👋 My name is Sudhan Chitgopkar and I'm a judge for Ivy Bridge Academy, River Trail Middle School, and South Forsyth High School. I've also coached and led the South Forsyth High School Debate Team (2017-2019) as well as coached for Ivy Bridge Academy (2018-2019). I'm currently a student at the University of Georgia.

As a PF Debater for the last 6 years, here's my ideology for judging rounds as well as some general preferences:

[1] Stock/run-of-the-mill arguments are boring. While I won't penalize stock args, I prefer to see unique ones.

[2] Extend arguments you want me to vote on. If I vote on it, it has to be in final focus. If it's in final focus, it has to be in summary. I want to see extension of both defense and offense in the summary speech by both teams.

[3] Framework drives the debate. I like seeing framework debate and I use a well-extended framework as the most important thing to weigh the arguments in a given round. Failure to give me a framework means I revert back to Util CBA.

[4] Having cut cards ready is important to me. If I hear a piece of evidence that's either too good to be true or is heavily debated through the round I will call for it. If it can't be provided, the team that claimed to have the evidence will be docked significant speaker points and I will disregard all arguments that are dependent on the card. I also believe that card-organization speaks to team preparedness. Being able to present a called-for card quickly will increase your speaks. Taking too long will drop your speaks.

[5] Be independent/responsible through the debate. Keep your own speech and prep time, let me know when you start/stop prep, don't go over the time limit, etc.

[6] Be polite but passionate. Don't get into a shouting match with your opponents but show that you care about the debate and what you're arguing for. Without this, the debate gets very boring very quickly.

[7] Read my paradigm. Proactively reading paradigms is important and shows that you are responsible and care about the debate. If you let me know before the round that you read my paradigm I'll probably bump your speaker points a bit.

[8] I don't like seeing K's in PF Debate. I will vote on them if I have to, but I really don't want to.

[9] I never evaluate terminal defense when it comes from spreading on the neg during second constructive. I view this act as abusive and will drop your speaks accordingly.

[10] Edit starting Dec 2019: I am no longer keeping up with resolutions in the PF community and their corresponding arguments. Please do not assume that I will automatically know any abbreviations and technical, resolution-related terminology for any topics hereafter.

[11] Edit for Zoom rounds: Speech docs make my life significantly easier and will help you make sure all your most important cards are on the flow. Ask me about my contact details for this in round

Social

Follow me anywhere :)

[Instagram] not.sudhan

[LinkedIn] sudhan.chitgopkar

[Spotify] sudhan.chitgopkar

[Website] sudhanchitgopkar.com

Hey! The number one thing for me is I want everyone to have a good time debating. To make sure this happens here are a couple things I want everyone to do

1. Please be respectful to everyone
2. Wait for people to speak. Do not cut them off. If they are talking too long, it is okay to ask to speak but this shouldn’t be something you do very often.

Experience: This is my first time judging at a national competition. I was a PF debater in middle and high school but I haven’t debated in a while.

I understand a lot of jargon but may not be familiar with any new rules that may have come up. So feel free to let me know if I’m getting a timing wrong or something.

Knowledge on topic: I haven’t done any research on this topic so it will be more helpful for you to explain things rather than assume I understand a specific nuance related to this topic

Speaking: Please speak slowly so I can flow everything you are saying. I prefer clarity over speed. Before every speech, please give me an offtime road map to help with my flowing.

Additional notes: I will flow the speeches but not crossfire. However, I will listen to the crossfire for clarification of arguments or other things as they come necessary. Do not introduce new arguments into final focus. I will not consider them.

If you could send me your speech docs to dasomdasom920@gmail.com, it would help me with flowing. Completely not necessary but would definitely help me!

Hello,

Good luck in the round.

Please send me your speech docs to dasomi04@gmail.com

Just a little bit about me. In terms of background, I debated PF in high school. I am okay with speed, but please do not sacrifice clarity for speed. I will flow every speech, but not crossfire. If an interesting point is brought up in crossfire, please bring it up in your other speeches or it will not be relevant to the debate.

I prefer quantifiable impacts and that you weigh impacts. Why does your impact matter more than your opponents?

For clarity, I prefer an off time roadmap before your speech, and sign posts during your speech.

And finally, please do not introduce new arguments during final focus. I will not count them. Make sure to extend your arguments into the final focus.

