Anderson High School former debater/speecher class of 23

fighting Texas Aggie class of 27

mid extemper, qualified for state and toc and nats in extemp since someone thought I was ok I guess.

extemp is a speech event, I care more about presentation than facts (still shouldn't make too much stuff up though).

You can talk me up when you enter the room, kind of curious what it feels like to be on the other side of it. Won't help rankings though.

I like horses.

Have fun and don't panic :)

UT '27

Add me to the email chain: anikajsharma@gmail.com

Hey! I'm Anika, and I am currently a freshman studying economics and government at UT Austin. I debated in LD at LC Anderson High School on the local and a bit on the nat circuit my junior and senior years.

Prefs:

1 - LARP

2 - Theory, Phil

3 - K

4 - Tricks

Generally I am tech > truth, but if an argument is blatantly false or frivolous I'll have a much lower threshold for responses. I will vote on most any argument that isnt blatantly harmful (racist, sexist, homophobic, etc) as long as there is a warrant present and its extended.

I haven't thought about debate in many months and am rusty so please go slower than you would normally! Especially slow down on tags, author names, plan texts and analytics -> please be clear, I will say "clear" twice if you are being unintelligible before getting docking your speaks.

Please be loud enough as well - if you are speaking at a volume that I can barely hear, I will say "louder" twice before I stop flowing.

I enjoy watching and pay attention to CX - please use cross effectively (while still being respectful). An entertaining cross with strategic lines of questioning will make me happy. Long periods of silence or dead-ended questions that don't seem to serve any purpose in the round will make me unhappy. Knowing your own evidence/arguments well and being able to defend them is very important.

You can read whatever arguments you want, but if it is a niche kritik/phil then clearly explain it to me like I am in fifth grade if you want me to vote on it - I won't vote on any argument that I don't understand.

Be respectful to your opponents, have confidence in yourself and try your best - it makes the activity better for everyone

Any questions I am happy to answer before the round! Best of luck!!

UPDATE--4/26.24

FOR THE MSTOC-- I am a tab judge and am willing to listen to anything and everything you have to say. I am great for lay debates and even greater for more technical forms of debate. I will do my absolute best to render a decision that constructively builds character and debate skill. please pref me high if you dont want frustrating decisions.

UPDATE--4/9/24

I've come to realize that alot of judges are unwilling to vote on flat out conceded arguments that obviously have technical implications to the round. Even when extended, I seem to find that alot of the time judges are just "too dogmatic" or "unwilling to vote on theory" which is blatant intervention. Obviously, some arguments have a lower threshold than others, but when flat out conceded and doesn't have a response by the 2AR-- ill obviously vote negative. This is an event shaped by objective, not subjective evaluation, which means I will try my best not to intervene in a given round.

UPDATE--FEB 24

please set up an email chain/ speech drop prior to the round

yes chain: watkinsnate25[at]gmail.com

Currently a Junior and debate for LC Anderson in both LD & CX [ 2A/2N], Accumulated 4 bids to the TOC

I read the Kritik, Policy, and Theory the majority of the time

I default to No Judge Kick, No RVI's and Reasonability

most of this paradigm is stolen from Shree Awsare and Vaishali Sivamani

getting my ballot is shockingly uncomplex. i am becoming increasingly irritated with the rabid forms of ideological dogmatism that have taken root on both sides of the policy/k divide and the steeply declining quality of judge rfd + feedback post-return from lockdown. i am privy to watching debaters put gargantuan time and effort into reading cool and valuable things from a spectrum of different arg types and i want to see good debaters do what they do best. this means that i put immense care into rfds and value the privilege of coaching and judging at each tournament i attend. anything else is silly, wastes copious amounts of time, and waters down the quality of debates.this is your debate, not mine. do not abuse that privilege.feel free to post-round, yell at me, or whatever you have to in a respectful manner to get the most out of this experience, i will not take it personally.

