Tabroom.com

The Wildcat Tournament for Middle SchoolNovice

2020 — Online, CA/US

WILDCAT Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Saanvi Agrawal Hire 8 rounds

Ria Bhagat Hire 8 rounds

Astha Bhattad Daniel Wright None

Pranav Chandra Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun December 6, 2020 at 1:04 AM PDT

I debate LD/Policy for Dougherty Valley on the National Circuit and am debating for in my 4th year now. My pronouns are he/him.

Please add me to the email chain, if one is being used: pranavchandra7@gmail.com

I am ok with any argument as long as links and argument correlations have logic clearly explained. Don't make an unjustified claim and expect me to count it on the flow.

Arguments:

- DAs - Do whatever you want. Any DA is always fun to listen to. Just make sure to buff-up links. Don't make a lot of links with little explanation on each one and expect to have at least one count.

- CPs - Same as DA on do whatever,

- K/K Affs - Ok with most Ks and K Affs. But please have clear OVs of what part of the aff (or debate for a K Aff) you are critiquing. I will most likely not understand your links if I don't understand what the thesis of the K is. And again, explain links thoroughly. I hate general links that have no meaning whatsoever with the aff, but will still evaluate them if they are left unanswered or insufficiently answered. And finally, links of emission are near cheating in my opinion but I will still respect a team's decision to read them if they are strategic.

- Theory - Theory is fun and my only statement on it is, do whatever you want. But, I am not going to vote on frivolous theory, so don't bother trying to prove that your theory violation isn't frivolous.

- Philosophy - Not great in most philosophies, so if you choose to read an AC or NC, please take extra time to ensure I understand your thesis, else it will be difficult for me to evaluate Phil.

- Trix: No trix. Trix are near cheating, if not cheating, in my opinion.

Technicalities:

- Tech >>>>>>>>>>>>> Truth. I don't believe I need to explain this further.

- Impact Calc: One of the MOST important parts of debate in my opinion and also the part that's the most forgotten. Good impact calc means good speaker points.

- Speed: I am fine with spreading but make keep in mind that clarity > speed. If I can't understand what you're saying, just forget the argument: I'm not going to evaluate it. However, I believe lay skills are also an underrepresented part of a debate that have their own value.

- Be nice: I want the debate to be respectful and fun. I understand competition and getting into the heat of the moment, so I will understand and sympathize with passionate speeches with slight aggression but stay within limits and I won't have to dock speaker points.

Be nice, have fun, and learn something new because the point of debate is to learn something new (education and clash > fairness)!

Twisha Chawla Hire 8 rounds None

Rushil Chemudur Hire 8 rounds None

Caden Kezheng Chu Hire 8 rounds None

Aniket Dey Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 17, 2022 at 7:13 AM PDT

dougherty '23

he/him

put me on the email chain aniketdey05@gmail.com

how i vote:

i start on the weighing and evaluate whichever team is winning the weighing/framing debate> go to that teams flow and see if they win a risk of their offense, vote for them they do> if there's terminal defense on their argument, then i go to opp's case and se if they win a risk of their offense > if no side has offense, i default to first speaking team

extending:

i have a vey low threshold for case extensions because i think that reiterating the argument in every speech takes time away from clashing with your opps arguments, which is what ultimately enhances education in the debate space. but I also think that if your partner brutally mishandles an explanation of your argument, doing an extension is a good way to clarify. also if it's a panel, you should probably extend well anyways because other judges will care

if you're reading framing, you don't need to extend your warrants for said framing in every speech UNLESS your opps contest that framing (if you're reading struck violence framing and they link in, you don't need to keep extending your framing, I already eval the round off of it)

i don't default to dropping contentions if you forget to extend them in summary, but if your opp calls you out and says i should, I probably will

turns and terminal defense are the only parts of the debate that I have a higher extension threshold on, but really only because I might forget what your response is and how implicates defense on your opp's case

weighing/framing:

i always default to prob > mag > urgency, timeframe, etc so if you don't set up meta-weighing you'll still be fine as long as you follow that order. feel free to read warrants that say otherwise

you should not be using utilitarian weighing mechanisms when you read sv framing - magnitude & scope are not keyword terms for sv framing! instead try to weigh based on who solves the structure best--> ex: mitigating for an effect of the structure vs solving for this structure itself

i think link-ins are intuitively easier than responding to framing because a lot of impacts like poverty, malnutrition, unemployment that are read for until round disproportionately affect certain populations because of governmental structure. idk just a tip I would consider

evidence

paraphrasing is fine, just please have a cut card for whatever ur paraphrasing

if you go over prep time and your opps call you out on it, i'll give them the same amount of time (if you go 3:30, they get 3:30)

prog stuff

theory and ks are fine, just realize i wasn't really a prog debater in high school but i do understand these args

go slower and take more time to explain these arguments, and understand that I may not make the right decision in these rounds

extra

give me one good warrant on why everyone should get 30 speaks and I'll give it to you

steer away from saying "you guys" because it's a term that should be done away with for norm setting purposes even if everyone there is "ok" with it. steer towards "you", "you both", "y'all", "you all", "the opponents" etc.

feel free to postround me all you want, but after i submit i won't change my decision

Saanika Gupta Hire 8 rounds

Ishika Hazra Hire 8 rounds None

Saketh Kotapati Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 25, 2024 at 9:11 AM PDT

I debated LD/Pol for Dougherty Valley grad 2021. bidround 2wice and choked 2wice. super washed. conflict for dv.

He/Him or They/Them or whatever you want to call me so long as I can tell you're talking to me. im not the best at it but i try to be expressive during speeches

prefer speechdrop instead of email but i dont really care that much

If you insist on an email chain: skotapati@ucdavis.edu

If you have questions for me after round: kotapati.saketh@gmail.com or message me on facebook

Disclosure is mandatory and a true argument to an extent. if your interp is annoying ill be annoyed. full osource with highlighting makes the most sense. jv/novice disclose as your coach lets you. var should disclose. var vs novice do not read disclosure but you can debate as normal (assuming it is a toc tournament)

if i say i won't flow an argument, i won't flow it.

Tech > Truth with some exceptions below

I like: Policy > Theory/T = Topic/stock Kritiks > other ks >> nonT = Phil strike me for tricks

It has been a while since I debated and I am not familiar with a lot of critical literature anymore. If you still want to go for a more "entry level" kritik such as cap or security or a topic specific one, please explain the kritik with descriptors and not buzzwords. a lot of kritiks are probably true arguments though, so if u can explain it in a way that is easy for me to understand it im very comfortable voting off of it

topical k affs are great arguments. NonT vs fwk is repetitive but fun to evaluate. KvK can get messy but if you keep it clean and explain with descriptors rather than buzzwords i can evaluate them well.

NonT affs by nature are not good arguments. Clash and fairness are probably true arguments. If fwk is gone for well, i dont usually vote aff. Not gonna be mad if you decide to read this tho, if ur confident about ur nonT aff dont let this stop you

if memorizing/reading a pre-prepared buzzword-filled 2nr is ur method for going for the k, dont read the k. preparation is important, but u need to actually know what youre debating. if you cant explain the k without an aid, youre better off not reading it

If the 1AR reads a framework interpretation to weigh the aff against the K, I will ALWAYS weigh the aff against the kritik.