I am an assistant director to Ivy Bridge Academy, and I started out as a novice Debate Coach. I understand the structure of the debate and terms, but you should explain the case to me as a Lay Judge.

I do not tolerate personal attacks, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or bullying.Please be respectful of your opponents and me as a judge. If you have an issue you should contact your coach.

For your cases, I value impacts and weighing, as well as clarity. Enunciate your words and speak in a moderate speed as to be heard clearly.

I will keep track of time and flow on my own, but you should be timing yourselves and reaching the time limit.

Speaker Points

26-26.9-You fell short of the time, you were unclear or I could not understand your case at all.

27-28-I couldn't understand the concepts in your case fully, you did not work well with your partner.

28.1-29-You did a good job and were understood, with clear concepts. You could develop your case further or be more persuasive.

29.1-30-I couldn't give anymore feedback, and your case was either near, or absolutely flawless.

I will give personalized feedback as necessary, verbally and over tabroom.

I have primarily debate PF. I debated for Lambert High School for 2 years, and I have overall 3 years of PF experience.

Add me on the email chain jasonme02@gmail.com

If you are going to read an argument about a sensitive topic, please include a content warning (Trigger Warning). Be prepared to give an alternative case if a team does opt-out. Trigger warnings are extremely serious.

- Cross will not impact my evaluation of the round. However Cross is very underrated. Try and get concessions and try to clarify arguments.

Weighing:

- Weighing Impacts is crucial, if you don't weigh I'll have no idea why I am caring about the argument. If u take weighing to the next level, i.e comparative and link weighing more likely to pick up ballots.

- Weigh turns & disads (If you don't end up weighing them, then I have no idea which piece of offense I should prefer)

- Just saying Strength of link/impact weighing is not weighing

- I have a high threshold for counting Link-ins as weighing but it can be beneficial to try and use a link as an external piece of the offense.

Tech

- Defense is key to muddle arguments as well as cast doubt. extending defense is Summary should be a good strat, but you don't have to extend defense.

[Not Orginal]

- Any type of theory is good with me and is probably becoming more accessible. However, this does not mean you do not read blippy theory for the sake of throwing your opponent off. I will default to reasonability. Still give me a clear interpretation, violation, standard, and voter. [Note: I am not very familiar with progressive argumentation and would prefer it not to be run unless there is real abuse in the round. If you do choose to run it, I will evaluate it as logically as I can, but I cannot guarantee that I will evaluate it the same way your typical "tech" judge would.] Please also weigh your standards it goings to make evaulting theory shells easier especially in a high-tech round.

- No CPs

- Weighing in first FF is okay ig? [This shouldn't happen], but it's better if done earlier (not in second FF though)

- No new arguments in FF. This applies to extensions. If there isn't a clean link and impact extension in summary, I won't evaluate it even if it is in FF.

- Second rebuttal must respond to turns (I count as dropped otherwise)

- Tech>truth, the crazier an argument gets, the lower my threshold for responses to that argument is.

- Extensions of offense need to be in summary and final focus. If this isn't done, you will 90% of the time lose the round because you have no offense. Collapsing can make extensions cleaner.

- If no offense is left by the end of the round, I presume the team that lost the coin flip. If the round is side-locked, I presume the first speaking team because I believe it is at a structural disadvantage in the round. [Note: if you read presumption please tell me why and give me a warrent on why it is true]

- Frameworks are fine. I think they are important in the round, if you drop the framework in rebuttal I will consider it dropped.

- Don't spread, if you do end send a speech doc. I can follow speed, but the faster you go, the more likely I am to miss something on the flow. Additionally, I find that 99% of the time, you do not need to go fast to cover the flow; you simply need to improve your word economy. Finally, I believe that spreading is can exclude so many people from being able to comprehend and learn from the round, making the activity overall less accessible. If you can speak at a moderate speed while still covering the flow efficiently, you will be rewarded with high speaks. However, if you send speech docs and the other team is fine with it then go ahead.

- Signpost. If I am not writing on my flow, there is a good chance that I just don't know where you are on the flow.

- Do not be rude to your opponent. This includes making jokes at the expense of your opponents. Excessive rudeness that makes the activity inaccessible to marginalized groups will result in me dropping the debater. My threshold for this is not that high because I despise this behavior in an activity that is meant to be fun and educational for all participants.

