Tabroom.com

SD3

2020 — Discord, CA/US

Judge Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Krishna Ajjarapu Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu June 25, 2020 at 6:04 AM PDT

Feel free to email me at kajjarapu@gmail.com if you have any questions. Don't hold back because I know this paradigm doesn't include a ton of things.

LSD Camp - To join the video meeting, click this link: https://meet.google.com/brz-kkts-sah

TLDR -

1 - LARP

2 - Theory, T

3 - K

4/5 - Dense K's, Phil, Tricks

S - non-T affs

1) basically, just don't be a jerk. I really hate arguments that are designed to be difficult just so the opponent can't respond to it. Obviously, there's a difference between strategically prepping out your opponent and running something that's just super dense.

2) don't expect me to intervene to extend dropped arguments and highlight voter issues. In your last speech, be sure to emphasize these so that I understand that they're reasons to vote for you. If these aren't brought up, I won't vote off of them.

3) larp: I love it. Go for it. I even prefer it.

5) phil: I've never actually read any phil. I've read through cases of it and know basic phil such as polls or kant. If you're running basic phil that's easy to digest, just be sure to explain it a bit more. If you're running super dense phil that needs background knowledge, I might not be the judge for you.

6) kritiks: kritiks can be fun. I like them more than phil but my view on them is more or less the same. The only difference is that I've read K's in round so I can understand them much better.

7) trix: I don't know. I just don't like them. You can read them if you want, I'm not going to drop you for it, obviously. But they just seem tacky. Up to you though, I just don't like them.

8) theory: I really like theory debates, especially the fact that it separates the debate into substance and theory. Be sure to respond to everything in the shell. I think it's common sense that a CI isn't sufficient enough to win the theory debate. You need to respond to the theory shell itself as well.

9) Slow down on analytics or just put them on the speech doc and go as fast as you want.

10) Prep time ends when the speech doc is sent out.

Defaults: competing interps, epistemic confidence, drop the arg, no rvis

Siddharth Chattoraj Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 6, 2022 at 4:23 AM PDT

Hi! Yay! Believe! You are amazing! Smile!

Lynbrook ‘22 and Fr00t L00ps ‘22 and Sunshine ‘22 and Puffers Academy of Excellence '22

Send speech docs to the email below:

yeahsidc@gmail.com

Feel free to email me if you have any questions or want additional feedback!

I will vote on any argument, so please feel free to read anything you want!

I have done Lincoln-Douglas Debate for 4 years (both lay and circuit) and broken to numerous elimination rounds, taught LD/PF debate and impromptu speech, and have extensive experience in drama, theatre, and improv.

Quick Prefs (Based on how well I can adjudicate them. I don't give any argument preference over the other when I evaluate.)

1 - LARP, Theory, T, Theoretical Trix, Lay, Creative Stuff

2 - Phil, K, Performance, and Logic/Misc. Trix

4 - Super complex kritiks/phil when the entire debate is buzzwords

Strike - Not warranting/explaining your argument for the entire round

Weigh your arguments, please. It's good 4 u and happy and healthy for me.

I recommend you explain arguments as much as possible!

If you are going for an evidence ethics argument, please actually argue it (read it as a shell that people can respond to).

The choice to collapse your arguments is up to you—in some rounds that is the best strategy but in some rounds, it may be not.

I primarily read util policy-style arguments and theory with some theoretical tricks mixed in. I have also read phil occasionally and sometimes Ks. I have written and/or read unconventional arguments too (i.e. Unique Util Framing, Ubuntu AC, Animal Wipeout, Case outweighs theory, etc.) and find creativity inspiring. I also find performative offense fascinating and powerful. I think you can tackle any argument in any way, and am open to basically whatever you want to do.

If I'm judging you for speech events, I look for both your content and how you present the speech (emotion, speaking skills, articulation, physicality, etc.). I do flow your speeches so that I remember and can evaluate the content (63%), but at the same time, I will be analyzing your presentation (37%). I've noticed I tend to like unique speeches that spark a flutter of emotion within me. A little bit more about my background: I did drama for 7 years, held many leadership positions, and did improv theatre for 3 years. I've participated in plenty of musicals and plays as an actor, techie, organizer, and director. I've also taught impromptu speech the past three summers. Anyway, feel free to be creative—the structure you follow for your speech and the movement/emotion you portray is up to you, and the way you choose to structure a speech and move/show emotion throughout the round can affect its power. I will vote on any speech.