I will not flow tricks (skep, logic, truth testing, indexicals, etc). I will not flow the RVI unless the initial shell is something like Nebel or shoes theory. friv theory is a trick -- i will only vote on it if it is conceded and i will never vote on it if reasonability is won.

explicit cheating or Bigotry is a L 20 for the offender and a W 30 for the other. if ur clipping or doing some other form of cheating in round and your opp wants to challenge, i need ev in the form of recordings or whatever fits best. if i notice it, i wont need ev and ill stop the round. ill mark on my copy of the doc where you clipped. if you have ev that counters my decision, ill apologize and we will resume round with no harm done. there is no argument if i come to the decision that a debater is displaying bigotry or overstepping boundaries in any way, unless you IMMEDIATELY APOLOGIZE and CORRECT YOURSELF. stuff like misgendering can be accidental, but its really easy to tell when something is malicious vs an honest mistake that you feel bad about/will correct. immediate L 20, reported to tab, round is stopped

if u want to be funny during ur speech, be funny. your speaks will rise. just dont try too hard and know how to be funny in the first place

Favorite 2nrs are disad + case or cp + disad/nb + case.

your 1nc can be interesting without reading random skep triggers or fringe kritiks. try 1 off disad, or massive impact turns. your speaks will rise.

do not feel hesitant to ask me any questions at any point. i will answer it if it is appropriate.

most importantly, keep it respectful. ur opp is not your enemy. you are both trying to compete and learn. excessive disrespect will not be tolerated -- i will intervene.

Hamza Mohiuddin Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat December 5, 2020 at 7:32 AM PDT

Hi, my name is Hamza Mohiuddin and I am a sophomore at Dougherty and I have been competing in Congress for 4 years.

Congress:

-PO: I rank POs fairly in a round based on how they did at their job. I expect a good PO to run a clean and concise round, manage motions professionally, maintain decorum, and pick speakers fairly. Don't be afraid to bring in a little of your own personality in the way you PO.

As for speakers

I appreciate organization and structure in your speeches (CWI, PSI), and authentically transition between your arguments. As for timing, I do pay attention to whether or not you go drastically below or above the 3-minute mark. Your introduction should pertain to the bill or the round in some way, as long as you connect it.

Your evidence should be well-phrased and tie to your claim. Quantitative evidence typically outweighs qualitative evidence (reality>rhetoric). As for your impact, be sure to clearly explain the link between your warrant and the impact, and progress through your point gracefully. Also, explain how your evidence ties into the scope of the debate.

Although Congress is in part a speech event, I see it is a majority debate event, and this should be reflected in the way the round goes. Be sure to address previous senators before you and most importantly, contribute to the overall flow of the debate. Late round speeches should have refutations in them. I value interacting with the rest of the chamber as opposed to just giving a 3-minute speech, so be sure to be consistent in cross x, and incorporate refutations in your speech that show that you interacted in some way with the rest of the chamber. If you get refuted, make sure to defend your point in cross x to show that you are interacting back and forth. Debate is heavily weighed in my rankings.

Confidence and authenticity are key! I pay attention to delivery and it can really make you stand out in the round.

You should stay consistent in cross x and defend your points efficiently. Be concise with your answers and don't just use cross x as an opportunity to extend your speech. It's also important to defend your point in cross x if you are refuted later on. Clash is good!

Overall, the biggest thing I value is playing your role in the debate. If you are the first affirmative, I appreciate if you outline the problem and how the bill fixes it. If you are the last speech, I appreciate a good refutation or a summary of the round to explain why your side won. Weighing is also a big part of debate that I take into consideration. It also goes without saying that you should have manners and keep decorum, don't be rude.

If I write you a ballot with critiques be sure to use it to improve! It only helps you.

Good luck everyone! Have fun!

And most importantly congress is a debate event

Rikin Patel Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 24, 2024 at 7:17 AM EDT

he/him/his

I'm studying business sustainability at Kelley but I used to be Var Captain of PF at Dougherty Valley High School. I've debated PF for 5 years and Policy/LD for 1.

Tech>Truth

I'd rather you speak fast and frontline than speak slow and extend over ink❗

For my ballot (PF) ...

I use whatever viable arguments on my flow to visualize both scenarios but you're supposed to guide me into choosing one by explaining what reasons make it comparatively better than the alternative. Your scenario could be a paradise but if you don't tell me why I should choose that paradise over the alternative, I'll use my own biases which I really don't like doing.

