TL;DR

Anika Basu (she/her)

2A/1N

I'm a senior at Lexington High School.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain: anikabasudebate@gmail.com

Title of the chain should be: Tournament - Round X: Team Code (Aff) v. Team Code (Neg)

I won't vote for anything sexist/racist/homophobic/etc. Other than that, I'll vote on anything as long as it's explained well. I won't judge kick the CP unless instructed to do so.

**Note for online debate: Please be clear! If you have tech issues, make sure to let me know before the round.

If you're reading my paradigm, you're probably a novice, so here's what I look for:

Do

- LBL ("They said... but...")

- Evidence comparison

- Impact calc (don't just tell me what the time frame, probability, and magnitude are-- explain which one is most important and why that means your impact outweighs theirs)

- Splitting the block (don't repeat the same arguments in the 2nc and 1nr, you can split them up!)

- Argument resolution

- Flow

- Be clear and flowable

- Be confident!

- Have good, offensive CX questions

- Signpost/give roadmaps before your speech and be organized in general

- Time your speech and prep

- Extend arguments by explaining the claim, warrant, and impact

- Point out dropped arguments and explain why that argument is important

- Explain why you won the debate at the top of your final speech

- Make your arguments contextualized to round and the 1ac-- reading a bunch of blocks some varsity debater gives you just tells me that you know how to read blocks:)

- Ask me questions after the round! Remember to have fun and learn as much as you can.

Don't

- Be mean to your partner or the opposing team

- Read arguments you don't understand

- Read arguments the opposing team doesn't understand without trying to explain it to them during cx (this is directed at k affs)

- Make tagline extensions (see above)

- Steal prep!!! I see this a lot.

- Make new arguments in rebuttals (1ar, 2nr, 2ar)

- Just point out dropped arguments-- explain what it means and how it helps you

- Lie

**If you don't know what any of this means, ask me before the round!

Miscellaneous

- I love the politics da

- When it comes to T debates, I look for good evidence! Also, don't read your generic blocks, make it contextualized to the round and what your view of the topic is.

- I like good case debates! (case turns, rehighlighting 1ac ev, etc.)

- Impact turn debates are fun:)

- <3 condo is usually fine unless there's any in-round abuse. more than 3 is pushing it if you're a novice.

- I'd prefer it if you'd call me "Anika" (AHH-nih-kah) and not "Judge"

- Open CX is fine but excessively talking over your partner/being rude is not!

- Feel free to email me if you have any questions about my decision or anything else!

Speaks Scale

I'll start at 28.5 and move up or down.

Under 27: you probably did something really horrible/racist/etc.

27-28.4: Needs improvement.

28.5-29: Good.

29+: Impressive!

+0.2 if you make me laugh

+0.2 if you show me your flows after the round/email them to me if we're online (let me know after the 2ar)

Lexington ‘24

Please put me on the chain: lexusdebate@gmail.com and please have a subject line with the tournament name and round number!

I use she/her pronouns

About Me:

I’m currently a senior at Lexington High School and I’m a 2a

For online debate: I’d really prefer if you kept your camera on while debating if possible :)

I look forward to judging you!

General Debate Stuff:

Please be nice to everyone, debate should be fun

Anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. is a reason to reject the team

Please signpost (verbally letting me know if you’re switching between flows), it really helps with organization

Tech>Truth, except for discriminatory arguments

Clarity>Speed, go as fast as you want but I won't be afraid to clear you

Please tell me how to frame my ballot

No new args in the block or rebuttal speeches, I won't evaluate them as I think it's too late in the round

I think case debate is honestly underrated, I enjoy a good case debate

Please don’t steal prep!!

K:

I’m not very familiar with K literature

I would prefer if you have specific links to the aff. Otherwise winning case outweighs gets substantially easier

K affs and FW:

I'm not great with K affs, again, I’m not very familiar with k literature. I probably won't understand your aff that well but I will still vote for it if you make a good argument as to why I should

Please explain how you solve and why the ballot is key

I’m gonna need something to vote on

More often than not kaffs will have a small blip in the 1ar and then blow it up in the 2ar, develop your arguments fully, please and thank you

I am definitely more neg leaning on T-usfg and presumption args

T:

Do good internal link debating i.e. explaining how precision/education/predictability/etc. outweighs, and why the other team’s interp is not precise/educational/predictable/etc.

