I am normally speech so I'm a lay judge for debate. Don't run K's!!!

add me to your email chains ananyabadari@gmail.com

i've been debating public forum all four years of high school. tech > truth unless you say something actually out of pocket. be civil. there's a difference between being assertive and being aggressive. we are not policy so do not spread. given that, some speed is okay. you must frontline in second rebuttal. no new information from second summary onwards. i'll try my best to give line by line rfd's but that can only happen if you signpost, give me the order, extend, etc. please weigh or i'll be sad.

please give trigger warnings (anonymous google forms are best) for sensitive topics and overall, be respectful. that (and round strategy + flow of speeches) is what i base speaker points off of.

read anthara thirupathi's paradigm for more information. we basically look for the same things.

Email chain: eric.boxuan.gao@gmail.com

Stanford '25

Debated 3 years of Policy at Kudos, 4 years at Northwood. Have done all speaker roles at some point, mainly was a 2N/1A.

I've gone for both policy and kritikal arguments.

K affs should be at least related to the topic.

You should be timing yourself. I will stop flowing if your time goes too over.

CP/DA

Have ev comparison - this is usually the fastest way to win debates.

Explain why your cards being true means their theory is wrong.

A DA by itself can win a debate, as long as there's sufficient turns/solves case analysis.

T/Theory

Treat it like a disad - compare standards and weigh them against one another.

I'm not against voting for theory, as long as it's debated well. I personally kicked the aff to go for theory a bit more times than I should have.

Kritiks

K's I've gone for: Lacan, Cap, Security, Berlant, Puar (in that order of familiarity)

When going for the K, the most important thing is to have specific analysis regarding the aff. In a k debate, the team that talks about the AFF more wins.

Tie your story together, instead of just "aff is like [x concept] and [y concept] is bad".

PLEASE EXTEND YOUR IMPACTS.

I've seen too many debates that are much closer than they should be because of a lack of extended impacts. The best link story without impacting it out is ultimately still not a reason to vote for your side.

I appreciate strategic argumentation instead of reading blocks - if they drop a turn, go for it instead of some other piece of defense.

I am a debate coach, so I have experience being around debaters, but I do not have a background in formal competitive debate. I generally do not understand debate jargon, hyper-specialized vocabulary, and acronyms that are often associated with circuit and higher-level debate. Please make sure you clarify terms and definitions early if you intend to use them.

I believe a judge has a duty to write down the most important points of your argument in order to assess its logic after the round. Because of this, I appreciate arguments that are clearly laid out and organized so I can flow them.

(IN PROGRESS)

Have some experience in judging policy.

I'm fine with everything except for Kritiks.

Please go slow and make sure to be clear.