If you're uncomfortable at any time for whatever reason, please let me know so we can address it as per your wishes.

Junior Year Wikis (this was when I was most active): AFF = https://hsld20.debatecoaches.org/Lynbrook/Chattoraj%20Aff and NEG = https://hsld20.debatecoaches.org/Lynbrook/Chattoraj%20Neg though some arguments are not on there due to shady disclosure practices (but like I found the wiki really helpful as a debater lol so I kinda disclosed heavily to compensate). Disclosure norms for your round, like any other argument, are up to y'all. Explore! Have fun!

Speed: Probably 8.5-9/10. I'll follow along with your speech doc, but please still be clear. Analytics are appreciated. If you are extempting, articulate.

Speaks: Primarily based on both strategy and how well you spoke (could I understand you easily as you spread for example). Doing something new/inspiring/teaching me something gives you higher speaks. If your speaking/debating ability gives me goosebumps and chills, I will give you a 30 (so far I have had 3 opponents do this me while debating).

Have fun! You'll do amazing! Don't be scared. Whether you win or lose, you will learn! Now go shine like the shooting star you are!

Keshav Dandu Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 10, 2022 at 2:22 PM CDT

Lynbrook '21, UIUC '25

**I HAVENT JUDGED IN A LONG TIME PLEASE START A LITTLE SLOW**

Send docs to keshavdandu@gmail.com, whether or not you're spreading!

I think the most fundamental forms of disclosure are good, for example, the first three last three. Anything else is up to debate.

Conflicts: All of Lynbrook, West Ranch SV, Mission San Jose SR, Leland MN

Theory defaults: Reasonability with "gut check", No Rvi, DTA

I'm not a great judge for trad rounds. If you are hitting a novice just don't try hard.

I think I'll try to average 28.8 speaks, if you are at the level of a bidder I will probably give you a 29.2 or higher.

I mainly read K, Theory, and Phil and was pretty decent in terms of like results, Elim finishes, speaker awards, bid that kinda stuff.

I think I'm best for Phil v util and theory rounds, and worst for pure k v k (there are some exceptions) and dense larping.

Nearly everything about how I view debate is from Chris Wang (refer to his paradigm about tech issues and whatnot), with influence on specific things from Perry Beckett, Michael Harris, and Holden Bukowsky. (if you would pref any of them you can probably pref me). My favorite argument I read was my queer fabulation aff. The majority of my 1AR/2ARs as a senior were AFC or indexicals or a trick that did something similar, and most 2NR's were some shell or skep.

Read and go for whatever argument you want in front of me. I've tried nearly everything in terms of types of arguments from performance affs to tricks to util. Don't assume I have background knowledge in every argument but I will do my best to judge. I find k rounds with little explanation of the theory of power difficult to follow.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General guidelines:

- Debate's not about the judge, my preferences should not make you decide what you read.

- I will stop rounds if someone is uncomfortable.

- Prep ends after the doc is sent (I will be lenient).

- Tech>truth unless categorically false.

- No new responses to dropped arguments, dropped arguments need to be extended, impacted, and weighed to win. Not just repeated.

- Clipping, and evidence ethics are L 20s, clipping I will intervene if I catch it, evidence ethics should be called out or in most cases resolved in a shell or a reason to drop the card.

- I don't care if cx is treated as prep.

- Marked docs should be sent right after the speech, if it takes an excessive amount of time it'll come out of prep.

- Asking about what was read or said comes out of your prep.

- I'll disclose speaks if asked

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Specifics:

Larp

Pretty straightforward, read some framework or I'll default to not util. *FOR CAL: this will probably be a more larpy tournament, I should not be preffed very high if every round you have is larp v larp*

Phil

I have a decent grasp of Phil in the context of LD and outside. I would like actual Phil, not logcon and condo logic. I think other tricky stuff like skep that is a bit less trolly are actually quite interesting and enjoy these rounds. I feel like arguments like relativism are underutilized. I think modesty is silly and usually would hurt util more than it helps. I think well-structured Phil affs with offense that clearly affirms is one of the strongest positions.

