I have a decent amount of judging experience but I would suggest treating me as a lay judge. That means going for complex theory arguments is a risky move if not very well communicated.

I would like to be added to the email chain: tanishbhowmick@gmail.com

Some things to consider during round:

1. I prefer logical arguments overall. Whoever has a more persuasive, fluent, and substantial argument has a higher chance of winning, though nothing is guaranteed.

2. Being aggressive is fine, just as long as you are not offensive in any nature

3. I am ok with speed but it's been a while so I suggest starting off a little slower before ramping it up. I will yell slow if you're going too fast and if I have to yell 3 or more times you're getting 27.5 speaks max. I also don't like cramming in extreme amounts of arguments; quality over quantity always.

4. Theory is fine, but do not depend on it for the whole argument. As mentioned before, I still prefer substance over anything else. I wouldn't suggest complex philosophies because, as I said, my experience is limited so try to refrain. If you do decide to go with any complex debate rhetoric, make sure to explain them fully or I might not understand and will ignore the argument during my decision.

Finally, just have fun with the debate. This is in my opinion one of the most enjoyable educational extracurriculars and so I want the debate to be fun and well-spirited.

Have competed in LD, PF, Policy, and Extemp; have coached LD, PF, Policy, and Parliamentary Debate. Will flow all debates. Hate spreading in all events.

LD: Stats and empirical data are fine but without strong philosophical backing, it will be hard for me to give a win. Prefer applications of philosophical framework that show some level of thought and intuition (I think a Value of Morality is fairly weak and needs an extremely strong VC to be successful).

PF & Parli: Nothing major, but again, no spreading. Require credible sources with actual data — opinion pieces are fine, but much weaker than empirical data. If you try to extrapolate data from a source like multiplying stats incorrectly, then quote them as part of the source, I will give you the loss automatically. It must be very clear what is your own mathematical extrapolation (which is more than likely incorrect), and what is actually part of the original source. If you do not have a piece of evidence cited in your case, you will also automatically receive a loss.

Policy: Do whatever you want.

Upper St. Clair ‘17, University of Virginia ‘21

Background:

I debated for 4 years at Upper St. Clair High School in Pittsburgh, PA. I primarily debated LD on the local circuit. In my senior year, I got to the final round of the 2017 CFL National Tournament.

Preferences:

1. I like a framework/philosophy based debate. That doesn’t mean that you need to be heavy on philosophy to win, but I do like when debaters can use their framework to undermine their opponent’s impacts (for instance, by showing an inconsistency with the philosophy).

2. The round is often over after CX. Use that time strategically.

3. Yes, number 1 says I like a framework debate. No, number 1 doesn’t mean that solvency isn’t important.

4. DON’T DROP ARGUMENTS. MAKE EXTENSIONS. MAKE SURE THEY’RE WARRANTED.

5. Give me clear and numbered voters.

6. I like Kant.

7. Don’t be an asshole.

8. If your style is to throw in jokes during the round, that’s completely fine-- just make sure they’re actually funny. You want me to be entertained, not annoyed.

9. If I have a really confused or unpleasant expression on my face, you’re either (1) not being coherent enough when explaining your argument or (2) making a dumb or offensive argument and should probably move on.

10. I can handle relatively fast speed; however, as I never really competed on the national circuit, you probably shouldn’t outright spread. Fast is fine, spreading is not.

If you have any questions, feel free to find me at the tournament or email me at rfd7ea@virginia.edu.

Good luck. Debate is fun. Enjoy it while you can. xx.

I am a traditional LD judge. I was primarily a Policy Debater, and do not like policy debate creeping into LD. Don't spread, and keep a high level philosophical focus.

Hey! I'm a very lay judge. My daughter is writing this paradigm :) I am only familiar with public forum and the public forum debate format and times, so please forgive me if I am in a non-PF event and don't know the times.

Please speak slowly and clearly! If you spread, I will not understand a word you say.

I am not great at flowing, so do not expect me to remember everything that happens on the flow.

Explain your arguments and weigh your impacts! If I do not understand your link chain, it will be difficult for me to vote for you.

Don't use debate jargon. I know some debate terms, but I probably will not remember them, so your best bet is just to explain something instead of dropping debate words.