Irreversible Beliefs:
- Debate is best when students reference and respond to arguments in the order in which they were presented.
- I will try my best to flow the debate. Easy-to-transcribe soundbytes, emphasis in sentences, and pen time is a must. I cannot flow debaters who shotgun 3 word arguments at top speed nor those who speak in delirious, winding paragraphs.
- I flow arguments, not character assassinations. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Screenshots are not evidence. I have neither the authority nor resources to launch an investigation about outside behavior, coach indiscretions, or pref sheets. Debate like you are grown.
- No double wins, devolution to another game, or soliciting audience participation. First to initiate receives a L and very low speaks.
- Escalating CX unnecessarily, heckling opponents, zoom insults, etc = cringe.
- Cheating, harassment, slurs are a L, 0 speaks, and gets your coaches involved. Same for ethics violations without evidence.
- Asking for a 30 = auto 26.
- Reading cards > Not reading cards. A smart analytic can beat a bad card, but no cards anywhere lowers chances of victory.
- No evidence insertions. Debate is an oral activity.

Idiosyncrasies:
- My speaker points are lower than the community average. I reserve 29.2+ to speakers I thought were exceptional. You can improve your points by debating your opponents rather than reading scripts, preparing effective cross-examinations, reading exceptional cards, and not breaking my verbatim with your docs. If you give your rebuttals off of a paper flow and without a computer, you will receive 0.3 speaker points higher than what you would have received otherwise.

- I am unsure why 'new affirmative' means 'blank check' for the negative. I have never understood a warrant for why it suddenly makes artificially competitive counterplans legitimate, and don't agree with the community consensus that it automatically justifies deranged conditionality. If the new affirmative is topical, it implies that the negative should have been able to anticipate it and prepare strategies. That said, the affirmative usually folds and lets the negative go bananas, so - more power to them.
- I am more amenable to negative terrorism (2NC CPs, logical CP planks without solvency advocates, word PICs, etc) than most if executed well. I do not necessarily think 'counterplans must be textually and functionally competitive' is a truism. That said, I was a 2A, and am amenable to affirmative objections. I enjoy theory debates more than most, but it has been a minute since anyone has been good at debating it.
- Objections about the legitimacy of counterplans that do all of the plan are often better explained through competition than theory.
- Critiques aren't counterplans. Links aren't meant to be 'unique' or 'to the plan' because they aren't 'DAs.' Private actor fiat of 'movements' or 'mindsets' makes it easier for the affirmative to win on the perm. Links must be paired with impacts that outweigh, turn, or bracket the case.
- Fairness is an impact for T USFG if explained right, and limits is the most persuasive internal link. Evidence-based debate seems unworkable if there’s significant asymmetries in anticipation. Affirmatives can win without a traditional plan; critiquing neg definitions and providing counter-definitions that establish a model for both sides to engage improve their win rate. 'CI - discussion of topic,' 'default to us,' 'debate bad' and its corollary of naming debaters who used their skills for evil, and poor analogies that T is akin to drone strikes are dissuasive.
- While I understand that enthymemes are to some extent inevitable in communication, I am growingly frustrated with 'technical debating' that is used as cover for having a complete argument and judge instruction. Truth bombs like 'no perms in a method debate,' 'progress is possible,' 'X is ontological,' 'T is anti-[insert population] violence' with no further detail often leaves me asking - Why? How so? I am unwilling to vote for dropped ink that I can't make sense of or can't explain back to you and your opponents.

Westwood HS

2022-2023 Season Update:

Senior at Westwood High School this year.

Most of the things below still apply when I evaluate a round. However, I have switched to mainly judging PF, and I have more topic knowledge on PF topics than CX since I have not debated CX for quite a while now.

If I do get put in the CX judging pool, yes, I will still know how things work, but when it comes to more complicated arguments such as Kritik or Theory, It might take me a while to process these arguments. So, please be careful when you choose your strat and be clear in the round.