CPs and Theory:

I don't have a lot of strong biases about theory

Condo is probably good, but kicking planks from counterplans that have tons of planks probably isn't. Condo is probably the only reason to reject the team.

I’m fine with agent and process cps

DAs:

Do impact calc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Explain the story of the da, especially in the 2nr- make sure that you are doing good link and internal link debates

For LD and PF:

Please please please time your speeches

Read evidence clearly, I think presentation matters as well

Also if there are any speech docs, please send them!

I don't have much experience with PF or LD, but I have been a policy debater for three years at Lexington High School. I'll definitely be looking at the flow throughout the debate so please keep your speeches organized

Speaks:

28.6-29- Amazing :)

28.5- You're doing great!

27-28.4- Could make some improvements

+0.1 If you show me your flows after round

If you have any questions, please feel free to email me (lexusdebate@gmail.com)!

Lexington '23

Dartmouth '27 (not debating)

He/him

presumption2nr@gmail.com for chains.

Please format the subject line of the email chain as the following:

Tournament name Round number---Aff team [Aff] vs. Neg team [Neg]

E.g. Trevian R6---Lexington HV [Aff] vs. Lexington TW [Neg]

Hi everyone. Call me Jeffrey/Jeff. 4 years at Lexington High School as a primarily policy 2N.

Feel free to ask me any questions you have.

Notes for big lex:

These will be my first rounds judging on this topic. I haven't coached on this topic, nor have I done research in the literature, so extra explanation goes a long way, especially w/ respect to particular programs/pieces of legislation/other abbreviations or topic-specific niches. I will follow more if you don't throw out big words and complex acronyms. I've been out of the activity for a bit so excuse me if I'm missing one-liners you throw out (hint hint don't throw out one-liners).

I have been very unfond about the quality of arguments and evidence recently (see misc.). I may internally laugh at your evidence for my own pleasure. Sometimes I'm expressive. Maybe I vibe. Speaks may suffer. White's an All-Star.

Top Level:

Technical debating informs the truth value of any argument. I think it is unfair to the debaters for me, as being outside the bounds of the forum that is the debate, to inject my own knowledge, biases, preconceived notions into the round to come to a conclusion about the round. Therefore, to the best of my ability, I will rely entirely on what is presented to me when coming to a decision. All of my thoughts and opinions below should be read as guidance for how you should approach/debate in a round with me in the back, not as my hardened views of arguments.

I tend to have a high threshold for argument explanation. If you are "winning an argument", don't blaze through it in 10 seconds and then rinse and repeat with another 5/6/7 more. Be strategic about what you choose to extend and how you explain it. The more effort you put into evaluating an argument and its influence in the round, the more likely it is that I will be swayed to value said argument highly, particularly in a close debate.

Both sides should send card docs after the round.

I will say clear once then I will stop flowing.

TLDR for prefs: Best for policy v. policy, then lower than that policy v. k, then a good bit lower kaff v. 'policy', then somewhere very far below that, k v. k. Then all the way at the bottom are teams reading bad evidence.

Policy stuff

T

- Has a special place in my heart.

- The best T debates involve deep dives into what each model of debate looks like in terms of the debates themselves, the literature, and bilateral research potentials.

- I find link turn/root cause or thesis-level controlling arguments particularly persuasive.

- Also very persuaded by critiques of evidence quality. Far too often teams on both sides get away with reading evidence that’s cut out of context or doesn’t actually define a resolutional word/phrase.

- My pet peeve is aff teams that first throw around the phrase "functional limits exist under our topic", then run through a list composed of the states cp, a politics da, and the cap k, which has been repeated in each previous speech. Make real arguments, do your research.

- If the 2NR is 5 minutes of t-subsets, and you win, i'll give you minimum 29.5.

DAs

- I understand this topic isn’t the greatest. Idc if you read politics, something topic-specific, or jump the gun on the elections da, so long as you execute well. I honestly have a soft spot for a well-thought-out politics DA.