- I will give you high speaks if you speak pretty and are smart on the flow.

- Do not read 30 speaks theory.

My background derives mostly from debating in policy for 4 years of high school. I am open to any field of argument (critique, topicality, theory, etc.), as long as it is done effectively. I evaluate debates based on an even combination of tech and truth, but if one team can provide better defense and description of their argument's impacts, almost any argument could win in front of me. Be sure to make comparison between your final advocacy and your opponents in order to persuade me to vote for you. Do not just restate your arguments with no clash with your opponents.

With regards to PF/LD debates - I have judged both divisions extensively. Similar to my policy opinions, I place a substantial importance on articulating the impacts to your argument. Beyond just "economic decline", what are the particular details of that scenario that should convince me to vote for you? Beyond just "fairness in debate", what are the particular repercussions of that lack of fairness in the activity?

Be sure to extend the warrants in your evidence, a simple tag line extension is hardly an argument.

I am a Georgia Tech CS student and debated public forum for the Milton High School Debate Team. Here are the things I would like to emphasize:

-Any speed is fine, but clarity is needed. I cannot judge on what I cannot understand. Please try to refrain from spreading if you can though.

-Make sure to weigh and use off time road maps so I can better comprehend and create my RFD.

-Time yourselves, though I will also keep track of time myself as well, so watch your time and do not go over. Prevent any down time so that we can finish the round on time. That includes calling for a card, which should be minimal.

-Be respectful. This should be self-explanatory.

-I habitually place the rebuttal and summary as the most important speeches so make sure those are solid.

-I have been screwed by judges with personal opinions before, so you can be certain that I will not place any personal bias against you or the opposition. What you show me is what I decide from.

-Preflow before the round.

-Disads, kritiks, and theory are fine by me.

-Speaks: Do not become "insufferable," and you can expect a fair score.

-I mainly give oral feedback rather than written.

Any other questions should be addressed before start time.

email chain: rohitjivangikar16@gmail.com

Experience:

Public Forum - Ivy Bridge Academy: 2016-2020

JV/Varsity PF Coach - Ivy Bridge Academy: 2020-2021

General Preferences:

1. Argumentation - While there are typically a few popular arguments for every topic, that doesn't influence my preference towards the arguments that you run. I'm open to any and every argument, as long as you have the evidence and warrants to debate it.

2. Warrants - As open as I am to arguments, you need to have some sort of logical flow to them, and warrants should be the easiest way to justify your arguments when needed. If your cards and links do not have any warrants, I will have a tough time buying it and factoring it into my decision.

3. Weighing - It's important that both sides explicitly tell me why their side wins the debate. I look for this specifically in the last 4 speeches, yet I do believe that some debaters overlook the link debate. I'd rather look for a realistic link to a realistic impact than a complex, unlikely link to an unrealistically severe impact. It all depends on how you choose to compare both sides, and the clearer the weighing, the easier it is for me to vote for you.

4. Frontlining - Although this is not necessarily a requirement in PF, I do highly encourage frontlining in 2nd rebuttal and will therefore reward teams that do it, effectively and efficiently, with speaker points. However, I do require that if you frontline, that you respond to all turns toward your case, or else I will consider them as conceded arguments.

5. Extending Arguments - A general norm that I followed when I debated that I will continue to look forward to is that any arguments that are brought up should have been extended in summary. This includes any turns, defense, contentions, weighing, and cards. As mentioned before, I'd prefer if you collapse the debate during summary rather than drop arguments in FF.

6. Summary - I view this as arguably the most important speech in the debate, and it's clear to see why. Arguments must be extended here. If you haven't mentioned weighing prior to this speech, it must start here. I will reward higher speaks for those who are able to strategically manage their time during this speech.

7. Paraphrasing - Although I am not in total support for this, I will not make it harder for you to win the debate if you paraphrase. That being said, you should be able to pull up a source when asked, and if any sources are misrepresented, then this will hurt your speaks, and will definitely influence my decision.

8. Crossfire - I don't flow crossfire but if you want me to consider anything that was said in crossfire, you'll have the mention it in the speech that directly follows.

