Email: rohanmanne@gmail.com

I will not vote on ethics violations unless the other teams point them out unless it's like some terrible stuff said in the round

General:

1 - I like detailed & nuanced debates that center around specific strategies.

2 - I'm probably not voting on theory

3 - I'd probably vote on framework more times than plan-less AFFs

4- Evidence quality is important in adjudicating close debates, but I won't dig out warrants for you.

5 - Each argument needs a warrant please, especially in the rebuttals.

6 - Most frustrating is adjudicating a debate in which neither team provides judge instruction, implications of their arguments, or generalized framing claims about what each argument you are going for means for the debate. This often leads to judge bias & interpretation or being bailed out by evidence quality.

Counterplans

1 - judge kick is my default until debated otherwise from the 1AR

2 - it's the first thing I evaluate in a debate

Kritiks

1 - Pre-written extensions that you think apply to every topical AFF aren't going to get it done. Tailor your Kritik to the 1AC with detail and specificity for me to vote for it

2 - I'm probably not the best for high-theory Kritik rounds

Topicality

1 - Do comparisons. Evidence comparison & impact comparison. Too often, debates are 50/50 which is the fault of not having enough judge instruction and comparisons in the rebuttals

2 - Plan text in a vacuum makes sense depending on the plan text

Be chill, debate is great, don't hate on your peers, & please don't be toxic

Spreading: CLARITY IS KEY. If I don't hear it, it will not be flowed, and it was not said.

Don't be rude. Don't say offensive things. Don't steal prep.

Otherwise, do what you want

Alpharetta 23'

UGA 27'

email: saurabhpratham@gmail.com

T/L:

I lack knowledge on the topic; adapt arguments accordingly. Open to diverse debate styles, but avoid offensive language.

Tech > truth, but clarity aids understanding. Concessions' impact is subjective.

Tag teaming is chill

Topicality:

PTV. Precision matters with context. Rejecting the team is tough outside conditionality. 2NRs have leeway on brief 2AC theory. Creative counter-interpretations work. Fairness is crucial, predictability matters.

Planless Affs:

I've only judged T-USFG, fairness is an impact. Planless affs often lack predictability. Counter-interpretation + model explanation > impact turning.

Ks:

Extinction outweighs, impact turning links is effective. K tricks are good. Links to plan > links to 1AC. Ontological arguments need a specific link.

CPs:

Uncomfortable with intricate competition debates. Likely not the best judge for detailed CP debates.

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.

Email:

alessiotoniolo25@marist.com

Background:

Policy debater at Marist School. Former public forum debater.

Idiosyncrasies:

Please do not ask loaded questions in cx/crossfire (I might be judging pf). For example,

is killing people bad (in reference to taking one's plan or bringing a topic down on a more substantive level).

If you respond with a loaded question like this and the questioning period is already not serious, I will give

you extra speak points.

I like spreading, but I will disregard any arguments if you are speaking at a pitch above 20,000 hertz and clipping

(you know who you are).

At the barebones, do not completely change how you debate, but regard decent debating etiquette.

Policy:

T: Prefer interpretations that do not just take the meaning down to literal words, but actually relate to what

the topic/case is inferring. I like topicality with good arguments, substantial evidence, and very good standards. I like

it when you strategically go for topicality in the 2nr (as long as you sufficiently use it).

CP: Explain how it relates to case, and how the net benefits link. Please explain how the counterplan works in the

judiciary system.

DAs: Prefer disadvantages if you can link them as a net benefit to the cp.

Case: I like quantifiable and real impacts.

Case add-ons: Do not expect me to vote on them. Generally, use them as a way to burden the negative's time.

K: As long as the aff can provide great answers as to why the K would not work, I can heavily weigh. In most cases, if

the K is radical and the aff hits on this, I will prefer aff. Excellent perm arguments that are very detailed really impress

me.

General: I prefer strategy over the actual quality (in most cases). For example, if you have a meaningful no link or link

turn say on an advantage and the aff does not respond to this, I will automatically disregard that advantage, because it

does not link. Answers need to make sense. Do not repeat your original argument if the other team directly responded

to it. Debate well, and go by your own standards not mine. I am not picky.

Aff-ks: I will automatically vote negative. Sorry but not sorry.

Public forum:

Debate how you debate. Do not be racist.

