Hey!
I'm a junior in high school, who loves speech & debate :). I've been competing in this activity since the beginning of high school. My main event is Congressional Debate, competing at the local district, states, and national level. I've additionally completed in other debate events, predominantly in Big Question Debate and Extemp Debate, and both the local and national level.

I value respectful and factual debating. It should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway- don't interrupt or talk over your opponents during any part of the debate. I prefer coherent and clear speeches over speeches that are fast and attempt to fit in as many words as possible in the allocated time. I tend to reject false "facts", please make sure that your evidence is true and factually correct. Keep your arguments straightforward, and if you can focus on one central argument and really support it throughout the entire debate, that will serve you better than half-supporting several different arguments.

Equity is the most important thing in an event. Discrimination of ANY SORT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED IN A WAY SHAPE OR FORM!

Congress:

Congress is HANDS DOWN my favorite event!

- Presence-Your presence in the round will have an impact on where I rank you. A common misconception that I want to correct here: Presence is NOT being the most involved with setting the docket, taking splits, or being the person who makes every motion. Presence is your round relevance: This really boils down to the impact you make on the round; there should be no way that I walk out of the round and ask myself"What did this person bring to the round".Quite simply, if I feel as though you did not add on to the round or have significance you will be dropped.

- Argumentation- Make arguments that WIN the round. I do not want to hear any speech after the author/sponsor that is just making one-off claim/warrant/impacts, BE RESPONSIVE AND INTERACTIVE. This is not to say that you should not have offense; a good speech should have offense that it also inherently responsive in that you are bringing a net-harm/positive to your side but also disproving the other side. I dislike arguments that are purely defensive (constitutionality, enforcement, etc.).Biggest thing for me argumentatively:I HEAVILY dislike when debaters 'card-spam' or solely rely on evidence without providing any logical warranting for their argument.

• Simply put, I believe that the affirmative’s job is to prove the bill is better than the status quo (and nothing else) and the negation's job is to prove the bill creates a worse world than the status quo. (this also means I will not evaluate your counter plan)

- Speaking/Delivery- I will keep this very short because I want to know you and your personal style, not what you think will get my 1. Couple things to avoid are being excessively fast/spreading, being monotone, and yelling. I really enjoy a well-placed joke, be funny and have fun with your AGDs/conclusions. Stay professional but be entertaining and light-hearted.

- Presiding Officers -It is INCREDIBLY rare that I rank a presiding officer 1st - this does not mean impossible, do not be dissuaded. Generally, a presiding officer will land anywhere from 3-7, which can be altered depending on the break. If you want to contend for my one: be ultra efficient, be assertive (NOT RUDE), and be concise (I will appreciate you more if you speak as minimally as possible). Being completely honest, the only way this really happens is if you are stellar or if the round is generally rough. If nobody in the chamber wants to PO and you genuinely do it for the sake of the chamber, I will understand and probably reward you. Making a mistake will not get you dropped depending on how you handle them, please be honest about it and move on instead of telling a bold-faced lie. The biggest thing that will make me drop a presiding officer - dropping someone (recency-wise). I have enough knowledge of presiding and this event to know when it is being done and I have ZERO tolerance for it - be equitable.

- Flipping-I love a balanced debate, so I reward people who flip. There is a caveat here that is fairly important: don't give a bad speech. Flipping will not automatically get you my 1, I still want to hear a good speech. In other words, don't give a terrible speech "for the sake of the debate." You will get points for flipping if your speech is good though.

- Weighing -I'm a fan of weighing at any point in the round where it makes sense to do so, don't just leave this to the crystallization speech if you can fit it in earlier. The best debaters can weigh without using debate jargon, but I'll be happy with any weighing.

• Refutation-Don't just tell me that someone is wrong, tell me why they're wrong and explain why you're right. Also, don't just namedrop a bunch of people and say they're all wrong. Either group their arguments or take them one by one.

Debate

I HATE it when a debate turns on yo a full out war. I know how it feels like to get frustrated in round, but please show respect to yourself and your competitors. My biggest thing is that I need to be able to understand what you're saying. I STRONGLY DISLIKE SPREADING!!!

