Last changed on
Fri April 26, 2024 at 5:24 PM EDT
Shreeram Modi (he/him)
Lynbrook '22, currently at NYU.
I'd like to be on the chain, ask for my email before the round if you don't have it.
You can find my full judging record here.
As middle of the road in clash rounds as Will Baker, flow-centric as Vikram Saigal, inverse time spent thinking about the K vs about Policy as Om Modi, and the rest isjust the opposite of Eugene Toth.
TL;DR
– I am tech over truth – I find that any line a judge will draw to exclude "silly" arguments, arguments too "generic" to supposedly rejoin the aff, or burdens for a position to be "substantive" enough are all arbitrary and thus I choose to not draw them. The only exception to this is the 2AR, where I will protect the 2NR from new arguments that could not have been expected from what was in the 1AR. Truth influences tech to the extent that a profoundly untrue claim will require a higher burden of execution to win when contested, but contestation is required for me to question the validity of an argument.
– I care much less about form than most – Fully open cross-ex, flex prep, taking cross-ex as prep, etc. are almost always fine with me. Your time is your time and you can do with it whatever you feel will maximize your chances of winning. The only thing that is set in stone is the number of speeches you have and your speech time, which you may not extend.
– To decide a round, I'll look for what the final rebuttals have told me are the key issues and attempt to resolve them in favor of one side or another, working through all such issues until there is a sufficient win condition for one team. The above statement about tech and truth doesn't mean that your final rebuttals should be blips of arguments, but rather that by this point in the debate there should be enough clash on key issues that you need to debate out. I have read arguments across the spectrum and only feel uncomfortable evaluating the following debates: phil vs phil, tricks vs tricks, K vs high theory K, dense CP competition.
K on the Neg
– LDers are often missing core parts of the debate – The K can be a powerful tool but requires technical execution of multiple different parts. Read your framework interp in the 1NC if the K is a core part of your strategy; you will probably lose if your K relies on it and you start your side of that debate in the 2NR. You will probably lose if you don't read a perm block. You will probably lose if you don't get to case in the 2NR. Similarly, affs need adequate coverage on all these parts or risk case getting zapped by a smart 2NR.
– Neg framework interps are often unclear – explain to me exactly how/what parts of the aff I should evaluate, just saying "the aff is an onto-epistemological investment"and asserting they don't get the plan doesn't get you anywhere.
– Examples are key – "In-depth knowledge of your theory is not a substitute for historical examples. Tailor your offense to specific lines from your opponents' evidence instead of relying on jargon. If I cannot explain the K in your words after the round or articulate how it solves, I will likely presume for the other team." –Nick Tilmes
– Don't forget about your 1AC – "Long framing contentions in the 1AC which don't get extended into later speeches and 2ACs that include every generic K answer are disappointing to watch and a blow to your credibility." –Nick Tilmes
K on the Aff
– Don't forget about your 1AC – When the 1AC spends a lot of time justifying a broad-sweeping claim of the world and their first response to the politics DA is "Biden wins now," you have just lost all your credibility. Responses to off-case positions, including DAs/CPs, should leverage your 1AC. Otherwise, you are better suited just reading a policy aff.
– Agnostic about what T impact you go for – I have only ever gone for clash, but know the fairness 2NR can be strategic and has its place. Go for whatever you want.
– Recycled T blocks are boring – It's obvious when you have barely changed your T blocks in the context of the aff, and these rounds not only become incredibly boring, but incredibly winnable for the aff if they invest that time into argument specificity.
– 1NCs vs K affs should be bigger – Frame subtraction, impact turns, DAs to test whether they'll defend the topic, etc. can be very strategic.
CP
– Judge kick – It's good, but has to be on my flow by the 2NR.
– Prefer competition debates over theory since the latter usually presumes that you've won the counterplan isn't competitive.
– Better than most for process – see stuff at the top about tech > truth.
DA
– Politics DA – It's a thing.
– "No war ever" probably not the correct move to frame out DAs. Prefer indicts of util or epistemology.
T
– I have not thought about the LD topic at all. Don't know what people agree "WA" or "NA" is or what counts as military presence. Explain your stuff.
– T 2NRs that win usually explain to me a vision of what the topic looks like and give me things like examples of topical/non-topical affs, caselists of arguments they lose, and reasons why the aff's specific plan leads to that abuse.
– The more cards the better.
Phil & Tricks
– Prefer logic tricks with actual warrants to the same recycled theory spikes.
– I am very comfortable giving an RFD of "I did not catch that argument" which means you should slow down in these debates or have your warrants be longer than 3 words.
– LD judges are too trigger-happy to vote for tricks – Yes, tech over truth, but if you are going for Curry's Paradox ("Condo Logic" is NOT the name of the argument) and can not explain to me what exactly I'm voting for, but just assert a bunch of formal logic in my face, you will lose and the RFD will be "I don't have a coherent warrant flowed."
Misc
– Debaters should be flowing – You don't need to flash analytics, doing so is a courtesy but not necessary. Similarly, there is no flow clarification slot in debate; cards should be marked orally but you do not need to specify which cards/arguments you did or did not read. Ask for a version of the doc without the cards not read and I will ask that you start cross-ex or prep.
– Speaker Points – they are mine, not yours; I will not evaluate speaker point theory. The logical conclusion of evaluating this genre of arguments is that everyone reads and agrees to speaks theory at which point they serve no purpose.
– I do not feel comfortable adjudicating call outs, events that occurred outside the debate that I did not witness, arguments related to prefs (or in that genre). Y'all are high schoolers and it is not my business.
Public Forum:
NOTE: I don't know what compels PF debaters to immediately start speeches without verbal confirmation that everyone in the room is ready. If you don't ask me whether I am ready for your speech and just immediately begin talking, I will miss arguments you make and you will not have the opportunity to restart your speech.
Although the majority of my experience in debate has been on the national circuit, once upon a time I did trad debate too so if that's your jam feel free. I don't care about the content of your argument so long as you can present it coherently. What this means is that given PF's speech times, it's maybe not the best idea to pull your varsity policy team's backfile Baudrillard K but rather to read arguments you're comfortable with, while upping your tech.
That being said, I find some of the norms in the PF community either unproductive or exhausting. I would very strongly prefer that all the cards you read are sent out in a word doc to an email chain before your speech rather than wasting time "calling for" cards during prep. I strongly believe that paraphrasing is a terrible norm for any academic activity and as such will treat any paraphrased evidence with the same weight as an analytic.
It seems logical to me that arguments must be referenced in next speeches for them to count, and must be responded to in your next speech to not be considered dropped. I.e. the second rebuttal must frontline case, summary speeches must extend frontlines and rebuttals, etc.
Any other norms I am either unaware of or agnostic about, feel free to ask before the round but chances are I will defer to the consensus between you and your opponents. This also means that PF vocab (e.g. "defense is sticky") means nothing to me.