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

TLDR

Condo is probably bad. I don't like tricks and rude stuff. I don't like people beating their opponents down in a disrespectful manner. True champions find a way to win with style, finesse, and some measure of grace. Basically, "say what you mean, and mean what you say" in front of me. Kick outs and shifts are not received well. If you shift your position and the other team catches you, calls you on it, labels it a voter, impacts it, and you do not give that response serious consideration, you will have missed the opportunity to respond to something likely important in the decision. I prefer that debaters determine the issues in the round. My job is to evaluate how well, how clearly, how expertly, and how meaningfully the debaters present, refute, and summarize versus each other.

I like and am comfortable with crystal clear debaters and crystal-clear rebuttals. I am open to a lot of different types of discussions, and I'm excited to listen to what you bring to the debate space.

NO MATTER WHAT YOUR ARGUMENT, In a nutshell:

Tell Me What Your Argument Is

Tell Me Why I Should Prefer It

Tell Me Why If I Do Prefer Your Argument Why You Should Then Win The Debate---Some form of Impact Calculus/Weighting Magnitude, Probability and Time Frame-ish args are goods.

If you think you are really winning something, "sit on it" and explain why you win.

Updated 1/05/2024

Overview: I firmly believe that policy debate is first and foremost a communication activity. Consequently, oral presentation plays a large factor in my adjudication process. I focus on the “story” of the debate, but line-byline refutation can be a component of that. Know your order before you announce it. Don't change the order after you announce it. Clearly articulated arguments at any speed can be evaluated. Inarticulate utterings that cannot be understood cannot be evaluated. Especially in online debates. Slow down and be really clear on why you are winning. Be quick, but don't hurry. I will not tolerate rudeness. Cross X is binding. I don’t like “camp games” that steal time. I see you. Keep it to a minimum. If there is a mistake or misunderstanding just apologize. Saying you are sorry is often overlooked. You might clean it up well and still be in the debate. At the very least, you will save yourself low speaks if you make an honest effort to play it smart and on the level.

My paradigm biggies are as follows:

1. I agree that conditionality is "probably" bad. So, its "probably" not a bad idea to speak to this and support reasons why I might or might not vote on this---if it becomes an issue. Don’t just wait to see what I’ll do. In a vacuum of no direction on a debate argument, I am left to ignore the argument or evaluate by my own standards. I prefer to not do this. Its your debate. Clean it up. As far as just throwing out a bunch of stuff and then dropping it as a strategy---it does not usually go very well. I do not automatically judge kick. If you run 10 off, then win 10 off that do not contradict each other. Most importantly, be sure that you are clear as crystal even attempting it. When you time skew and then kick out, I am predisposed to vote for the other team if they argue time shew is a reason to reject the side that initiates such practices in the debate space. Absent compelling reasons why I should not do this--that's my predisposition. Again, its your debate so remember to tell me as the judge why I should prefer you style or point of view. Say what you mean and mean what you say is always best---as long as you are not being rude to your opponents. Practice civility always in debate rounds.

2. Topical Counterplans are probably not OK. If at the end of the round I have been effectively persuaded that there are two Affirmative teams, I'll probably vote Affirmative. Give me reasons to not do so, if this is part of your normal strategy. Explain why in a manner that includes what the AFF is doing and WHY even a topical CPLAN is preferred.

3. I prefer not to judge topicality debates. If you're ahead on it, explain to me why it’s important to care about this, or I might not understand why to vote on it. Again, compare your position to your opponents and why your side should win.

4. I enjoy case debates. Solidly clear, irrefutably presented and reasonably current inherency evidence could really win a debate. Really. Postdating sources is good. Supported evidence indicts are good. If you introduce an ethics challenge into a debate round, be prepared to win it. The penalty for challenging someone in such a manner seems to be leading toward the initiator losing the round if they lose their challenge.

5. Kritikal arguments on both AFF and NEG are fine, but pay close attention to the way you communicate your positions (clear and concise!).

6. The topic should be debated, but how you approach the resolution, and how you approach debate generally (content, style, etc.), is left up to the debaters.

7. If you're Negative, show me how your approach is specific to this Affirmative. Be thoughtful in explaining what a vote for your side means and why I should endorse it. Ask me to vote for your side. Don't completely on-face grant the 1AC in favor of pre-set tangentially related points and expect me to get why that means the Negative wins the debate. Be particularly clear on fairness and why ground is or isn't lost and warrants a decision. These are usually not presented clearly and powerfully. And without why they should matter, I tend to be persuaded by other issues

8. I appreciate when the AFF and NEG teams sit on the correct sides of the room with respect to the judge. Otherwise, I might want to vote for someone but accidentally vote for the wrong team. If you're not on the proper side of the room, at least say in your speech which side of the debate you represent and why you think your side should win the debate. That is taken for granted a lot. :)

Best,

Marna Weston