- tell me a good story

- both evidence and explanation are important. evidence = pieces of a puzzle, your explanation is putting it together. link explanation, spin, and evidence analysis are all arts and I'll be impressed if you put them together coherently.

CPs

- Do whatever. I love a good innovative CP, especially a well-research, topic-specific one. As such, I will be happier seeing some CPs read more than I will be for others (e.g. the sunsets cp), but at the end of the day, I was a 2N who had to read inevitably read and go for generics so I will understand the decision you make. I just might be a little more bored (kidding).

- I won’t judge kick unless told to.

- Solvency deficits need implications.

- I’m fine w/ a lot of condo. Perfcon has its place in debate; it's usually not a reason to reject the team.

K stuff

Policy aff v. K

- Familiar with most of the more common literature bases (cap, security, blackness arguments, setcol, sort of psycho, etc.). The more devious you get with your K, the less likely it is that I will understand it if you don’t explain it properly.

- You don’t need a specific link, but you DO need to at least contextualize your generic link. I have a fairly high bar for neg links given that I think a lot of evidence that’s read doesn’t meet the standard for specificity, which is a point that aff teams should exploit. When neg teams ARE ahead here, it’s because of their extrapolation beyond the evidence, and a generic/surface-level interrogation of the link by the aff. Summary: I think there’s potential on both sides here that often times gets lost.

- Aff: attack the alt. Neg: flush it out earlier. Making the alt a floating PIK in the 2NR is funny but also ballsy if you don't set it up properly.

- Framework debates end up being washes a lot. Do with that what you will.

K v. framework/policy

- Only found myself on the negative here.

- fairness matters. CAVEAT: I was a fairness debater, but I like seeing research/testing/skills/clash debates more because 2Ns tend to actually interact with the aff’s offense in those rounds rather than just saying “procedural fairness matters” over and over. I’m more convinced by teams that take fairness beyond that and add link-turns, pre-requisite arguments about “the game”, etc., that frame the way I should evaluate fairness in the context of the neg’s offense as well. TLDR: don't jettison comparisons or legit argumentation.

- I'm not ideologically opposed to k affs, but make them topic-relevant. PLEASE.

- More swayed by impact turns of framework and standards than counter-interpretations that try to solve neg offense. Not convinced by impact turns of the reading of framework itself.

- Use the case debate. On both sides. I cringe seeing teams read evidence about the wrong theory on case (negative); please put in effort to make the case debate substantive. Presumption is a real argument. Your kaff should actually do something, not be a FW preempt.

- Totally down for good memes in honor of the lexington debate tradition.

K v. K

- not my area of expertise

- framing, judge instruction, and explanation go far in these debates. I’m moreso convinced by examples as proof than assertions about a controlling theory of power.

Misc.

Maybe this is my internal 2N but I have been pretty disappointed at the poor quality of evidence pervading the last few topics. I consider myself to have been a debater highly valuing evidence, and that has translated now to judging. While I will obviously not go out of my way to discredit what a piece of evidence says, my threshold for agreeing with a team pointing out the flaws in a piece of evidence is significantly lowered if the evidence itself is terrible. Conversely, if you’re reading good evidence, I will be happy to read it your way assuming you’ve explained and defended it well.

I don’t remember who said this but they're spitting. Speed ≠ words per minute, but legible arguments made per minute.

I won’t bump speaks for this but my mood will significantly improve if you make jokes or banter during the round, whether that be in speeches, between speeches, during cross-ex, or before/after the round (obviously given that what you say isn't demeaning, hateful, or anything of the like). Debate is competitive, but meant to be fun for everyone involved. I like seeing you all enjoying your time at tournaments, so don’t take yourself too seriously with me in the back. Will be extra happy if you make jabs at Atul Venkatesh, Misty Wang, Vinit Iyer, Shreyas Sreeprakash, Ishan Kinikar, or really any other (ex) lexington debater.