K's are like cool, I know some literature not all. I'll be better for Deleuze, Baudrillard, warren, Hartman, genealogy, black nihilism, and puar than other stuff. I will still vote on arguments if they make some sense. Concrete examples and clearly knowing the lit will do wonders. When there is a ROB/ROJ please show why it's preclusive or why it doesn't need to be normative. K v K is incoherent a lot of times so if something makes more sense it'll probably win. I haven't touched anything related to K lit for a decent amount of time so I will be rusty on quite a bit of stuff here.

K affs v T

40/60 on K aff/fwk. I've read non t, topical k affs, and performance affs so I think a lot of T is easy to beat. I think I err on the side of fwk because I don't buy a lot of the claims from K affs either and generally, affs fall into this problem where it might come off as telling the judge to affirm their identity. You're probably reading this and thinking this isn't your aff, but if the round really gets like this I'm most likely negating. I think for the aff to win they should have a solid topic link and leverage that in the T debate along with impact turns, I meets, etc. The neg wins by proving the opposite. I think 2NRs need to still deal with case 90% of the time. Affs get away with a lot of nonsense if you don't deal with the 2-minute overview with 16 independent voters and 20 turns to T. I also would be willing to vote on a 2NR that is primarily on case instead of T.

Theory

I will vote on literally every shell, bad debating will hurt speaks not necessarily bad arguments. Set voters cuz my defaults are bad. Paragraph theory is fine, might need clearer signposting since I mainly did the big shell stuff. Weighing makes these rounds really easy, not weighing makes them a pain. In general, I enjoy well-done theory rounds with 1 shell more than rounds with 3 shallow shells that were 15 seconds of the 1NC and became 5 minutes of the 2NR.

Tricks

I personally like Phil tricks more than theory tricks, but a lot of Phil tricks are also poor logic so be careful, I will vote on these if they are won, impacted, extended, and weighed. If I don't get the trick I won't vote on it. "Eval after" tricks are bad cuz there are too many questions about how to evaluate them, so I will only use them for tiebreakers absent adequate judge instruction.

Feel free to contact me on Facebook before rounds, prefs were always tough for me.

Arnav Dixit Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue April 14, 2020 at 9:30 AM PDT

Lynbrook HS 22'

Hey I'm Arnav. Reach me at dixitarnav2@gmail.com for disclosure or if you have any questions about my paradigm.

TLDR:

1 - LARP

2 - T, Theory

3 - Stock Ks, Tricks

4 - Phil, Dense Ks

5 - Non-T Affs

Strike - Performance Affs

Long:

1) Don't go in round acting a jerk. Please don't make arguments that make the round inaccessible to your opponent or are just flat out offensive. Speaks will tank if you do this and I probably won't vote for you.

2) Tech over truth. However, I'm not going to vote on an argument that is outright offensive to your opponent. If you want to read death good in front of me, I'm fine with it.

3) Extend arguments properly. It's not good enough to just say "extend x disad" and move on. Warrant out your extensions and explain the implications it has. Otherwise, your extensions are useless and I don't know what to do with them.

4) PLEASE I ASK THAT YOU COLLAPSE IN THE 2N. It makes my life so much easier and the round becomes way more organized if I know which arguments to evaluate.

5) I'm fine with swearing in round. Just don't be offensive with it. Auto lose with 20 speaks if you are.

6) LARP: Love it. I've mostly run these types of arguments in my debate career.

7) Theory: I've grown to like theory over time. I'll vote off of any theory argument, even if it's friv. I'm pretty chill with theory. I default fairness>K if no weighing is done and if the framing debate's just bad.

8) Ks: I'm familiar with stock Ks and general lit. But if you're reading dense K lit, please explain it well. I'll be a pretty bad judge to have for K v K debates. Long overviews are bad. Spend more time responding to arguments.

9) Tricks: I used to hate these but I've grown to develop a small liking for these types of arguments. If these arguments have clear extensions, I'll buy them. They're pretty entertaining in my opinion. But don't use it to exclude other debaters.

10) Phil: The only phil I've read is kant and skep. I'm familiar with some other phil args too. I tend find phil arguments unpersuasive since I feel util is pretty responsive to bad phil frameworks.

11) Non-T Affs: I won't going to buy these. I'm not persuaded by these types of args and they just tend to make the round more disorganized for me. Don't run them.

12) Performance affs: Hate these. Don't run them in front of me.

13) Put all analytics you have pre-typed on the doc. If you start exempting in the 1AC, 1NC, and 1AR, I'll stop flowing.

14) I love line-by-lines. But don't think this lets you get away with not collapsing in later speeches.