9. Speaking - It's simple: debate, at its core, revolves around communication skills. Hence, I am fine with some speed, but I look down upon spreading in PF. I prefer clarity over speed in Summary and FF. Make sure you signpost during all speeches and off-time roadmaps are preferred but not needed.

10. Prep/Timing - I'll do my best to keep track of prep but make sure that you are keeping your own time throughout the round. If you go over time then it will affect your speaks.

11. Speech Docs - I highly prefer sharing/emailing any speech docs prior to the start of the round to my email above, as it will help me flow and understand your arguments and evidence. For teams that share docs to me, I'll add .5 speaker points for each debater. For elims, I require that all speech docs be sent.

Lastly, just enjoy the debate. Let me know if you have any other questions before the round.

email for chain: jivangikar.sameer@gmail.com

Policy

---you do you

---never stress about debate, have fun

---final rebuttals off the flow get good speaks

I am a Business student at Georgia Institute of Technology with experience as a CX debater for 6 years. Prior to college, I was captain of the South Forsyth High School team. Throughout the end of my high school years I have judged multiple rounds and was a coach at a local debate institution. I'm an extremely flow judge; but I'll vote you up through if your opponent does not know what a flow is. Greater timeframe=Dub.

Other rules that I tend to agree with from Zakharov Paradigm:

1) Please don't make bigoted arguments or do bigoted things

2) If you want me to evaluate something, please warrant it thoroughly (e.g. don't rely on the existence of a card as a sufficient explanation for your argument)

3) Defense in summary is a choice for the debater (as a general rule, if it's important, you should bring it up in every speech, but this is a matter of personal preference for the debater); responding to 1st rebuttal in 2nd rebuttal is a choice for the debater as well

4) Theory isn't really appealing to me, nor do I think it gels well with the structure/intention of PF, but if there is an instance of actual substantial abuse and the theory is not an excuse for not debating and I'm explicitly told how to evaluate it, I'll evaluate it

5) I'll only call for cards if both sides are saying opposite things about the same piece of evidence and/or I'm explicitly told to call for the card

6) I can flow any level of speed, but spreading will reflect poorly in speaks

7) If you don't bring up a certain contention throughout the rest of the debate I will consider it dropped.

8) Not a fan of K's in PF Debate. I will vote on them if I have to, but I really don't want to.

For LD, which I judge from time to time, all of the above applies (except 3 obviously, and theory is fine but again needs to be well applied, and you can speak quicker than you would in front of a parent but still don't spread please.

1. Debate is fundamentally about winning arguments, so make good arguments. I will do my best to evaluate your argument as objectively as possible but make sure contentions are well developed with clear warrants, evidence, and impacts. The more unrealistic the argument, the less likely I’ll vote for it, but I do also believe it is the burden of your opponent to clearly articulate why the argument is wrong.

2. Frontlining - while not doing this isn’t technically against the rules, I highly encourage it and will reward teams that do it effectively with better speaker points. I don’t consider something dropped in the 2nd rebuttal, but I do expect teams to cover everything you plan on extending. I also like teams condensing to one contention in the second rebuttal if it makes strategic sense.

3. Summary - condensing down to a few key voting issues is important to me. If you don’t do weighing in rebuttal, then it should start here. Anything, including defense, must be in the summary if you want me to evaluate it. Don’t drop responses or contentions in these speeches. I will reward summary speakers who make good strategic decisions and manage their time well.

4. Final Focus - Clear voting issues and weighing is important to me. I will only evaluate arguments extended in the summary here. Having a clear narrative and focusing on the big picture is important, as well as answering extended responses. This is also your last chance to win key responses against your opponent's case. Make sure to not just extend them, but explain them, answer the summary, and what the implications are if you win x response.

5. Paraphrasing - I’m fine with it, but you need to be able to produce either a card or website if asked. If you can’t produce it in time or deliberately misrepresent the evidence, then I will ignore the argument, and in extreme cases, vote the guilty team down.

6. Weighing - this is important to me, but I think debaters overvalue it a bit. The link debate is more important in my opinion and realistic impacts are as well. Try and start the weighing in the rebuttal or summary speeches. Comparison is key to good weighing in front of me.

7. Crossfire - any argument established in crossfire must be brought up in the subsequent speech for me to evaluate it. I will reward creative and well thought out questions. Please don’t be rude or aggressive in the crossfire. That will definitely hurt your speaker points. Civility is very important to proper debate in my humble opinion. You can sit or stand for the grand cross.