Most of my experience is in Policy and LD, however, I do have experience in PF, parli, extemp debate, and World Schools.

General preferences:

I can handle speed, but if you're going to spread then I would like to see an email chain (mikeythird8@gmail.com).

I will keep time and encourage you to as well. This means in round you should sound off when you start your speech or prep time so I can make sure my time is accurate. I would prefer if you keep track of your own prep time, but I'll keep track of that as well. While I think it's important for you as a debater to keep time, judge time is the only true time.

A major pet peeve I have is when debaters simply repeat their arguments to defend them instead of actually refuting the response to their argument. Repetition is not refutation, nor will I count it as such.

Do not be rude, condescending, etc. Your speaks will not look good by the end of the round.

TL;DR - I will vote on any argument, I lean traditional (in policy I prefer stock issues), and try and have a good round and stay away from gish galloping and cheap args.

For PF:

I've never found preferences to be super useful in PF beyond what I have already gone over in general so this section is gonna be a bit sparse. The only thing that comes to mind is the importance of weighing. I'm not gonna weigh the round unless both teams fail to do so, otherwise I'm most likely going to default to which ever team does weigh. In terms of weighing, I will default to a util framework unless told otherwise. I'll vote on anything but I would keep it simple, it is only PF.

For LD:

The biggest thing I want to see in any LD round is a definitive framework debate. I don't want to chose a framework by the end of the round, I want one to be the clear winner. In terms of knowledge base, I'm not the most well educated in moral philosophy, but I do know a decent amount. Just make sure your framework is clearly explained and don't just rely on my ability to decipher your cards. Beyond that my only other comment for LD would be that I am personally a trad debater. Being as I have pretty extensive policy experience, I can handle prog LD, but I don't really like it and I'm going to be more open to trad arguments. In my opinion, LD does not have the time structure to support progressive arguments and I think that moral philosophy debate is good in itself. Extend any of my applicable preferences on policy to prog LD.

For CX:

This is where most paradigms get long, but I am going to try and keep it on the shorter side.

For some general notes, I am a flow judge, but I would still like to see well labeled speech docs. For neg that means actual titles for your off instead of just numbers and for aff that means clear indications of different sections (adv 1, adv 2, solvency, etc.). This isn't a voter by any means but it may help your speaks and at the very least it will make the round easier to follow.

Tech > Truth; Quality > Quantity

I will only vote on what is said in round, my opinions will not be inserted. However, I do not like the strategy of pitching 5 off and a 4 pages of case cards at a team and seeing what they drop. This kind of debate will not work well to convince me to vote for you, and at the very least your speaks will take a severe hit.

T/Theory

My opinions on theory are few, but my opinions on T are many. In terms of theory, I have rarely seen theory args I think are valid complaints, but I'll vote for anything. Although I personally dislike disclosure theory a lot, mainly because it is a cheap argument and often is just used for no valid reason, I will still vote on it if not contested because I have to, don't make me vote on disclosure theory. On T, I personally spend a lot of time debating T and It's probably one of my strongest arguments so I am kind of a stickler for it. I want well written interps with clear standards and voters. I want counter interps that make sense and standards for them that are clear. I will default to competing interp and drop the debater unless told otherwise. My biggest thing for both T and theory is that it is a major argument for the round and the amount of time you dedicate to it and where you put in the order do matter. Those factors help me, as the judge, determine if you're simply running another off or if it's an actual complaint on the other team and if it actually means something to you. One final note on either T or Theory is that it shouldn't look like it got cobbled together last second, even though it probably was. Take the time to edit it and make it coherent.

CPs

These are pretty run of the mill. There's not much to say beyond the fact that I would prefer if you write out the full plan text for Agent or Process CPs instead of just saying "do the plan" in parenthesis. Also make sure you actually write out a plan text for States CP, I found that sometimes people don't because it's so well known, but I would accept not having a plan text as a valid reason to drop the argument. States CP's are pretty standard, but the wording of the plantext, even for a States CP can be a vital factor in debates. There are a couple of different theory args that can be run on CPs, so see above for any details about those. When it comes to Perms, I have no real prefs.