Signpost only where you're starting from. For jargon, don't say an argument is a turn or prereq if you're not entirely sure what it is because it makes everything unnecessarily confusing for everyone, just explain it. I'll evaluate theory (not friv) and kritiks but make sure you know how to run them properly and explain well. I'd prefer you don't spread, but if you do, make sure it's flowable and send speech docs. Please don't ask for insane amounts of evidence just for extra prep time (I'll know if you don't reference any of the evidence in your speech), especially for online tournaments. Also, don't say you have evidence when you don't, and then give uncarded evidence or a URL when your opponents ask for it. You don't need evidence for every analytic if it's warranted well. Evidence ethics has been getting crappier every year; everything you claim your card says should be explicitly said in the article. That being said, I'll evaluate good evidence > warranting without evidence any day.

In addition to defense, at least respond to turns in second rebuttal because if they're extended, I'll consider them offense for the other side (given they're weighed and implicated as such). Start weighing in second rebuttal and first summary and weigh all your turns and offense comparatively with your opponent's offense. Clear link extensions in the first and second summary. Collapse on one or two points per side preferably, unless your opponents extend all their contentions and you're forced to respond to all of them in summary. Don't bring up anything new in final (cross applications, new evidence, etc). I won't consider it and may drop your speaks.

Speaks start at 27.5: If you are racist, sexist, homophobic, or offensive to anyone in the round, I'll drop your speaks significantly. I'll also reduce speaks if you consistently go overtime by more than the grace period of 15 seconds.

Have fun and try your best!

If you have questions after your round, please ask or email me at rikinsmail@gmail.com. You can postround me (if you have valid concerns) but it won't change the already submitted ballot.

Policy/LD:

If I end up judging policy/ld, add me to the email chain. I'm not familiar with the new policy/ld topic so it would be really helpful if you explain your arguments well and impact them out well. For policy, I'm also ok with you running Ks, K Affs, Theory, or CPs but please no frivolous theory.

Ananya Pinnamaneni Hire 8 rounds None

Jyothikaa Ramann Hire 8 rounds None

Vikram Ravi Hire 8 rounds None

Saikrishna Reddy Hire 8 rounds None

Neel Redkar Hire 8 rounds

Hriday Shankar Hire 8 rounds None

Faiz Siddiqi Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu March 23, 2023 at 6:04 AM PDT

- Competed in congressional debate for seven years

Congress Paradigm

- Your speech can move me to tears but if you don't maintain a presence in round you're going to find your way to the middle of my ballot.

- I expect refutations in every single speech. Including the PO's procedural spiel (fine, maybe not this one). If you are first aff, preemptively counter a concern. If you're first neg, refute first aff.

- Contrary to popular belief, this is NOT just a speech event; you can be the next Barack Obama in terms of rhetoric and elocution but if you aren't DEBATING then you can expect to be dropped. That being said, a strong delivery is appreciated but all it'll count for is bumping up your rank a place or two (so focus on content).

- Effective questioning goes a long way for me; remember, quality > quantity. A little bit of sass never hurt anyone but be respectful and don't talk over someone.... unless they're rambling.

- If you rehash without extending the argument or its impacts I'm turning my volume off and grabbing food.

- WEIGH impacts against one another, especially as the round progresses. Nothing is obvious. Tell me everything you're thinking and establish every link.

- Do not use parliamentary procedure to exclude someone from speaking. Excluding someone else because their speech threatens your rank is pure cowardice.

- POs: show me that you know parliamentary procedure and you can expect a fair ranking. I will not dock you down solely because of a couple mishaps, but I will take note of how you respond to the chamber calling you out. Oh and don't try pulling any BS; everyone can see that from a mile away.

- Personality is a wild card. Bring me you, whether that means adding snarky remarks or humor when appropriate (and in moderation) to name a couple. Online debate makes everyone blend in; help me remember you.