8. Speaking - I will give higher speaks to passionate speakers who are good public speakers. I did policy, so I’m fine with speed, but I don’t like spreading unless you absolutely have to to cover. Please clearly signpost which argument you are responding to and when you are moving into the other side of the flow or weighing.

9. Prep - I will do my best to keep track of it, but please, both teams should also be tracking the time.

10. References - any well executed Biggy, Kendrick, Logic, Drake, or Childish Gambino reference will be rewarded. Don’t overdo it though and I reserve the right to decrease points if it’s way off point.

11. Speech docs - if you share your case with me, then it will help me flow, understand your arguments, and I won't have to call for ev, so I will give both speakers 2 extra points if they do so.

Alpharetta '22

UGA '26

Put me on the email chain: advaitnnaik@gmail.com

stole from Hargunn Sandhu from Emory:

Note:

I have ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE. Explain acronyms and don't assume I know the limits/consensus on T.

General:

1.Tech > Truth. Better debating can easily overcome any of the preferences I have below. Judge instruction is key, especially in the final rebuttals.

2.Good debating requires quality evidence; strong logical explanation, and contextualization.

3.Online debate: please slow down and enunciate more than you normally would. Clarity should not be sacrificed for speed. Sending analytics might be useful in case internet cuts out. Try to keep your camera on at least during speeches and CX.

4.Racism, sexism, discrimination, or any other problematic actions will result in an L and the lowest speaks.

5.Clipping = L and lowest speaks. If you accuse someone of clipping you must have evidence, if you fail to prove they clipped then you get an L.

Specifics:

1. K:

a. K Affs: Clash > Fairness > Education/Skills. I'm more inclined to vote on t usfg/framework since I have mostly been on this side of the debate. Heg good, cap good, etc are all good 2nr options. However, I do think the aff can win with impact turns to the negative's model. Good K affs have a connection to the topic and a clear offense/defense mechanism in the 1AC.

b. Ks: Leaning towards aff gets to weigh the plan. Who cares if fiat isn't real. Specific links, pulling quotes from the 1AC, and in-depth explanation at every level are very important. Avoid large overviews. Turns case/root cause/alt solves > fw 2nrs. Extinction ow/impact turn > permutation 2ars.

2. CPs/DAs:

a. CPs: Cool. If undebated, I'll judge kick the CP. I might be a little more receptive to intrinsic perms than most.

b. DAs: Turns case is crucial. Politics DAs are good, spin is important. 0% risk is a thing, but hard to get to.

3. Theory:

a. Conditionality: Good. Worth noting that I think aff teams rarely capitalize on neg teams' poor defense of condo.

b. International CP and Ctrl + f word PICs are bad assuming even debating. Neg leaning on most other theory.

4. T - Assuming even debating, competing interps > reasonability. Precise, contextual evidence is key to winning these debates, for both the aff and the neg, but especially the aff if there's a substantial limits differential. Read cards. Both sides should be clashing over their visions of the topic and the impacts to it.

5. Case: Not a fan of framing pages. Impact Turns are fantastic. Good case debating is underutilized. Presumption is possible.

6.Misc:

- Speaks: I'm prolly a little above average giving them out. Specific strategies are good. It always helps to make the round fun. Quality evidence is good. If you opensource, let me know, + .2

- Insert perm texts

- I'm usually not expressive, and anything I do express is usually not your fault.

- Things I prolly won't vote on: ASPEC, death good, and out of round issues

I debated PF for 6 years.

I judge off the flow.

I don't flow crossfire, but if something important comes up I will make notes.

Extend your responses and weigh in summary. If you don't extend in summary then I can't count it in final focus.

Answer turns and warrant arguments well.

Give me clear reason(s) why you win and outweigh the opponent.

Do off-time road maps unless your clearly stating where you are in the flow and make flowing easy for me because if I cant flow it then I'm not going to count it in the round.

2N for 3 years at Alpharetta HS 

 put me on the email chain: shreyamsachdeva@gmail.com

TLDR: We're all here to have fun so be respectful towards the other team and me. I won't vote on anything unethical (death is bad, racism is bad, and sexism is bad). I'm pretty policy and not well versed in K lit, but I'll vote on anything as long as it is explained well. 