DAs

Pretty basic stuff, UQ and Brink cards need to be recent, I won't throw out the DA on that if your opponent does not call it out, but It's a very valid argument in my mind. That being said, the aff should explain what has changed in the world to call a UQ or Brink card invalid, unless it is more than a year old. I could accept generic link cards if the aff does not give a valid reason why they should not apply or if the neg can comprehensively explain why they do apply.

Ks

I'm not much of a k debater, I'm open to anything but I'm not familiar with the topic lit or most k lit. I do not like K affs, but if they are clear enough and not contested well I would vote for them, just know I'd prolly be very open to anti- K aff arguments.

Ask any questions you have about my paradigm or preferences before the round starts.

PF Judge

I like a good, clean debate with clash and coherent reasoning and logic.

Don’t spread (It’s my biggest pet peeve)

Speak clearly and slowly, and LOUDLY

If you are asking for evidence from the other team; make sure to bring it up don’t ask for evidence just for the sake of it.

Make sure you weigh in summary and final focus, I choose the winner based on overall consistency through the round and whichever team carries and extends their arguments throughout the whole round. Logic and coherent reasoning are super important.

Don’t just say “I have a card” explain to me the significance of it

Cross-ex should be civilized

Good luck :)

Quick Facts

-> Highschool junior with experience in LD, PF, policy, extemp debate, and BQ (basically every debate event)

-> My hearing is a little bad so make sure you speak at least slightly louder than you would in conversation

-> My email is ellakasat@gmail.com if you ever have any questions :)

-> definitely trad, if you want to run something prog, be careful since I'll only vote on it if it actually makes sense, is relevant to the topic, and if it's very well run. if you don't understand what you are running I won't vote on it.

->please do not spread, and if you absolutely must spread you must share the docs and you will get lower speaks

ON LD :)

LD is my favorite event by far. I personally don't love super complex frameworks, but I don't mind if something out of pocket is run. I value impactful arguments in the round, but they have to fit under the framework. Speaking isn't super important to me, just be loud enough and don't spread.

ON PF :)

I strongly dislike over-blown nuke war impacts, but if you do have a real link to it then I can vibe with it.

ON POLICY :)

I don't love super progressive policy, but since that is the nature of policy, I'll live with it. Do try to explain stuff like K's and theory shells, because if it sounds like you don't understand what K you are arguing then I won't vote on it.

Hey, Y'all!

Your judge, Manan Kothari, here,

So just for a quick layout, I'll start with some basic stuff about myself as a judge, move on to a quick note for my speech homies (I appreciate you guys too!), and then comes the debate preferences rant...fair warning it's long. Just [Ctrl+F] to where you need to go! Sounds good? Great!

Me as a judge:

- My pronouns are He/They, but you can address me however you would like(Your holiness would be funny, wouldn't it?)

- I am always happy to listen to any and all forms of debate, however, do not presume I would understand or have read your literature. Do explain anything and everything you do bring up. I am traditional leaning, especially out of policy, and typically if you wish to progressively debate in PF or LD, do so at your own risk.

- If you want me to be a lay judge, you only need to say as much.

- Keep your own time and do not expect me to baby you. Especially in forms such as PF, I do not understand asking for "x minutes of time", take your time, let me know when to stop the clock, and we move on.

- Following on from the last one, for all my speech amigos, do ask me for personalized time signals if you so wish.

- Please please please add me to any and all email chains at (MananKKDebate@gmail.com). However, unless there is serious contention, I truly believe I have missed something, or I am asked to, I will not read the speech doc card by card. Forensics is first and foremost, a communicative activity.

- I do not have a good poker face and my emotions will likely shine through, take that how you will.

- And while I hope this isn't necessary, I do strongly support all forms of equality, and any form of rudeness, condensation, or discrimination against your peers or any group as a whole will result in strong disapproval, and I may end the match if it is severe enough. This is your warning.