15) I'll buy evidence ethics as a voter. However, if you're going for this and there is actually no evidence ethics violation, I'll have to drop you. Power-tagging is DTA and mistagging/miscutting is DTD.

16) Don't have a monotonous tone in round, or I'll get bored. I'll enjoy the round if you do too.

17) Prep ends when the doc is compiled - I'm lenient. However, if you're taking a long time sending the doc and can't prove to me that you're experiencing technical difficulties, I'll take prep from you and dock your speaks.

18) Yash Mishra, Krishna Ajjarapu, and Shreeram Modi snippets on the doc will give you +0.1 speaks.

Defaults: Comparative Worlds, Competing Interps, Epistemic Confidence, Drop the Debater, No RVIs

30: You're going to finals

29.9-29.5: Late elims

29.5-29.0: You're probably going to elims.

28.0-29.0: Average. You're alright.

27.0-28.0: There are issues with the strat you went with.

<26.9: You've done something that has annoyed me.

My pet peeves:

Saying "time starts now" at the beginning of your speech. Your speaks may tank if you do this - depending on my mood.

Saying "extend this across the flow." Speaks may also tank for this.

Addressing me as "judge," unless it's a lay round. If it's a lay round I'll be a little more lenient.

Interrupting your opponent in CX and just being a jerk in round.

Shaking my hand before round. Trust me, I don't want corona.

"Shit talking" your opponent or judge (me) behind my back. Auto-lose with 20 speaks if I see this. It's outright bad sportsmanship and you should know better.

Ben Freda-Eskenazi Pummer 15 School of Not-Extinction

Last changed on Tue April 26, 2022 at 8:09 AM PDT

*last updated April 12, 2021*

Hey all, I’m Ben (they/them), I go to Los Altos High School

Add me to the email chain benfe024@gmail.com

tech≥truth, I’ll avoid intervention as much as possible while still ensuring accessibility to the round.

1 - ks, phil

1.5 - policy

2 - t

3 - theory

4 - tricks and bad theory

idrc what you read and I like to think im flex - read wtv and win it.

don't be a pos tho

for reference here's my wiki - this is what I read, not necessarily what you should

aff

neg

for online debate

- record speeches locally and send after speech or round if theres a connection issue mid speech

- flash analytics

- send me music please I need smth to listen to

- get verbal confirmation from me before speeches that im ready

- don't worry about your camera - having it off is fine no questions asked

t/l

trad debater =/= don't read "prog" args or args u wanna read but does mean that you should try to be as accessible as you can while also staying within boundaries of what you want to do - however I trust your judgement as to what is accessible. Debate is your space, and what you read is up to you. Nobody, not even your opp, can change that.

on "death good" args: no <3. just no. benatar is fine *only* if read as a criticism of hedonic util, NOT as an advocacy - thats really what he's saying and is also just uh not repugnant

more to be added

Defaults:

truth testing (see the phil part for my thoughts on this), epistemic confidence, neg presumption, no RVIs, CIs > reasonability, fairness > education. that being said, my threshold for how heavily ill stick to these is incredibly low; say otherwise, and I'll follow.

If I cannot understand what you're saying I will yell "clear". If you haven't made any notable change in clarity after three times yelling clear, your speaks will die. Slow down for the last bit of the 2n/2ar, write my rfd for me.

judge instruction is really fuckin great.

cp/da:

tbh im a lot better for this than my wiki or what you know about me suggests

high level ev comparison is very cool. very.

the 2n collapse needs interaction w case or some level of clash w the 1ar direction of offense

Plans: have a solvency advocate lmao

Disads: clear uniqueness, links, and impacts. the more internal links necessary to complete the link chain, I'll have a higher threshold for the quality of each link. If it takes you that many steps to explain an internal link it's probably just not that true, or at least not as true as the aff.

Counterplans: have a net benefit - if ur cp only solves the aff but not a nb you need a disad or a really good offensive case push or just like,,, will lose. SA's are good, but if you can analytically prove that the cp is a good thing, impressive and acceptable. Infinite condo is a good thing. Process cp's probably true, but they should have some nuanced nb as to why this process of the aff is better.

analytic cps - are a thing.

perms are a test of competition omfl.

this is a work in progress!