He/Him, you can also just call me Sean

Put me on the email chain before the round:

condobad@gmail.com

PF:

- 30% Truth, 70% Tech:I believe the nature of PF is a bit different than CX and that truth should be evaluated. However, it does not mean that you can just throw out random truths in the round and call it a day. Empirical evidence is important in any debate and should be evaluated first. It is your job to prove to me why these truths matter in the debate and how they should be evaluated.

- Disclosure (Sending Docs/Open Sourcing): I will not make you send your case docs to each other, but I do strongly encourage disclosure on both sides. The consequence of not disclosing will be reflected in your speaks. I would appreciate it if you do choose to disclose, but please DOWNLOAD your docs from whatever software you use and then send it. I do not want to see a live shared google doc in my mailbox.

- Speed: you can go as fast as you want, but again, If you do choose to not disclose your document, I would not be able to flow your speeches if you are not clear. Also please give a roadmap before every speech.

- Theory: I have a good knowledge of the different types of theories and how they work, at least in CX. Here are some thoughts on theory:

1, Topicality (I guess you can put it under "theory"...) GO FOR IT! Topicality is definitely underused in PF and should definitely be an "official" argument in the future. I will evaluate it if it's used correctly, but If I see some randomly copied CX blocks on T...it won't go well:)

2, I am biased in some ways...If you debate theories such as "disclosure bad", "paraphrasing good", or "sweater theory", I most likely won't evaluate them in the round.

3, Perf con always exists

4, Go look at AMOGH MAHAMBARE's paradigm, he's cool.

- Kritik:To put it in short, I know what a K is, I have some knowledge on specific Ks and philosophies, I have some knowledge on how it can be used in round (in CX), and I have no idea how it's used in PF.

- Speaks:same as CX, except if you choose to not send out your docs, speaks will cap at 29.

CX:

- Generic Thoughts:

P L E A S E time your own prep time and speeches.

Tech > Truth, don't rely on "common sense"

Don't be overly aggressive in c-x, if you turn c-x into an interrogation I will take away ur speaks.

For more info, James Li has a pretty good paradigm.

- Speaker Points:

Please do not do things like disabling the navigation pane by doing special formatting in your word document, I will destroy your speaks.

I take off speaks with a .25 increment.

- Topicality: It is up to the debaters to determine how I evaluate topicality. Explain to me why T matters to the debate space, and if you read T at full speed during NR/ARs, is going to be really hard for me to hear you, so please be clear.

- Counterplans: The more explanation the better, I know most of the generic CPs.

Counterplan Theory: I will buy theory if the counterplan is super sketchy. However, it’s still up to the Affirmative to prove to me why I should reject the team.

- Theory: I do think that sometimes the neg just gets too much “cheat”, but I’m not gonna just vote Neg down if they run multiple contradictory arguments if the Aff doesn’t do anything about it. However; I will buy theories that are well structured and developed in a debate, again is up to the aff to prove to me why to reject the team, and I do not like cheap short theories, especially if you are “hiding” the theory shell. Most likely I will not vote for cheap short theories even if they get dropped.

- Disads: The more specific the better. I prefer 1 or 2 good cards to 10 bad cards, warrants of the cards are also very important. Analytical arguments under DAs are fine.

- Kritik: I’m mainly a policy debater, I understand the generic Ks (set col, abolition, etc), but again, the more specific the better. When it comes to Ks like Baudrillard, I will try my best to understand them, so the more specific and explanation the better. K flows tend to get messy, so please be clear and signpost if needed while reading K. Overall is up to the debaters to prove and teach to me within the round, if you cannot explain the K and your position at the end of the debate, most likely I will not vote for it.

I think reading K Aff in novice yr is abusive.

Case: Please debate on case stuff… Good args on case and some offcases > a bunch of offcases with barely anything on case since case is pretty much the only aff offense. A good dropped case turn will likely win Neg the round. I’m open to any kind of argument you have as long as it is intelligent, arguably true, and not problematic.