Lexington '23

I went to the TOC my junior year if that matters to you

I was primarily a K debater in high school but I read policy affs a lot of the time

Put me on the email chain: vinit1.iyer@gmail.com

Top Level

Tech>Truth, litmus test for judge intervention is very high

Don't say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, abelist etc in round - depending on the offense I will drop you

Give me the easiest way to way to vote, that means 30 sec at the top to frame the debate are key

Debate is a game at its core, but it can be other things too

Debates are often a question of impact calc, especially clash debates.

Please post round me - it is a good practice and may help clear up any issues you have with my RFD

Throwing shade is fine but crosses the line when it becomes mean - this is especially true for novices

Be respectful towards both your opponents AND your partner

CX is a powerful weapon, take that as you will

Please read arguments that you are comfortable with, my preferences are very easily overturned by good debating

Reading tricks and stupid arguments is perfectly fine and I will vote on them. If the argument is that stupid the other team should be able to answer it efficiently and if they fail to do so, I don't see how voting for them would make any sense.

LD

I have little to no topic knowledge

Most of the policy biases apply but the most important thing is that you do you. As long as your arguments are executed in the most technical manner possible I don't care what arguments you read.

As per new LD arguments that I have less familiarity with like some theory, some tricks and phil, you are going to have to explain more in depth. This doesn't mean you shouldn't read these arguments but it does mean that I will need a little longer to process them.

PF

I have little to no topic knowledge

Treat me like the most technical judge you have ever had. I don't care what arguments you read, everything is on the table (even the most squirelly arguments) as long as you technically execute them. Given that there is very little time given in PF final speeches I find collapsing down to a few arguments to be the most beneficial. Spreading is ok as long as your opponents are ok with it.

Policy

I have some topic knowledge but some intricacies might need to be explained more in depth for me

Here is my list of debates that I am most comfortable judging to least comfortable judging:

Policy v K

K v K

Policy v Policy

Preferences relating to each set of arguments:

Policy Affs vs Ks -

Neg

- Open to almost any k (including the death k if that matters)

- FW is the biggest part for me, losing FW probably means you lose

- Explanation of your theory is extremely important without too much jargon, I am not going to do the work for you

- Link articulation is VERY important, specific links are preferred but generic is also chill

- Alt needs to resolve the links if ur going for it

Aff

- Affs should prioritize extinction O/W and FW over the perm

- Affs should try their best to clash with the negs theory of power

- Affs win when they win a defense to extinction O/W, FW and some level of disproving the negs theory

FW vs Kaffs -

Neg

- Clear impact explanation and calculus is necessary

- I like education and skills more than fairness but fairness is an impact

- Use your offense to turn theirs, I don't just want you to reiterate debate is a game a billion times and hope you win

- TVA > SSD but affs don't have great defenses against SSD so take that how you will

- Very hard to win if you don't disprove their theory especially with ontology based K affs

Aff

- C/I > Straight impact turn

- I want some relation to the topic so you can provide reasons as to why your C/I is a better model for debate

- Make sure to do a lot on the impact level and try to best mitigate their impacts

- Topical Kaffs have a special place in my heart, if you are able to have a W/M and win on it I will boost your speaks

CPs

- No judge kick

- Textual competition is an asinine standard

- I don't know that much about intrinsicness so keep that in mind

- Presumption flips aff if the CP solves more than the Aff

- Theory is underutilized against this type of argument so please consider it as a valid option

DAs

- Turns case matters for me more than most - this doesn't mean turns case is an auto-win, it just means that I think you may want to spend more time on it

- Card dump > other things

Policy T

- The topic is quite big, try to have a precise definition of what you are limiting under your interpretation to exclude all ambiguity

- Make sure to actually articulate impacts, "we maintain limits" is not an impact articulation

- I need a clear story of the violation

- Competing interps vs Reasonability is debateable

K V K

- K affs getting a perm is a debate to be had

- You probably need a robust link to the aff, "we control rc" is NOT a link

- Role of the ballot = rolling my eyes

- Alternatives should probably be as robust and as concrete as possible. This means "insert jargon" is not an alternative

- Please don't drop the floating PIK

Theory

No specific thoughts except that neg teams are getting away with murder and you should capitalize on it

Perf Con can be a reason to reject certain reps arguments

Put me on the email chain please: ishan.kinikar@gmail.com

Open CX is fine

I judge novice rounds a lot and I am up to date on the novice topic.