Theory:

I'll let you know when I hear a good rvi warrant, hasn't happened yet :/

If you win yes RVIs, you still need to win the shell.

weigh standards

funny frivolous shell done well = +0.1 speaks

the 1ar should answer the 1nc standards not just read a ci

Phil:

some of my favorite rounds to evaluate. understand your syllogism, and probably more importantly, make me understand it too. "bindingness", "freedom", "lexical prereq" means nothing to me unless you actually explain it and why it concludes your framing. not sorry. idk about you but Kant's getting kinda boring. way too many affs spend most of their time developing the syllogism and straight up just don't have robust offense. thats sad. don't be like that. good 1ar pivots against the k = high speaks. if you can give a straight ref 1nc and win, 29 speaks minimum.

Does induction fail? dunno. im quite sure I knew last week but thats a past event so idt I can induce from that ://

read an "obscure" Phil author (not Kant, Hobbes, Rawls, Sartre etc you get the point) you get a .5 speaks boost

you should engage the util and da 1nc - actually answering things >>> consequences fail

truth testing doesn't filter out util and you should stop pretending it does

Ks:

yay. I’d like to think that I know a lot of the K lit, so I’ll most likely understand it, but no matter what you gotta explain it. Go for specific links.

stolen from Patrick Fox's paradigm bc I agree w this

- Neg blocks/2NRs vs policy affs should be highly organized, overviews kept to a minumum, and most explanation done on the lbl. Organizing your 2NC/1NRs to mirror the 2AC order is good. Link debate on the permutation, framework on framework, etc. Framework should be a model of debate, so "reps first" isn't really an argument. Links should be contextualized to disprove why I should vote for the aff (whether the aff is a policy or a research object - tell me which!), and should be impacted out to some sort of turns case or external piece of offense. Examples - lines from aff ev, references to CX, etc - do them. If I don't know what the alt does by the end of the 2NR my threshold for the 2AR goes way down. Impact framing and comparison is often forgotten in these debates, and should be present in the block/2NR. Floating PIKs should be set up explicitly in the block (LD: if it's not set up in the 1NC, the 2AR gets new responses - you don't have a block! When does it "float?"), and if I miss it, that's your fault for trying to cheat. 2NRs that go for the PIK that don't robustly explain what the PIK actually looks like tend to lose to the perm, so explicitly re-contextualizing the alternative is probably in your interest - the one policy panel I've sat on was because of this.

- K v K debates - stuff gets muddled very fast in these debates, so examples + organization + clear impacting out of arguments is the winning move. I could be convinced "no perms in a method debate" may be a good argument in the abstract, but it certainly doesn't rise to the level of one in most debates. Read Marxism at your own risk - perversions of the immortal and revolutionary science and revisionist nonsense like "socialism is when healthcare" or "talking about racism is neoliberal" will make me more annoyed and I'd rather you just go for framework than be an annoying socdem.

k-affs: should defend something. your jumping off point should probably be the topic but im open to stuff if not. 2ns should go for presumption more often

more from pat:

- K affs should defend a shift from the status quo to solve an impact - if I do not think this is the case by the end of the 2AR, I will err super heavily negative because, shockingly, affs should defend things. Presumption is underexploited by the negative, but most presumption args should be less about the ballot and more about solvency (or lack thereof). Explaining why debating your aff is valuable is crucial. Overviews are fine but as time goes on, returns diminish. Case debate is essential, and I'm pretty good for the impact turn - I think the aff should be able to explain to me what it does and why it's good, which means saying those things are actually bad is obvious fair game. Wanna restate - the less 2As defend the more annoyed I get.

K v fwk

I don't have a preference in these debates but I do believe in k specific impact turns to T. If you can prove that your model of debate is preferable to T then you win the fwk debate. I think 2ar's are more convincing on the impact turn than the counterinterp, but there are strategic 2ars which go for both or j counterinterp which are good.

Some Ks that I've read and/or I'm comfortable with them:

Baudrillard, cybernetics, security, poetry, D&G, gift, Foucalt, Lacan, ableism, Agamben, Bataille, grove

^explain it^

yo tf is up w the 5 line long k tags ?! stop it.

non-indigenous setcol, nonblack afropess, etc are dtd issues - this is not something I will fill in the gaps on myself, but my opinion and I am very open to 2ns/2ars that go for procedurals like these.

Tricks:

trix are still args and still need warrants. I'll probably be just as confused as your opponent if you collapse to one half a sentence in the middle of your underview. I guess I’m impartial to tricks.

