default to what the team tells me it says to minimalize intervention!

- i also want sources and dates.

- have evidence files on everything you read ready to go please!

stuff that is more important than the round you are about to debate:

- as a former debater on a girl-girl team comprised of two womxn of color, i have been on the receiving end of sexist comments during cross-fire. if you are explicitly degrading, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., i do not care about your arguments. i will drop you and/or tank your speaks. this is an activity where we are meant to be speaking up for the sake of progress, so we should all be courteous and respectful.

- please eat food at tournaments lmao.

please feel free to email me if you would like me to elaborate on my decision or if you need advice or anything (daryakavi@gmail.com).

Archbishop Mitty '17

UC Berkeley '21 (akaasht@berkeley.edu)

Mostly did Policy Debate in high school with some circuit experience my final year. Also spent time in Congress, Parli, and Extemp. No prior experience judging or competing in Circuit LD, but should be able to keep up with a little help from your end (i.e. sign post clearly, slow down on important points, keep the vocabulary relatively accessible (or define content well), and clearly outline voter issues)

Technicalities

- Collapsing towards the end of the debate is crucial. Extending/responding to a litany of small arguments is a poor use of time because it creates a messy debate that often forces me to intervene. Give me a clear narrative with fewer arguments and weigh them.

- Impacts: Always terminalize your impacts. I prefer concrete numbers that directly relate to your argument (1000 lives). If you are extending/weighing scalar impacts (i.e. x increases y by 20%) try to contextualize that percentage.

Evidence

- When possible, go beyond the numbers or statistics and provide analysis as to why the evidence points to what it does. This makes it easier to buy into arguments and evidence above and beyond the credibility of a citation.

Speaking

- My average is ~28.5. I assign speaker points primarily based on strategic decision making in round.

- I’m fine with speed, but if you're spreading I want a speech doc. That being said, clarity precludes speed; only go as fast as you can while speaking comprehensively.

- Signpost clearly, especially when responding to arguments.

- You will lose points if you are overly aggressive or rude.

Competition/Coaching History:

Competed in the Coast Forensics League for 4 years— mostly in league competition. I'm now an economics major at Stanford, interested in public policy and urban governance. I coach extemp part time at Mitty (CA). I've debated every event at some point, but have the most experience with public forum, parli, and policy.

Judging Philosophy:

- I'm very unfamiliar with this years topic, have only watched a handful of practice debates on it

- I personally don't like spreading & think it's bad for debate/the accessibility of the activity, but I am a flow judge and can follow spreading fine as long as tag lines are being properly emphasized.

- Tabula Rasa, so always give me a way to judge the round. That being said, I think impact calc (like actual math e.g. multiplying the magnitude by the probability of the impact) is utterly nonsensical. If I'm not given a framework on how to vote, I'll default to policy maker.

- I'm really enjoy K debate as long as the debater understands the theory behind the argument and why that theoretical framework is important. Don't run a Queer Theory K without understanding why Queer Theory is so important in the real world. Don't run K's just to win a debate— theory has relevant and personal meaning to real people. I respect debaters who respect that.

- I'm not super familiar with policy theory (condo, in-depth topicality, etc.), but am willing to vote on theory args if they're explained well

- I won't call for evidence unless the particular card has become a point of contention in round.