Lay judge.

Don't spread.

Particular on event guidelines, flexible on time.

Speech people:

Don't thank at the end of your presentation.

UCSD' 22

I debated LD, PF, CX, and Parli in highschool. The main event was Parli

Went to TOC for PF and was ranked 5th in the nation for Parli.

TLDR; Run anything you want, in order of my favour: LARP, Theory, K, Performance, Heavy Phil, Trix. I flow everything I can hear/reasonably read. I will say now tho I been out of the game for a while so may not be as fast as I used to be.

Dkolikineni@ucsd.edu

General

I'm tabula rasa, so I won't lean to any specific argument over another, so run what you'd like. Though I will not fill in any gaps for you and if I cannot say for certain you have won the round by the end, you will not win. It is most strategic for you to

a.) tell me which arguments you have won

b.) why you won them

c.) and why that means you won the round.

Prefs (In order of my understanding)

LARP / Case Debate - 1

Theory - 1

Philosophy - 1/2

K's - 2

Performance - 3

Speaks

30: Perfectly performed debate on all layers + you were entertaining to judge.

29+: All layers of the debate were handled very well.

28+: Most layers of the debate were handled well.

27+: Some layers were handled well.

26+: Missed critical aspects of the debate and didn't handle most layers adequately.

25+: Fatal error / Lot to improve on.

0: Defending sexism, racism, etc

Arguments

Kritiks

a. If you're going for a K, make sure the framework, link, impact, and alt are clearly stated. Provide a ROTB when applicable to make my job easier. If it's a K that is uncommon on the circuit, spend 15 seconds explaining the thesis PLEASE

b. If you say "the alt is to vote neg", provide justification in the sense of analysis, logic, or evidence.

c. General links are not ideal. Give me something directly from the aff case that links the case.

Aff Kritiks

a. In addition to everything else stated above, give me good reasons why the aff gets to be non topical (if you are non topical).

b. Creative but logical alts make me more inclined to vote for you.

c. If you don't have me convinced by the 1AR, I probably won't vote for your K Aff.

Plans

a. Clever plans that go outside the expectations of the resolution but still are justifiably topical are good. Be very specific in what your plantext contains. (All the different types of Specs).

b. Give me a solvency advocate. Ideally two. Go for the perm.

c. (For Parli) Give me a copy of your plantext on a separate piece of paper before or during your 1AC.

Counterplans

a. Please, PLEASE, prove why the counterplan is competitive.

b. Counterplans should have advantages independent of the rest of the debate.

c. Perms by the neg are valid. Convince me though.

Disads

a. More recent evidence is better than not.

b. A direct link is better. Something specifically from the aff you're facing.

c. Give me quantifiable impacts.

Misc

a. In LD, CX, and PF you can spread all you want provided you send me a speech document.

b. In Parli I am fine with a fast pace however I won't allow LD / CX speeds simply because I cannot guarantee I'll catch everything.

c. I cannot spell if my life depended on it and I care less still to try so just keep that in mind.

d. If anything isn't answered on this paradigm, ask me briefly before the round.

Hello and Welcome!

I prefer clear and CIVIL debates. Personal attacks, targeting based on non-topical issues, continuously talking over someone, and any abuse of prep time are all things that will drop your speaker points very, very low.

I'm fine with speed, but you have to be both clear and organized. If you will be spreading, please include me on the email chain.

Clear signposting is essential. I also prefer to see attacks going down the flow (cont. 1 first, cont 2. second, etc.) rather than jumping around. It makes for easier flowing and a more ordered argument.

Also, please note that I don't flow cross. If something comes up in cross and you want to make sure it's on my flow, you need to mention it in the following speech.

I'll weight voters if they're provided, otherwise I'll vote on the flow.

If you have any specific questions about my judging style or experience that are not addressed here, please feel free to ask before the start of the round.

While I am new to coaching and judging in California, I do have six years of judging and coaching debate under my belt from Virginia. I am more traditional in that I like my different debate "flavors" to actually remain distinct. Counterplans and spreading, as far as I am concerned, have no place in LD or PF debate. I like to see a debate with actual thought, structure, and clash - not just a "see who can drop the most information in the judge's lap" contest. If you're going to provide me with evidence and information, you better do something with it. I also don't care for a "my evidence is better than your evidence" debate. You can, and should, tell me if your evidence is newer, more relevant, or more compelling than your opponent's, but you should not make it the basis of your rebuttal. We are here to argue ideas, not whose study came out most recently. Additionally, I respect debaters who know what is going on in round and who are not afraid to call their opponents out for dropping a contention or misinterpreting the resolution.

I am a high school English teacher and I know the real key to any good argument is a strong foundation and staying on message. Organized constructives will get you far, but organized rebuttals will get your farther. Roadmapping and signposting are very much welcomed and encouraged. In LD, your value should carry through all parts of your case.

All that being said: I love debate for what it is at it's core - a conversation between two intelligent human beings who are able to both listen and speak equally well. I start every round with a fresh mind and a completely blank slate. My own personal thoughts, feelings, and beliefs have no place in a debate round. As such, I side with whichever debater is able to offer the more compelling argument.