- Ask any questions you need before the round, and if they are related to anything answered in this here said paradigm, I will be disappointed(but of course still answer ;)

- Finally, have fun!!!

Speech

- That's right. I actually do have something cooked up for you guys. Frankly, it's impossible for me to give MY preferences, as this is YOUR chance for expression. However, I do factor that in. It should be YOUR expression, and if it comes off as something else, it will be factored in. Rarely do I have any issues with that though. First and foremost, my criticism, in the end, is entirely meant to be constructive and help you improve, so please, I implore you, do Have fun!

Debate(This is a biggie) - Let's start with some general info:

- Spreading. For policy, I simply need to understand you, and if I cannot, I will yell "Clear!", if you keep on spreading at an unintelligible rate, I will stop yelling and give up. Do hope I am in good enough of a mood to check your speech doc. For PF, a conversational rate, I expect no spreading, but if both parties begin spreading, I will adapt. For LD, due to my traditional leaning, I do strongly prefer no spreading, but of course, I can adapt.

- Repeating. Is. Not. Refuting!! ('Nuff said I hope.)

- Gish Galloping is a no.

- I default to a Burden of Negation. Simply refuting the aff is not enough for me to give you a ballot 90% of the time.

Public Forum

Let's start with my pros:

- Weigh. Weigh. Weigh.

- Tech over Truth.

- Smart warranting and extensions.

- A strong line by line with signposting and taglines.

- A Good Clash!

Things that require you to be a strong debater to get my ballot:

- Alternative and Progressive argumentation. Must be warranted well and thoroughly explained. I am my most traditional in PF.

- Spreading. I do not understand spreading in PF, and I likely will be against it.

Only ethics violations could cause me to give you a straight-up loss.

If not explicitly given a different framework, I will be defaulting to a utilitarian framework.

I rarely flow cross. It is not meant as a round-winner, and as such, while it will change the way I see the round, Cross is rarely flowed.

Lincoln-Douglas

- Lincoln-Douglas is likely my least experienced topic. Fair warning.

- I am an "Open-Minded Traditionalist". If you can make a progressive round work for me, go for it. If it fails in my eyes, I will likely letcha know.

- I love framework debates, however, there must be more than just framework. Give me everything.

- Kritiks/theory cases are fine but you need some sort of offense. Even if you completely nullify your opponent's case you still need something on your side of the flow showing me why I should vote for your case/world/whatever.

- You must always link your arguments into the round's accepted framework, especially if it is your own framework. If you use Util as your VC you MUST provide a Util analysis at some point in the round. All Util frameworks boil down to some concept of weighing net benefit and harm. Therefore to win the round you must explain exactly why your side gives the most benefit and/or least harm, and this means directly weighing your net benefit/harm against your opponent's net benefit/harm.

Policy Time!!!

- Okay so, I am not a strong policy debater, do not expect much from me. However, I will do my best. Here are my guidelines:

- My default thinking on counterplan solvency is sufficiency framing.

- Don't do disclosure theory. It takes true exceptionality for me to not make you lose that round.

- I have read my share of literature, don't expect me to remember it all or not want you to explain it to me.

- For the K's - I know things. I do not know all the things. Acting like you know all the things and that makes you cool is not cool. K debates often get caught up in the fun buzzwords versus actual debating. Be Careful.

- Case-specific links are very good for you!! Non-specific and ridiculously generic links are not very good for you!!

- Explain to me exactly how I should compare your arguments, do not leave me floundering in the water.

- Topicality. Must be strongly done. Love TVA's, definitions, good clash, and focus on the resolution itself most of the time.

TLDR

Don't be a bad person, spreading requires skill outside of policy, and I'm traditional and dumb as nails. Explain everything to me.

Conclusion

Hopefully, you got everything you need, do read this thing for what you need, and ask me for any questions pre-round. I likely won't give RFD or my decision, but I do love some Q&A if you want. Most importantly, I'm here to tell you who did better in this game of speech and debate. This is, in the end, a game. A way for you to have fun doing what you (hopefully ) love. So do that. Good luck!!!

Sincerely,

The dumbest judge you may ever have.