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Venu Vinjamaram DB8 None

Hannah Wang Hire 8 rounds None

Jesse Zhao Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 5, 2023 at 5:52 AM PDT

Background

I'm a parliamentary debater, and I've been debating parliamentary for four years. I've casually debated Public Forum but I don't know much about the current topic. I have no experience in any of the other debate forms. I don't have too much experience judging but I have judged before. Not sure why tab doesn't show anything on my judging record. I'll do my best to make my evaluation as impartial as possible.

Some of the stuff in here are from back when I had to judge PF and I'm too lazy to remove them, so just ignore those.

Speaking style/Appearance

I don't care about what you are wearing, as long as it's not inappropriate. How well you speak ultimately doesn't factor into my decision. Even if you are being rude, this will only affect your speaker points.

If you decide to spread, please share your case at jessez.chabot@gmail.com. Clarity is important. If I don't know what you are saying I am not going to take it into account.

Tech/Truth

I evaluate Tech > Truth, and I protect the flow. That being said, I'm not going to pretend that tabula rasa exists. If you are running something that is so completely and utterly false and also not funny, I'll probably drop it the moment the opponent reads any response, no matter how bad. I once had one round where one team was trying to convince me that the US is spending $2 trillion on the space force that year and I'm not buying stuff like that.

Also, if you want to make sure I notice some point is not allowed in the rebuttal speeches, it's still best to call a POO.

Kritiks, Theory, and other tech things

Please don't run a K. I'm not your testing ground for your new antinatalism K or Baudrillard K or whatever. That being said, I evaluate K > Theory > Case because it's the current debate meta and I'm a conformist :(. Of course, if you are able to convince me otherwise, then I will evaluate tech differently. I won't evaluate a K that isn't relevant to the debate, so make sure to have solid linking and explain it clearly. Remember, if I don't understand your case, I'm not going to vote on it. Especially true for those that have no idea what they're reading. K Affs are a hot mess, don't go in there at all costs.

I will consider any and all theory, no matter how frivolous. In fact, if the other team is also a tech team and you run a good frivolous t-shell, you get bonus points. However, if they make a good argument for why it's so frivolous, I am quick to drop the shell. I don't want to keep people who want a normal debate from having a normal debate.

If the other team runs theory and you make no responses, I will drop you unless it is clear to me that you have no tech experience. I default to yes RVIs, A priori, and reasonability.

If you're running some wack counterplan (condo, dispo) I do think it is a bit abusive if you don't specify the status, but that's up to your opponent decide via theory. If you're doing something like a consultation counterplan, I highkey think they completely break under perm analysis so I'd advise you to not. If you're doing something like an agency or timeframe counterplan, you better make it interesting and worth my time.

Speech

For any speech event, I'm just going to pretend I'm a lay judge and evaluate like a lay judge. This includes my personal little pet peeves (I hate unnecessary movements they are so distracting).

Other things

Signpost everything.

Explain the logic between links and turns and such stuff. Again, I'm not familiar with the current PF topic, nor with the other debate forms, so I don't know any of the common arguments around your case.

Speaks start at 27.5

If you bring up new arguments in the rebuttal speech (or equivalent in other events), I will give you lower speaks.

For PF, remember to extend your links in the summary. If you drop them in the summary but bring them back up in the final focus, I'm not considering the argument. This is also a good practice in other events as well.

If you go overtime by more than 30 seconds, I'm giving you lower speaks.

People who don't answer POIs are super annoying and I'm dropping speaks. But also don't ask more than 3 per speech.

Please make your speeches funny if you can/the topic isn't too serious; debate rounds can be super boring to judge sometimes.

Try and give me a clear path to the ballot (That means weigh! A lot! Or I might as well flip a coin).

Have fun!

Katie Zheng Hire 8 rounds

Login to Tabroom

The Wildcat Tournament for Middle SchoolNovice

2020 — Online, CA/US

WILDCAT Paradigm List

Judges