Case: I love a good case debate. Aff explain your impacts and the internal link chain especially if it's complicated. The neg should not undercover case and read a bunch of offcase. The neg should still go on case even if they go for a CP in the 2NR. 

DAs: I love DAs, especially PTX. Neg, be sure to impact things out (especially in novice) and make turns case arguments. Also, explain the link story in the block especially on DAs like PTX. 

T: I don't really like T debates especially on this topic but if you are gonna go for it you have to explain it really well. Neg, don't just spit out a bunch of buzzwords but actually explain your arguments. The limits portion of the debate is really important so spend a lot of time on it. 

K: I love K debates, but I am only familiar with generics like fem, cap, neolib, and security. In order to win the debate, the neg must contextualize the K to the aff. I will not vote on anything unethical.  

CP: CPs are great especially specific ones. The aff can win on CP theory if they impact it out well. If the aff goes for a perm they have to explain how it functions. Neg, answer each perm individually and do some actual analysis on them. 

K affs: I am not very familiar with K literature but am willing to vote on anything that is not unethical. 

4 year PF debater

Debated at Lambert

Current Student at UPenn studying Finance/Neuroscience

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Speed is fine, if not clear, won't flow

Stuff said in summary --> FF

I don't really listen to crossfire, so bring it up in speech

Keep your own time and the other teams time

be nice, don't interrupt, if you want higher speaks

I have been a PF debate coach at Ivy Bridge Academy for the past 7 years and I also did policy debate at Chattahoochee High School and UGA. Here are things that are important to me in debates and will influence my decision:

1. Debate is fundamentally about winning arguments, so make good arguments. I will do my best to evaluate your argument as objectively as possible but make sure contentions are well-developed with clear warrants, evidence, and impacts. The more unrealistic the argument, the less likely I’ll vote for it, but I do also believe it is the burden of your opponent to clearly articulate why the argument is wrong.

2. Frontlining - while not doing this isn’t technically against the rules, I highly encourage it and will reward teams that do it effectively with better speaker points. I don’t consider something dropped in the 2nd rebuttal, but I do expect teams to cover everything you plan on extending. I also like teams condensing to one contention in the second rebuttal if it makes strategic sense.

3. Summary - condensing down to a few key voting issues is important to me. If you don’t do weighing in rebuttal, then it should start here. Anything, including defense, must be in the summary if you want me to evaluate it. Don’t drop responses or contentions in these speeches. I will reward summary speakers who make good strategic decisions and manage their time well.

4. Final Focus - Clear voting issues and weighing are important to me. I will only evaluate arguments extended in the summary here. Having a clear narrative and focusing on the big picture is important, as well as answering extended responses. This is also your last chance to win key responses against your opponent's case. Make sure to not just extend them, but explain them, answer the summary, and what the implications are if you win x response.

5. Paraphrasing - I’m fine with it, but you need to be able to produce either a card or the website if asked. If you can’t produce it in time or deliberately misrepresent the evidence, then I will ignore the argument, and in extreme cases, vote the guilty team down.

6. Weighing - this is important to me, but I think debaters overvalue it a bit. The link debate is more important in my opinion and realistic impacts are as well. Try and start the weighing in the rebuttal or summary speeches. Comparison is key to good weighing in front of me.

7. Crossfire - any argument established in crossfire must be brought up in the subsequent speech for me to evaluate it. I will reward creative and well thought out questions. Please don’t be rude or aggressive in the crossfire. That will definitely hurt your speaker points. Civility is very important to proper debate in my humble opinion. You can sit or stand for the grand cross.

8. Speaking - I will give higher speaks to passionate speakers who are good public speakers. I did policy, so I’m fine with speed, but I don’t like spreading unless you absolutely have to cover. Please clearly signpost which argument you are responding to and when you are moving to the other side of the flow or weighing.

9. Prep - I will do my best to keep track of it, but please, both teams should also be tracking the time.

10. References - any well-executed Biggy, Kendrick, J. Cole, Drake, or Childish Gambino reference will be rewarded. Don’t overdo it though and I reserve the right to decrease points if it’s way off point.