I find that the good ol fwk rob spec tt analytic brain rot 1nc isnt the most compelling but is strategic.

hiding "evaluate after the ac" in a cite of a card isnt a good thing :)

Ev ethics: should be read as a shell - allows for deliberation over it as well as opportunities to actually set norms. much better than a procedural which leaves me w a half explained ev violation and no idea how to decide anything. go read Holden Bukowsky's paradigm for more on this.

RFDs

please post round me talking about debate is fun

don't do it w the intent to be angry tho lol

Some things to get higher speaks:

-Signposting is always good.

-give content warnings!!!!!!! (but not when you don't need one obvs)

-Taking proper prep-time. That’ll make me happy.

-keeping the theory debate clear

-if you have some time left in the 2n (or 2ar) I appreciate if you either go back and keep extending offense, as long as it isnt just a repeat of the first half of the 2n, or slow down, give a lbl and tell me how I should be voting on this round. Slowing down and sequencing should be done more.

-pictures of pets in speech docs

-good 2ns on marxism

-music references

-from pat: Before the debate, both teams/debaters can give me recommendations for a song/s to listen to during prep time, which I will do, and if I vibe with it I may bump speaks.

Some things to get lower speaks:

-making arguments in cx. If you spend 20 seconds making an argument and then you say "what do you have to say to that?", I'll roll my eyes and yawn.

-obviously, evidence ethics are important, so maintain them please. heavy evidence ethics (if proven) is an L20

-be nice to people. cmon.

some other stuff, and pet peeves:

Call me whatever you want, but be consistent I guess. I don't really mind, but if you'd like you can call me my name (Ben!), "judge" "dude", whatever you want.

Explain your cards- "extinction" isn't a good tag. "this causes extinction by..." is a good tag.

Make all the references you'd like, you do you.

You may not concede your remaining cx time to prep time. if you have 20 seconds left of cx, either ask a question, or stop the timer and start your prep.

Anyhoo, just have fun.

obligatory:

Policy--------------------------------X-------------K

K/Policy----------X-----------------------------------Theory/Phil

States CP good----------X------------------------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing-X----------------------------Politics DA not a thing

UQ matters most---------------X-----------------Link matters most

Fairness is a thing------X-------------------------Delgado 92

Fairness is an Impact-------------------------X------Fairness is an Internal Link

Try or die---------X--------------------------------What's the opposite of try or die

Clarity--X-------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits-------------------------X---------------------Aff ground

Presumption----X----------------------------------Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face---------------------------X-Grumpy face is your fault

Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev

Fiat solves circumvention-----------------------X-Can't fiat enforcement if not in the res

CX about impacts-----------------------------X---CX about links and solvency

Fiat double-bind--------------------------X----------------literally any other arg

1AR should be a card wall-------X--------------------------------------No 1AR cards

(LD) 2NR should be a card wall---------------X-------------------------------No 2NR cards

Memes in speech doc--X-------------------------------------------I'm a boomer and wouldn't appreciate these

CEDA--------------------------------X--------------------------------NDT

Harvard------------------------------------------------------X--Berkeley

good transparent a prioris and clear tricks -x------------------------- what's an a priori?

Rawls------------------------------X-Literally anything else in existence

Sending Analytics in 1ar/2nr-X------------------------------"I don't want to send"

Five 1AR shells-------------------X------------huh,,, just,,, don't do that.

Aakash Gupta Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 25, 2023 at 10:47 AM PDT

Lynrbook 22

Debated circuit LD for 3 years at Lynbrook. Also did a good amount of traditional debate.

Add me on the email chain: gupta.aakash@gmail.com

---Circuit LD---

1 - LARP

2 - T, Theory, Phil, Trix

3 - Stock K's (Cap K, security, etc.)

4-5 - Other K's

LARP --

This was mostly what I did on aff and a decent amount on neg for most of my debate years. As a debater, I thought case debate was overrated since I would rather just moot all my opponent's offense with NC's and CP's, but they can make debates more interesting.

Intrinsic disad perms are really cool imo (though you probably shouldn't lose to theory). Intrinsic perms in general are really cool I guess.

T/Theory --

People should probably spend more time on paradigm issues. Reasonability + DTA is underrated, but I don't lean one way or another.

I default competing interps, DTD, no RVI's.

Phil --

I probably don't know the lit, so you should be able to explain it and how offense operates under it. Please have an impact calc section that explains how offense operates underneath your fw. Your opponent shouldn't need cx to understand your NC (even if it is a common one).

