Last changed on
Sun March 10, 2024 at 9:47 AM CDT
Hey Guys! My name is Vaisakh Karuvath and I am currently a member of Debate in Bentonville High School. A little bit about me: I have done all styles of debate except for BQ and currently my main style is Public Forum, but don't let that allow you to underestimate my experience in Policy, LD, or Congress. As a judge, I mostly have in experience in debate, however I will try my best to be fair when judging Forensics events also. If you have any questions after round, please feel free to email me at debatekaruvath@gmail.com
As a debate judge here is what I am looking for:
- Of utmost importance to me is a respectful and engaging debate. If I see that you are in any way being a disturbance to a good quality debate, I can guarantee you that the round most likely will not go your way.
- I love clash! It is one of my favorite things about debating, it truly brings out your skills as a debater and a speaker to the maximum. Make sure to stay organized and know your material, if not, the debate sounds very monotone and will not be enjoyable for anyone.
- Let's address speed for a second. I am all for speed and I am mostly fine with it, but if you decide to spread in any other event than Policy, just stop and ask yourself what you're trying to do because it really doesn't work.
- Direct me through your speeches. Don't expect me to infer what you're trying to say or impact. Address everything and tell me why it matters. At the end of the round, I will most definitely be looking at who has the bigger and better impacts and that is what will win you the round. I do flow everything, however, don't expect me to rely on my flows the entire round; it is your job to convince me why you won the round.
- As for cross-ex, there is not much to say. I will definitely be paying attention, but I will not flow it. If something is said in cross-ex that is important to the debate, use it in your next speech so I can weigh it along with the other arguments. Make sure to stay respectful in cross-ex!! Being aggressive does not make you a better debater.
- If a card is called for, I expect that it already be cut and ready to be sent. Given the chance of technical difficulties, it shouldn't be taking 10 minutes to send a cut card. Come to round prepared, I don't want to see cards being cut in round.
- Just a quick thing to know, I DESPISE definitions debates. They do not serve any purpose unless there is a clear misconstruction of a definition, but I doubt that will ever happen.
- Progressive debate within Public Form and Lincoln Douglas is perfectly fine with me. But, just make sure you know what you're doing and make sure you know what you're talking about. It can be easy to get lost, but sometimes progressive PF and LD can be super fun!
- In terms of speaks: everyone will start out at a 28.5 and can go up or down from there. To get good speaks from me just be confident, present yourself well, be respectful, and be engaging.
- Finally, just a quick thing to address. Any racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, sexist, ableist, or demeaning comments/arguments will result in a swift loss for you. None of this is tolerated, it is not to be seen in debate. We are all friends here.
Style Specific:
Honestly, this is going to be a lot, so just look for the style you're competing and it's fine if you just read through that. And, once again, if you have questions just ask me in round!
PF - Alrighty, I really enjoy debating unique cases in PF especially if they link to the resolution well and it's a weird, but fun take on it. So, I'm definitely going to enjoy watching a round that has good debate between two different cases that aren't generic or common. Let's discuss framework. I honestly do not care about framework, it does not matter to me, however if you do provide a framework just stick to it because that is what I will use to weigh the round at the end. If you are opposing a team that has brought in a framework you still need to make sure to show how you win based on the framework they provide if you don't have a framework yourself. If both teams have a framework, it's gonna get really muddy, but whoever can show me which one matters more will get the ballot. I will be defaulting to cost-benefit analysis if no framework is provided and please don't center the debate around the framework, it really makes it less enjoyable. Some of the biggest things you should focus on is line-by-line argumentation especially in the Rebuttal speeches. You need to make sure that you get them on their links and impacts to show me why they aren't accessible or why you would access in, otherwise all I have to go off of is the case itself which doesn't do much for you. Along with this, you need to make sure you extend everything through each speech; if something is dropped or is not mentioned in a speech, I will flow it to the team who made the last argument for/against it. However, it is still the opponent team's job to mention that an argument went unanswered for the sake of showing me why it matters that they dropped it. By the end of the round you need to be able to show me which arguments matter the most and what I need to look to in order to come to a decision. I do flow, but it is your job to tell me which ones have the bigger and most beneficial impacts by extending and weighing through the Summary and Final Focus.
LD - So, let's talk about Lincoln-Douglas for a bit. Values and Value Criterions can be very helpful to you in a round especially if you have unique ones (that are topical and link to the resolution). If you utilize them well and prove why yours matters most AND how you fit best into the "designated" V/VC of the round then the ballot will most likely go your way. That's the biggest thing you should know about how I judge this style. Other than that it's pretty similar to other styles in terms of how I judge. Don't forget to refute, extend, and show me why your impacts matter.
CX - I have debated in policy before, but that was during my first year in debate so I have only competed in the novice circuit. If I do end up judging policy, I will try my best and just try to bear with me. I understand spreading is a key part of this style, so obviously not going to say you can't do it, but just make sure to include me in the email chain. There's a lot to be covered about policy, but I'll just briefly overview what I'm looking for based on my one year of experience. Not much to say other than the fact that line-by-line is really going to be important here so that I can clearly see who wins the ballot based on who accesses the best and biggest impacts. If you're running a CP, make the net benefit clear and I have no problem flowing it to you, with a DA; don't far-fetch the link and internal link, but go for the impacts and explain why the AFF causes a net bad problem. With T's, I don't really enjoy them, I think most of the time it's just used to steal the AFF, but if an AFF truly is not topical and you can prove it to me, I will for sure vote on it. I don't have much experience with K's of K AFF's, but I would say make sure you make the link clear and extend the Framework (fair) throughout the debate and I will vote on it. If the opposing side can de-link and/or show that the alt is bad then most likely I will vote you up on the flow. Obviously you should extend everything throughout the round (I'm not going to weight dropped points), but always point out if a point was dropped and explain why that matters. Other than that not much, impact calc is going to be really important, so do not forget about that. Like I said, I do not have too much experience in Policy and I doubt I will judge it so bear with me if I do.
Congress - The biggest thing about Congress that I need you to know is that it is still a style of debate. So, I will be expecting you to go up there and give speeches refuting points that were made earlier within the round. I see too often in Congress rounds, representatives continuously going up and giving repeated 1st speeches and there is no actual debate. NO! That is not Congressional Debate, that is literally just practicing giving 1AC's multiple times. Those who are able to show me they are able to come to round prepared and also be able to give speeches that have well-written argumentation with good speaking skills will definitely be voted up by me. If you PO, just please make sure you know what you are doing. The round becomes very slow if the PO is incompetent and that is no fun, but I don't think that will be a problem! Questioning should always remain respectful and I will be looking at questioning also.
So, now that we've gotten all of that out of the way, Forensics & Debate is a fun activity that I am sure we all enjoy so please make sure to enjoy it to the full extent. Ride on the high of the win and if you lose, so what, come back better and stronger next time. You have room to grow! If you have any other questions feel free to ask me in round. I am very open and will most likely have conversations with you! Have fun and enjoy the tournament!!