11. Speech docs - if you share your case with me, then it will help me flow, understand your arguments, and I won't have to call for ev, so I will give both speakers 2 extra points if they do so.

send speech docs

2x pf toc qual, couple of bids, not very familiar with theory/k's but am willing to evaluate them, will presume 1st if not offense, also did speech & WSD, and ran a few tournaments here and there

I flow

Hello!

I am a parent judge. However, I do have extensive knowledge in the business world. I have also judged over 50 rounds of Public Forum debate. I also do flow the main points of the rounds.

Please add samuelsun99@gmail.com to the email chain. This should be started before the speeches. Please include at least the cases and call the email chain like "Stanford Round 1 - Team AB vs. Team BC."

Everything Else is Negotiable, but these aren't:

~No cheating: that means no card clipping, stealing prep, lying about your disclosure, etc.

~Debate is a safe space: I will not tolerate any blatantly offensive arguments. That means no racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

If you are running an argument that is potentially a trigger warning, then you MUST ask the opponents if they are fine with it.

Violations of either are grounds for auto-loss and the lowest speaks I can possibly give you

General Preferences

~Please speak at a slower/normal pace. If I don't understand something, then I won't put it in my decision.

~Please don't read any weird arguments (Theory, K's, etc). It will be much less persuasive if you do so. Furthermore, if you run a non-generic case, then please explain it very well or I will have a hard time keeping track of it.

~Please send me your speech doc (cases) for the round. This will help me understand your case better and recall your key details.

~Please be civil in cross. I don't like aggressiveness. If the worst occurs, then I'll dock your speaks

~I view the round from your overall performance in the round. This includes being professional, taking a short time to pull up your evidence, have well-explained reasons and statistics, and consistently bringing up your points.

~I personally value the truth of an argument over an argument that will probably not occur.

~I will judge this round off a clean slate meaning I will try to not use individual bias to affect my decision.

~I also really like weighing so please do a lot of weighing to convince me more.

~I vote my decision mainly off of summary, final focus, and sometimes cross. If you can not respond to your own case in cross, I might count that in my decision if it is cleanly extended.

In all, be independent/responsible through the debate. I will be keeping time, but I also expect you to keep your own speech and prep time. Just let me know when you start/stop prep and don't go over the time limit, etc. I dislike it when debaters try to steal prep. I trust all of you debaters and good luck in your round!

Importance of Weighing

-Prob>Timeframe

- Timeframe>Pre-req

- Pre-req>mag

---

Specific to September topic.

I'm not very knowledgable about this specific topic.

Good Luck Debaters!

Alpharetta 23, Michigan 27

Email: anish.thatiparthi@gmail.com

Debated at Alpharetta for 4 years as a 2N. Not debating in college.

Top Level:

I do not know anything about the topic. Please keep that in mind if you choose to go for any arguments centered around community consensus (topicality, various competition arguments, etc.).

The debate should look like what the debaters want it to be . Anything not in this section can be changed through good debating. My paradigm is intentionally brief to prevent debaters from over adapting. Anything is fair game barring blatant instances of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. and any other actions that make someone in the room feel unsafe. Such instances will be an auto L + report to tab.

"Tech > truth but the less truth, the easier the argument is to answer. Meanwhile, the implication of concessions is only what you make it." - Jordan Di

Out of round actions have no implication on my ballot.

Rehighlightings can be only inserted if it is using the ALL of the same words highlighted by the opponent. I will disregard it otherwise.

If you do not explicitly stake the debate (i.e., stop the round and provide proof) on an evidence ethics violation, the most I will do is reject the piece of evidence in question.

Topicality:

Plan text in a vacuum is dumb but it still needs a counter interpretation to answer it.

Precision is irrelevant without context.

No solvency advocates and/or specific examples with a case list make me think you are making stuff up.

Predictable limits matter a lot to me.

Theory:

Neg terrorism is usually good but I recognize when it leaves the Aff with no other choice but theory.

It's hard to a win a "reject the team" argument for anything but conditionality.

2NRs get a lot more leeway for answering theory if the 2ACs theory argument was barely a sentence long.

A lot of creative counter-interpretations can solve Neg offense.

Planless Affs:

I have exclusively gone for T-USFG against every planless aff and have never defended a planless aff.

Fairness is an impact.

Most planless affs lack a solid answer to predictability.

Counter interpretation + explaining a model of debate > impact turning everything.