You guys do realize there are more arguments you can make against consequentialism other than sketchy calc indicts, right?

Trix --

I like logic trix (trivialism triggers, etc.) and phil trix. Fine with burden tricks. Dislike theory tricks since they often lack actual developed warrants.

Don't hide tricks within arguments. Every new argument should start on a new line in the 1AC and 1NC or your speaks won't be good.

All arguments need a clear claim, warrant, and implication.

K's --

I read a few kritiks but almost never went for them.

Aff-leaning on framework. I am more inclined to believe that debates should center around the resolution instead of traversing random fantasies.

Most kritik cards just assert a theory of power but lack any warrants for why the theory of power is accurate.

Stop using buzzwords and explain your theory of power coherently in the speech it is given. I'm not going to vote for arguments I don't understand in the speech it was given.

Michael Harris Hire 8 rounds

Allison Hsu Hire 8 rounds

Aaryan Kainth Hire 4 rounds

Sidharth Kannan Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 30, 2020 at 8:11 AM PDT

sid.kannan11@gmail.com

TLDR: Run whatever you want. Creative arguments are always appreciated and significantly more fun to listen to than hearing your stock aff for the fifteenth time. I'll listen to whatever you say and vote off anything you read, no matter how progressive or stupid or out there it is. I have experience on reading LARP, K, Theory, Tricks, and Phil.

Any "generally think" thing in the paradigm is up for debate, just there so you understand where I stand as a debater/judge.

1. LARP: yes go for it, I read it, I like it

Generally think that under 3 condo is fine. I will listen to and evaluate more than that and will not drop speaks for reading 17 condo, but the more condo args there are, the more I believe the shell and the lower my threshold for responses will tend to be.

PICs: yea ok, but the more ground you steal the more I tend to think its abusive.

Plans are good! Obviously they aren't necessary, especially not for phil or K affs but if you're neg strat is plans bad, my threshold for responses will be pretty low.

otherwise, I enjoy a well formed Politics DA, I enjoy your creative CP's and I enjoy specific plans.

2. Theory:

a bad theory debate is INSANELY boring to watch and listen to and your speaks will reflect that.

Friv theory is fine, but pls do make it fun to watch. If the shell is ridiculous and funny, and your responses are ridiculous and funny I will give you both 30's cuz you probably made my day. The more frivolous the shell, the more likely I am to buy the reasonability args

Stock shells:

ok sure

Weird shells:

love to hear it

Defaults: Competing interps, No RVI's

on the RVI: I default no RVI's because I had to put something. If you make an argument for an RVI, I'm not hard to win it in front of.

3. T

look at theory for defaults

I don't like the Nebel shell against a stock aff

I'm ok with the T vs K aff

4. Phil

Read it, love it

5. K's

read them, love them

Familiar with most authors, but that doesn't mean I'll hack for you.

I will hold you to a high standard of explanation

I do like the giant 2nr overview that line by lines the aff and uplayers out of all their offense.

6. Trix

see friv theory section.

Have fun, the more fun you're having the more fun I'll have

Ayush Mishra Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 26, 2021 at 1:28 PM PDT

Debated circuit LD for 3 years at Lynbrook. Also did a good amount of traditional debate. Did a bit of PF in middle school but I honestly don't remember any of it.

Add me on the email chain: mishraayush247@gmail.com

---Traditional LD---

1] Tech > truth, but I will definetly gut check really sus arguments if I hear any.

2] I won't vote on new 2AR arguments.

3] Collapse to a few arguments by the end of the debate, and give me reasons why those arguments matter more than your opponents.

4] If you are a circuit debater at a non-circuit tournament, don't start spreading on some random trad kid. If you do, your speaks will look depressing.

---Circuit LD---

1 - LARP

2 - T, Theory, Phil, Trix

3 - Stock K's (Cap K, security, etc.)

4-5 - Other K's

LARP --

Intrinsic disad perms are really cool imo (though you probably shouldn't lose to theory). Intrinsic perms in general are really cool I guess.

T/Theory --

People should probably spend more time on paradigm issues. Reasonability + DTA is underrated, but I don't lean one way or another.

I default competing interps, DTD, no RVI's.

Phil --

You guys do realize there are more arguments you can make against consequentialism other than sketchy calc indicts, right?