Some quick thoughts:

Tech > Truth (as long as what you are saying isn't racist/misogynistic/homophobic/transphobic/ableist/etc)

I find myself evaluating debates using an offense-defense paradigm many times - I tend to categorize arguments as being one or the other and consider the implications on the debate from there.

Unless your CP is extremely abusive, I have a reasonably high bar for voting solely on theory - just because it's not a voter doesn’t mean it's a competitive CP (with exceptions of private actor fiat, consultations, and other similar constructs where I generally think that proving abuse is not too difficult). I enjoy creative CPs that generate competition in interesting ways and K-related CPs as well.

I’m biased towards anything under 4 condo being quite reasonable and I’m unlikely to vote on it unless it’s absolutely mishandled in that situation.

T 2NRs vs Policy Affs - These have been some of my favorite rounds while debating - I like clear execution of a strategy with one terminal impact and well fleshed out internal links down the flow. Quality > Quantity when it comes to T for me so collapsing down the flow as the debate goes on is key with me in the back.

As long as you properly explain the theory of the K, I can follow along. I am familiar with a number of K-literature bases - most familiar with identity K literature bases, but I am also comfortable with capitalism, cybernetics, academia Ks, and opacity-related ideas. The ideal 2NR in front of me against policy affs will likely be a FW heavy strategy with well-explained links but if going for the alt solves the links/aff’s impacts is your thing then don’t let me stop you. Against K affs, make sure that if you are reading a non-identity K against an identity K aff that you have solid answers to positionality and give high importance to the alt/competing strategies portion of the debate.

T vs K Aff rounds - I enjoy unorthodox K aff strategies against T (but I still won’t vote on them if they aren’t good strategies) - please do it in front of me (whether it is that your aff functions in a separate world or you have found a new framing question/theory of how debate functions in relation to the outside world). I tend to think that while fairness has an impact, I am more likely to vote on education impacts with well done internal link debating. Please engage with case as well - if you don’t go for case in the 2NR that is fine but know that as long as the K-aff’s theory of power is a major internal link to their impacts, basically unmitigated aff impacts outweighs a chance of fairness.

Things that will add speaker points: Good line-by-line, smart use of CX, top-level framing in rebuttals, 1ARs that recover after a really good block, and good strategic choices throughout the round. I also tend to reward neg blocks that make good use of analytics as opposed to reading a million nonsense cards.

Chad Meadows (he/him)

chadwickmeadows@gmail.com

If you have interest in college debate, and would be interested in hearing about very expansive scholarship opportunities please contact me. Our program competes in two policy formats and travels to at least 4 tournaments a semester. Most of our nationally competitive students have close to zero cost of attendance because of debate specific financial support.

Debate Experience

College: I’ve been the head argument coach and/or Director of Debate for Western Kentucky University for a little over a decade. WKU primarily competes in NFA-LD, a shorter policy format. This season (2023) we are adding CEDA/NDT tournaments to our schedule.

High School: I’ve been an Assistant Coach, and primarily judge, for the Marist School in Atlanta, Georgia for several years. In this capacity I’ve judged at high school tournaments in both Policy Debate and Public Forum.

Argument Experience/Preferences

I feel comfortable evaluating the range of debates in modern policy debate (no plan affirmatives, policy, and kritik) though I am the most confident in policy rounds. My research interests tend toward more political science/international affairs/economics, though I’ve become well read in some critical areas in tandem with my students’ interests (anti-blackness/afropessimism in particular) in addition I have some cursory knowledge of the standard kritik arguments in debate, but no one would mistake me for a philosophy enthusiast. On the nuclear weapons topic, almost all of my research has been on the policy side.

I have few preferences with regard to content, but view some argumentative trends with skepticism: Counterplans that result in the plan (consult and many process counterplans), Agent counterplans, voting negative any procedural concern that isn’t topicality, reject the team counterplan theory that isn’t conditionality, some versions of politics DAs that rely on defining the process of fiat, arguments that rely on voting against the representations of the affirmative without voting against the result of the plan.

