I’ve debated a mix of public forum and parli in high school and have judged PF and policy(not recently tho so explain everything pls ty) for a long, long time. I major in cs and econ so you would benefit from bringing up methodology for your evidence. I'm tired of hearing endless statistics spewed at me. If you do not explain why your numbers are true, I will not grant you the statistic. I don't care what evidence is there, I care about the causal reasons for why the world works the way it does. Warrants are better than just a statistic. So please warrant.

At National Tournaments: please flash or email chain your case cards to me and your opponents.

saiftali@berkeley.edu

In PF I value truth >= tech and am neither a tabula-rasa judge nor a traditional judge. As long as the opposing team agrees before round, read whatever you want. In CX I am tabula-rasa.

I am impartial to speed but will say "Clear" if it is difficult to understand. If yk it's going to be fast make sure to let me know.

Summaries:Unless the rebuttal is a stomp, the round is usually determined in summary. I do not extend anything for you. Second summary needs to extend defense if they want it in FF. All offense arguments in FF must have already been in Summary. No need to extend cards for impacts in Summaries, but you must weigh. I like line-by-line. I will grant sticky defense in first summary, unless it’s terminal.

Citing Cards: I care tremendously about the source's credibility, so stop saying just the last name. I'd rather hear the affiliated organization or academic journal the study was published in. If you aren't reading a peer-reviewed study from a journal, government agency, or educational institution, I'm probably not writing that card down.I don't mind paraphrasing, but you leave the interpretation up to me. I will call cards out of interest.

Calling Cards:If you argue over the specifics of a piece of evidence, you're wasting time in the debate. Call the card, say the indictment in a speech and request that I call the card myself. After this is mentioned, the evidence should not be contested anymore in the round and I will consider it credible until I have looked over it after the round and decided for myself on the relevance of the evidence. In addition, unless you specify, I will choose whether the indict drops the argument, evidence, or team. Telling me how to vote off of subtleties in evidence makes it so much easier for me.

If a card is called during the round, please don’t prep until the other team receives the card. If you're giving the evidence, please don't stand by your opponents' desk awkwardly...j chill.

Please time yourself and use the honor system. Please don’t communicate with anyone outside the round or spread without letting everyone else know before the round.

I will disclose after round with an RFD if time allows. I can give individual feedback as well after the round by email or if you track me down.

Less serious stuff:

I want to hear more one-liners than a Marvel movie.

If you read a turn, bonus speaks if you physically turn around during the speech.

If you define every word in a resolution, your speaks will drop by the number of words in the resolution.

Bonus speaks if you show off mental math and it's correct.

I'm down to hear meme cases if you know you're not advancing to out-rounds. The danker the better.

Yes, put me on the email chain: rajgodse@gmail.com.

Short version: Don’t adapt too much to me. Do what you do best and I’ll adjudicate it. Full speed is fine as long as every syllable is clear. Frame and weigh your offense and write my ballot.

For PF/LD: I am a flow judge who will evaluate theory. Speed and “non-traditional” arguments are welcome but certainly not expected.

For Policy: I was a 2N/1A who started as a K debater and moved towards policy arguments in my last two years. I debated from 2016-2020. I don't debate anymore, and study Computer Science and Math.

I am pretty agnostic about most issues and can be persuaded of most things. That being said, here is a shortlist of my biggest predispositions:

1) I lean Neg on most (CP) theory issues. This includes me strongly believing infinite conditionality is good. In general, non-T theory is rarely a reason to reject the team.

2) For T (vs. a plan), I default to competing interps and evaluate T like a DA.

3) I'm probably familiar with your K lit. But it's still 100% your burden to explain it in the context of the round like I didn't. The relevant part is that you can assume I'm familiar with the project of critical theory.

4) I've been on both sides of framework debates. Framework is not genocide, rape, etc. Your K Aff is offense against framework most of the time. Competitive activities should probably have procedurally fair adjudication.

5) Default to yes perms in a method debate, but K v K often leads to complex interactions that I'm fine throwing that out the window for.

Flow

Include me on the email chain

I'm a former national/toc pf competitor for four years. I'll be able to keep up with speed so feel free to spread. These are my main points:

Generally tech>truth

I'm a flow judge and I want to see you actually debate. It doesn't matter what I think. However if an argument is blatantly offensive or blatantly misconstrued, it will be dropped. Also, anything new brought up in second summary and onward will not be factored into my decision. Case warrants need to be extended. Defense front lined in second rebuttal.I will pay attention to crossx but I don't flow it, so please remain respectful throughout cross. I'll vote on anything, including prog that isn't harmful towards the debate space.

Logic Analytics

I will flow logic arguments. I don't need a card for everything, but if your argument requires evidence, you obviously have to have a tag.

Prog

Theory should be used to check abuse. The bar to respond to frivolous theory is low. I generally support disclosure and the reading of cut cards (these are the shells I have experience reading), although this doesn't mean I'm a hack for disclosure/para shells. I would rather not watch you read theory against a local circuit team or a team you are clearly technically superior to.

I don't think public forum is the ideal format for Kritiks because speech times are too short. I'll still do my best to evaluate them.

Weighing

In close rounds, weighing is what will win you the debate. If you don't tell me why you're argument matters more than your opponents, I can't vote on it.

Technicalities

I will vote for the team with the best link into the best-weighed impact.

Frontline in second rebuttal. Any argument not responded to in second rebuttal is considered dropped.

Defense isn’t sticky. If you want to talk about it in final focus, it should be in summary.

Collapse to one uniqueness argument, one link, and one impact. There are exceptions to this rule but generally going for fewer arguments while warranting them out more is a better strategy.

Similarly, choose 1-2 best arguments on their side to collapse on. Warrant the argument, respond to frontlines, and explain why it means you win the argument.

Comparative weighing is super important. If you win the weighing and have a risk of offense, I’ll almost certainly vote for you. Meta-weighing is necessary if you and your opponent are using two different weighing mechanisms.

I did PF in high school for 4 years (2015-2019)

Few notes:

• Read whatever you want. You can read progressive arguments. Fair warning, I haven't run or judged many progressive arguments. However, as long as your argument is well warranted and clearly explained, shouldn't be a problem.
• If you plan on going over 200 WPM, please create an email chain and send the competitors and I a speech doc (sidmittal2001@gmail.com). Spread at your own risk, I might not be able to keep up with you.
• Sticky defense for first summary (unless it's terminal, then it needs to be in speech)
• All offense (including cards, warranting, and impacts) must be in both summary and FF if you want me to evaluate it
• Please weigh clearly and provide good contextualization, it makes my job as a judge much easier
• Don't waste too much time arguing over evidence. If you read an indict, explain your rationale and just ask me to call the card and I'll circle it on my flow.