Guyer (2016-2020)

Email Chain - misb2001@gmail.com

I was a policy debater on the Dallas circuit. Broke at TFA, UIL, and Nationals.

I don't do debate anymore, and I'm pretty rusty.

- Speed is fine, but clarity is more important.

- Rebuttals should write out a ballot for me.

- Line by line is important.

- Arguments are comprised of a claim + warrant.

- I have not researched anything about the CJR topic.

Hello! I'm Saharsh (he/him), and I did PF for a year, then did prog LD and policy. I'll really evaluate any argument as long as it's not abusive :)

Add me on whatever email chain you have: saharsh.madu@gmail.com

Also, I don't really care about speaks, so winner gets 30 and loser gets 29.99 or 30 if the system allows it. Put away your 30 speaks theory.

I could probably flow your top speed, but slow down on analytics if you're not sending a doc.

Prefs:

1 - K Aff/K Neg

2 - KvK

2 - Policy (Wholerez doesn't count)

2 - Non-T Affs

3 - Topicality

3 - Theory (Tricks - 5)

4 - Wholerez

4 - Phil (If you are able to run it as a K then it's a 1 but don't just edit the link and add an impact and expect me to understand it like a K)

5 - Stock (I'm fine if you run stock but it just makes debate boring)

5 - Very Wierd Counterplans / Abusive PICs

STRIKE - Dense Phil (I have a very hard time understanding dense phil)

Update for Loyola 2020:

Honestly, not much has changed since this last LD update in 2018 except that I now teach at Success Academy in NYC.

Update for Voices / LD Oct 2018:

I coach Policy debate at the Polytechnic School in Pasadena, CA. It has been a while since I have judged LD. I tend to do it once a or twice a year.

You do you: I've been involved in judging debate for over 10 years, so please just do whatever you would like to do with the round. I am familiar with the literature base of most postmodern K authors, but I have not recently studied classical /enlightenment philosophers.

It's okay to read Disads: I'm very happy to judge a debate involving a plan, DAs and counter-plans with no Ks involved as well. Just because I coach at a school that runs the K a lot doesn't mean that's the only type of argument I like / respect / am interested in.

Framework: I am open to "traditional" and "non-traditional" frameworks. Whether your want the round to be whole res, plan focused, or performative is fine with me. If there's a plan, I default to being a policymaker unless told otherwise.

Theory: I get it - you don't have a 2AC so sometimes it's all or nothing. I don't like resolving these debates. You won't like me resolving these debates. If you must go for theory, please make sure you are creating the right interpretation/violation. I find many LD debaters correctly identify that cheating has occurred, but are unable to identify in what way. I tend to lean education over fairness if they're not weighed by the debaters.

LD Things I don't Understand: If the Aff doesn't read a plan, and the Neg reads a CP, you may not be satisfied with how my decision comes out - I don't have a default understanding of this situation which I hear is possible in LD.

Other thoughts: Condo is probably a bad thing in LD.

.

.

Update for Jack Howe / Policy Sep 2018: (Sep 20, 2018 at 9:28 PM)

Update Pending

Please use the link below to access my paradigm. RIP Wikispaces.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Vepa%2C+Teja