I feel very uncomfortable evaluating events that have happened outside of the debate round, especially in the CEDA/NDT community where I have limited knowledge of the context regarding community trends.

I have little experience evaluating debates with some strategies that would only be acceptable in a 2-person policy debate context - 2ac add-ons, 2nc counterplanning, 2ac intrinsicness tests on DA, etc. I’m not opposed to these strategies, and understand their strategic purpose, but I have limited exposure.

Decision Process

I tend to read more cards following the debate than most. That’s both because I’m curious, and I tend to find that debaters are informing their discussion given the evidence cited in the round, and I understand their arguments better having read the cards myself.

I give less credibility to arguments that appear unsupported by academic literature, even if the in round execution on those arguments is solid. I certainly support creativity and am open to a wide variety of arguments, but my natural disposition sides with excellent debate on arguments that are well represented in the topic literature.

To decide challenging debates I generally use two strategies: 1) write a decision for both sides and determine which reflects the in-round debating as opposed to my own intuition, and 2) list the relevant meta-issues in the round (realism vs liberal internationalism, debate is a game vs. debate should spill out, etc.) and list the supporting arguments each side highlighted for each argument and attempt to make sense of who debated the best on the issues that appear to matter most for resolving the decision.

I try to explain why I sided with the winner on each important issue, and go through each argument extended in the final rebuttal for the losing team and explain why I wasn’t persuaded by that argument.

Public Forum

Baseline expectations: introduce evidence using directly quoted sections of articles not paraphrasing, disclose arguments you plan to read in debates.

Argument preferences: no hard and fast rules, but I prefer debates that most closely resemble the academic and professional controversy posed by the topic. Debate about debate, while important in many contexts, is not the argument I'm most interested in adjudicating.

Style preferences: Argumentation not speaking style will make up the bulk of my decision making and feedback, my reflections on debate are informed by detailed note taking of the speeches, speeches should focus their time on clashing with their opponents' arguments.

Email(Add me to the chain): tatodawae@gmail.com

Name and Pronouns: Edmond Meng, He/him

tech >> Truth and Open Cross is OK

You can call me Edmond instead of Judge.

If you are a novice reading this, please remember that novice year is all about learning (ESPECIALLY LEARNING HOW TO FLOW AND DO LINE BY LINE). It should be fun, and educational. If I vote you down please don't feel bad, it is not a negation against your abilities.

Reading >6 offs, K-affs, against novices during early season is not the best practice. I will not vote you down for it or deduct you speaks, but I suggest you to move onto the next level.

I like any arguments.

READ THIS: Don't bring new Off case positions in the neg block - put them in the 1NC - I am not going not weigh them. DO NOT expect me to do the work for you. Tell me what to think, and how see the debate. OR ELSE I will have to intervene.

Dos and Dont's

DOs

1. Signpost
2. flow
3. Be passionate in Cross, BUT NOT RUDE
4. Line by Line
5. Clarity over speed
6. Overviews
7. Impact Calc
8. Clash
9. Have context I.E. tell me why a certain card you read is advantageous to your specific argument
10. Don't drop case
11. Think of debate as a picture, and you as the painter. tell me why such and such details matter to YOUR ARGUMENTS.
12. Be Confident
13. Be persuasive
14. send speech docs
15. keep track of speech times
16. Do your last speech to a track or music ;)
18. Make arguments on the fly, I love hearing analytics based on empirical examples - IE cards aren't everything. I am not going to read cards for my decision UNLESS you instruct me to do so.

DON'Ts

1. Don't Be a bad person, which includes being homophobic, xenophobic, transphobic, etc.
2. Don't clip cards
3. Don't steal prep(Being unprepared is part of debate. Nobody is truly prepared for everything. Its better to learn time management early)
4. Don't be rude

JUDGING PHILOSOPHY TLDR: Card dumping will not cut it. I'd rather you debate with smaller amount of arguments but with excellent contexts and clash.

Ishaan Tipirneni, He/Him/His

Call me "Ishaan" not "judge" please.