T-USFG is a substantive disagreement with the 1AC.

Ks:

Extinction outweighs + impact turning links is an easy way out against a lot of Ks.

K tricks are good but must be somewhat fleshed out in the block.

Links to the implementation of the plan are always better than links to the 1AC.

Ontological arguments do not eliminate the necessity for an actual link argument.

Evidence is under utilized by both sides in these debates.

CPs:

I have never been comfortable in super intricate competition debates and will probably be bad at judging these type of debates.

2NC CPs are awesome and should be used more.

Send perm texts.

Public forum

1. don't extend through ink

2. weigh weigh COMPARATIVE WEIGHING

3. highly encourage frontlining in second rebuttal

4. paraphrasing is fine as long as you don't misconstrue evidence

5. crossfire: I'll listen to it but won't impact the debate unless you bring it up in speech

6. summary and final focus must mirror each other; I like voting issues--> explicitly say it

7. I'm a flow/lay judge. Just do what you think personally that will win you the round.

8. you need to signpost; will deduct speaker points if you don't (either before or during speech)

Most importantly, have fun and good luck!

I debated Public Forum for 4 years at Lambert High School. The best thing you can do for yourself to cleanly win my ballot is to weigh. At the end of the round, you will probably have some offense but so will your opponent. Tell me why your offense is more important and really explain it—otherwise I’ll have to intervene and use my own weighing, which you don’t want.

Other preferences:

- First summary does NOT need to extend defense UNLESS the second rebuttal frontlined their case. In that scenario, it WOULD be necessary. You do need to extend turns though if you want to go for them.

- Second summary needs defense and should start the weighing part of the debate (if it hasn't happened already) because I don’t love when a second speaking team comes into final focus with all new weighing.

- I will only accept new weighing in the second final focus if there has been literally no other weighing at any other part of the debate.

- I highly suggest collapsing on 1-2 arguments; I definitely prefer quality of arguments over quantity.

- I am super big on warrants. For any evidence you read you should explain why that conclusion was reached (ie explain the warrant behind it). I love a good warrant comparison. Obviously in some instances you need cards for certain things, but in general I will buy logic if it is well explained over a card that is read but has absolutely no warrant that's been said. I also really hate when people just respond to something by saying "they don't have a card for this, therefore it's false" so don't do that.

- Speed is okay but spreading is not.

- Don’t just list weighing mechanisms, explain how your weighing functions in the round and be comparative. Simply saying "their argument is vague/we outweigh on strength of link/we have tangible evidence and they do not" is not weighing.

- Not big on Ks and theory is only fine if there is a real and obvious violation going on. Don’t just run theory to scare your opponent or make the round more confusing.

-If you say anything like "uniqueness controls the directionality of the link" or any like absurdly jargony thing I will tank your speaks.

- I like off-time roadmaps, but if you are going to give one, make sure you actually follow it and don't make it ridiculously long/overly in-depth. Saying like "I'm starting on my case and then going to overview and then their case" or something is perfect.

The only time I’ll intervene (besides if you don’t weigh and I have to choose what to weigh), is if you are being sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, etc. or are blatantly misrepresenting evidence. I’ll drop you and tank your speaks so don’t do that :)

Also, I know debate is often stressful so try to have fun! I love when jokes are made in the round and debaters look like they are having a great time… that’s why we do this at the end of the day! Let me know if you have any other questions before the round or if there is anything I can do to accommodate you and make you feel safe.

Add me to your email chain careeryen@gmail.com

My paradigm

What is your debate/judge experience?

Former debater/judge/coach in HS and in College.

What kind(s) of performance is effective and increases your odds of winning?

Articulate measurable outcome(s) delivered by feasible solution(s) aligned with the nature of the objective(s). They should not become unmoored from reality.

Establish cause-and-effect relationship between upstream action(s) and downstream impact(s) through facts, evidence, logical reasoning...etc.

Root-cause followed by correlation and attribution.

What kind(s) of performance is counter productive?

"Spreading" inane arguments.

Dumping statements without logically linking the root-causes driving the symptoms.

Rude, talk over opponents.

Tech

Vandy '27

I don't want to write a lot, I did silver TOC twice and know debate pretty well.

My brother won Yale this year :D

text me: 706-392-6665 for any questions

thanks