Trix --

Lmao

I like logic trix (trivialism triggers, etc.) and phil trix. Fine with burden tricks. Dislike theory tricks since they often lack actual developed warrants.

Don't hide tricks within arguments. Every new argument should start on a new line in the 1AC and 1NC or your speaks won't be good.

All arguments need a clear claim, warrant, and implication.

K's --

I read a few kritiks but almost never went for them.

Aff-leaning on framework. I am more inclined to believe that debates should center around the resolution instead of traversing random fantasies.

Most kritik cards just assert a theory of power but lack any warrants for why the theory of power is accurate.

Stop using buzzwords and explain your theory of power coherently in the speech it is given. I'm not going to vote for arguments I don't understand in the speech it was given.

---Public Forum---

If it is a lay tournament, I will treat it as a trad LD round and judge accordingly.

Yash Mishra Hire 8 rounds

Shreeram Modi Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 18, 2024 at 3:47 PM EDT

Shreeram Modi (he/him)

Lynbrook '22, currently at NYU.

I'd like to be on the chain:

– [all rounds]: my personal email (ask before round)

– [high school LD]: lynbrooklddisclosure@gmail.com

You can find my full judging record here.

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 the form of the activity 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.

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.

– 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.

– Politics DA – It's a thing.

– "No war ever" probably not the correct move to frame out DAs. Prefer indicts of util or epistemology.

– 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.

– Tricks vs Tricks easily becomes irresolvable – I have never been in the back of one of these rounds, and likely do not want to be. Unless you can make really smart cross-applications or set up large-scale framing issues well, you will not like the RFD.

– 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.

Sidhant Rajadnya Hire 8 rounds

Achintya Rajan Hire 8 rounds

Shrey Raju Hire 8 rounds

Yesh Rao Thats Pummer 15

Last changed on Tue January 30, 2024 at 10:25 PM EDT

hi! im yesh

sophomore at san mateo class of 24! i qualled to the TOC in LD both years if its relevant

updated for middle school toc

yeshraofc@gmail.com for the chain although i prefer speech drop

read anything! i've gone for / debated against everything and think i won't be predisposed to any particular style of arguments

Policy Arguments: I'm good for these! impact calculus wins rounds, the 2nr should answer the aff and win either a substantial risk of cp solvency with at least some risk of a disad, or a large risk of a disad with small risk of the aff. Impact calculus should be the top of the 2nr, turns case arguments are underutilized and win rounds. Limited intrisicness is almost always arbitrary. Theoretical objections to most counterplans could better be read as perms/cp competition arguments but I'm okay listening to them as theory arguments too. I'll judge kick the counterplan if you tell me to and any 2ar reason I shouldn't might not be the best time investment but up to you

Theory: Also good for this! The 2ar/2nr on theory should spend the vast majority of your time doing internal link comparison and weigh between standards. I think weighing between voters like fairness and education is less persuasive, most standards have internals to both and are more nuanced. I'm good for 1ar shells but I do think they should have some development in the 1ar to be a complete argument. I default competing interps, drop the argument, and no rvi's. These are changed with arguments in the contrary but it's just to have a standardized way to think about rounds.

Phil: Probably the thing I've gone for least but one of the things I wish more people went for! I understand Kant, Hobbes, and Prag to an extent. I'd love to see you go for anything else but I'd suggest assuming that I don't understand it and go from there. I usually read util affs but I've also read/gone for kant and prag so I'm good for both sides of that debate in most instances!

Kritiks: I think I'm a lot better for this than my argumentative history may suggest but admittedly I don't know about most literature bases. I'd love to hear a good 2nr on any kritik or a k aff and won't be ideologically opposed to it in any way. I would like if the 1nc includes a framework block because LD makes the weigh case debate very very muddled if late breaking.

Non T Affs: I have gone for these a few times and think I'm okay for them. I'm better for impact turns to framework / reasons abdicating the resolution is valuable OVER defense to negative offense and less true I meet's. I've gone for 2NRs on both limits/fairness and skills but I think skills is more persuasive for me.

Speaks: I average a 28.5, and will go up/down from there. Speaks are based on strategic choices and persuasion. To get higher speaks, be nice in cx and make rounds easier to evaluate!

Email me if you have any other questions!

Soohyuk Yoon Hire 8 rounds

Login to Tabroom

SD3

2020 — Discord, CA/US

Judge Paradigm List

Judges