Lexington '24

Qualifications: 3x TOC Qualifier

Email: Ishaantipirneni504@gmail.com

PLEASE MAKE THE DEBATE EFFICIENT---AS LITTLE DOWNTIME AS POSSIBLE! (I will boost speaks for both teams)

(VARSITY ONLY) Please post round---it's good to know what you did wrong and if you think the decision is wrong in any way.

Give me an easy way to vote for you---judge instruction is VERY GOOD and needed in final rebuttal---we both don't want judge intervention which is the alternative if I'm not given instruction.

General Comments:

TECH > TRUTH---to a reasonable extent

Make sure you’re clear. If you have to give up speed to be clear, do it. With that being said, you can go as fast as you want

Feel free to read pretty much everything - K's, CP, DA, T, Procedurals, K-affs, etc. - just don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

Policy Affs: I've read a policy aff for the majority of my career. I lean Hard right > Soft left, but as mentioned before, it's not hard to sway me the other way.

CPs: It is definitely possible to get really creative with process CPs but make sure you’re able to answer theory, competition, and intrinsic perms.

DAs: Make sure to REALLY explain the link because most links are really bad. I can vote aff on 0 risk of the DA. Make sure your 1NC shells are highlighted with some sort of argument being made. I understand the urge to read a 25 second DA shell (I've done it myself), but these are almost never viable 2NRs.

T: I need a COHERENT violation and impact story to vote for your T interp, not just "they dropped x." I'm will vote on PTIV. To win T on the neg, you just have to prove a violation and why that’s bad. Impact calc is HUGE for T debates and are necessary to get my ballot.

K-affs: I think these can be really good when creatively done, but please make your argument coherent and not just a preempt to FW. I usually find presumption a really good option against k-affs because they often don't make much sense at all. Make sure you have some reason to vote for you. In terms of the content, I am chill with high theory, race, cap or whatever amalgamation of political theory you call an aff.

K: I will vote on basically any K. However, there needs to be some great 2NC/1NR explanation on the K if it's a 1 card K. On the neg, the debate is usually down to FW, so please actually do impact framing and make it easy to determine who is actually winning the flow. Link articulation is a MUST for me, so make sure you explain the link or why you don't link, depending on the side you’re on. Alts are usually bad; try to make yours actually say something coherent. Explain clearly why the alt resolves the links.

FW/T-USFG: Fairness is an impact. I really like it when the FW team goes for reasons as to why plan debating is good to solve a lot of the impacts the K aff is forwarding or arguments as to how less fairness or clash means less participation or less effective communities of care. Usually, FW teams lose on the impact framing debate, or when they lose the internal link debate. I really need good impact framing for this. K-affs shouldn't go for the W/M unless you have a plantext.

I have no opinions on theory. It just comes down to the impact calc debate.

If you make a GOOD joke about Misty Wang, Billy Blechman, Maguene Moussavou, Jamie Levitan, Ishaan Deepak, or any ex-Lex debater I will boost your speaks.

You do you, and I will do everything to evaluate the round equitably.

HS Policy Debate for 4 years at Marist School

College Policy Debate for 4 years at the University of Michigan

Currently a 2L at Columbia Law School

Good for anything and everything as long as it's explained clearly. NGL I think all that Baudrillard and other high theory stuff is pretty w0nky slush but if you can establish a unique link, win FW, or win other parts of the critique, you taking a big W. Just make sure to explain it properly.

Make sure to impact things out -- tell me why those things matter, why they mean you win/the other team loses. I keep argument bias out of the room when I'm judging so if you want to full-send no neg fiat and make it a reason to reject the team and the other team doesn't have an answer, you taking a W.

9/25 update: Besides condo, I often don't know what's going on with theory.

2/1/23 update: If there's a nuclear war impact, I'll give extra speaks to the first time to clearly quote their favorite two lines from Megadeth's Rust in Peace... Polaris.

Email: atulhari@gmail.com - Please put me on the email chain.

Lexington High School - Class of 2023

Dartmouth College - Class of 2027 (Not debating)

Email chain should be titled as follows:

Tournament name Round number --- Aff team [Aff] vs. Neg team [Neg]

E.g. Big Lex Round 6 --- Lexington HV [Aff] vs. Lexington TK [Neg]

Big Lex Update

Assume I have zero topic knowledge. We're probably going to have a better time if the topic-related jargon is explained within the debate. I've also found myself getting increasingly frustrated at the lack of strategic vision in rounds, and this is reflected in the speaker points I give. Do what you to do and do it well. I have a high threshold for argument development and strategy when giving out good speaks.

Princeton Update

Competitive policy debater in High School, qualled to the TOC junior and senior year reading mostly Policy/LARP mixed with an occasional kritik. I won't have a problem evaluating your arguments but assume I have zero topic knowledge. If you choose to run tricks, run them creatively/properly. If you run them badly/abusively, I won't be too happy. Most of my paradigm is applicable, so feel free to read through it and ask me any questions.

TLDR:

Tech>Truth

I'm down to evaluate basically any argument. My high school career consisted of exclusively policy on the aff, and reasonably flex on the neg. Good debating will most certainly overcome any argumentative bias you may think I have.

Long version:

I'll give my thoughts on a bunch of off-case and rate how my affinity toward them

CP

I love a well-crafted CP that is part of a bigger strategy. 6 plank advantage CPs? Not so much. Also not the biggest fan of contrived process CPs. Process CPs that are worded smartly and executed well are a joy to watch but it's been a bit tiring seeing the same CPs recycled for 3 straight years. As a result, I love to evaluate a competition debate.

An underutilized aspect of CP debates is the internal net benefit. If the aff mitigates the INB enough, I can be persuaded on aff outweighs and if the neg explains the INB enough, INB outweighs becomes a dangerous strategy.

Aff-specific solvency advocates and clear opportunity costs are ideal.

DA:

Love em. As a 2A, I had my fair share of DA 1NRs so I have thought a lot about its strategic purpose. If you read a contrived DA, link articulation and contextualization is almost as valuable as the cards themselves. Turns case and impact weighing are often too shallow and definitely need to be a core part of your strategy.

I would obviously prefer a topic-specific DA to politics, but I am more receptive to the latter than most.

On the aff, cheaty DAs can be easily beaten by smart analytics. Take that approach with me in the back. Smart analytics > Nonsensical cards.

T

Not against it. T subsets was a core negative strat senior year so I would say I recognize the purpose of T. Approach T like you would approach any other argument - With an offense/defense paradigm.

I'll probably be less receptive to new 2ar extrapolation - If you got caught lackin, you got caught lackin

Critiques on the neg:

Probably more receptive towards the K than my background may indicate. I'm probably more stringent toward link specificity than most. Permutations are underutilized by aff teams. Aff teams should probably respond to K tricks.

Critical affirmatives vs. Framework

I was always on the FW side of these debates but that doesn't mean I am not a "bad" judge for Kaffs. Presumption-level arguments by the negative are valued higher but the neg is probably in a tough position if they concede the aff's theory of power.

KvK

I have only debated in one of these rounds in my career so I don't have a lot of experience with these types of debates. I am probably on the side of no perms in a KvK debate but can be convinced otherwise.

Misc:

• Condo is probably good unless you can prove in-round abuse.
• Read my fair share of memes in high school so I won't be opposed to seeing them read in round. If you do read them, you need to actually be able to defend/extend the arguments.
• Please make a joke about Jeffrey He or praise the Green Bay Packers in your speech. It will make me happy.

Lexington ‘24 - she/her - 2n

mistydebate@gmail.com -- add me to the email chain

Novice year is for learning!!!

In order to win my ballot:

• explain why I should vote for you

• why does your impact o/w your opponents impacts?

tech > truth -- if the other team drops an arg, you need to extend a claim/ev/impact on why that dropped argument matters

To boost speaker points:

• signpost between flows/args

• go line by line

• make smart analytics yourself without reading varsity blocks

• open cx is fine as long as the person who’s supposed to be answering is doing most of the talking, otherwise your speaks will be lowered

+0.1 speaker points if you show me your flows after the debate ends