Hi, my name is Varun Ganesan. I am a current Senior at Westborough High School and this is my second year debating on the Nat Circuit. A couple of preferences.

1. Mostly tech over truth unless you read offensive, sexist, racist, ableist, etc. arguments. which will result in an L20

2. I don't flow cross. If something important happens bring it up in the next speech.

3. Second rebuttal should frontline any offense from first rebuttal (turns) and it is probably strategic to frontline all defense for the contention you're going for.

4. The way I make my decision is by resolving the weighing debate and then I look to who links in better. This means weighing is pretty important. Please comparatively weigh. If I got one team impacting to lives and another impacting to poverty, I need weighing as to why I should prefer one or the other.

5. If you go for turns PLEASE IMPLICATE THEM

6. when you collapse, extend the warrants, and the links also sign-post

7. Have Parallelism in your summary and final focus, it really helps establish your narrative.

8. Have fun, debate can be super stressful sometimes so take a deep breath! You got this!

9. Please ask me questions, I am here to help!

Ten Commandments to be Good at Debate:

1. relax and have fun!

2. signpost in speeches

3. start weighing early

4. for novices at little lex: if you are first rebuttal, PLEASE do not extend your case if you don't know what else to say, just end it early.

5. frontline turns and DA's in 2nd rebuttal

6. 3 min summary should have offense, defense, and WEIGHING in it

7. summary and ff should collapse and mirror each other. I love great back half narratives so literally, paint a solid picture of how you are winning and I'll pick you up.

8. Progressive stuff:

- Don't read theory unless there was an actual harmful abuse conducted by the other team. If you are a PF debater who thinks they are *tech* by reading disclosure/paraphrase/random frivolous theory for easy wins please stop (also, if you are reading prog args against inexperienced debaters it is abusive).

9. speaks (not the same for novice tourney)

29.5-30: you are raw

29-29.5: you are really good

28.5-29: you are pretty nice with it

28-28.5: you are above average

27-28: you can do better

<27: you are toxic

10. don't be toxic, a lot of novice rounds are just people yelling at each other, be chill to everyone and it will make the activity much more enjoyable. Any sort of -ism's in round finna get you auto dropped and I will tank your speaks, so be kind and accepting to everyone :)

good luck,

raaj

Hello, I have 4 years of debate experience on the national circuit debating for Wayland High School

Likes:

- New arguments in second final focus. I love to be surprised when a team pulls out a surprise victory with a new argument late in the round.

- Unwarranted assertions. Who cares if there's any reason why your argument is true? All it needs to do is sound good.

- I prefer that debaters stare at each other during cross, not when they look at me. I want to feel like a spectator, not like I'm involved.

- Crossfire. This is debate, so I value crossfire above all else. Unlike "tech" judges, I will be on my phone during speeches, but be taking extensive notes on crossfire.

- If you want 30s, end every speech with "please clap"

Dislikes:

- Speed. I cannot follow anything about 100 words per minute.

- Collapsing. To me, it looks like you have given up on several of your arguments. Good debaters should be able to cover the entire 16 min of the first half into 3 minutes.

- English. Lingua latina maxima est.

Good Luck! and have fun!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's the real paradigm. I think that I am a fairly traditional tech judge and there isn't that much out of the ordinary here.

- When I'm making my decision, I look for a team that's winning offense and weighing. In the events that both teams are winning weighing, then I expect metaweighing or I will be forced to intervene (you don't want that).

- If there are two contradicting pieces of evidence in the round, I need a reason to prefer one piece of evidence over another. If no comparison is given, I will be forced to call for the evidence and intervene (you don't want that).

- Anything that's in FF must be in summary.

- Please don't be rude especially in cross

- I played around w Ks and little bit as a debater, so I have like a very baseline understanding of them, and I will evaluate them; however, if you plan on reading a K, I expect two things

1. If you're reading an argument about spreading discourse, I expect you to flip for whatever side the K is on, and I expect you to read the K in every round that you are able to

2. I think that you should only read a K if you genuinely believe in it. I won't be able to tell in the round, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt. If you don't believe in it, I feel like you're just reading it to win a round.

- I am willing to vote on theory. I never ran it as a debater, but I think I understand it enough to vote off of it. Please only read theory on legitimate violations on the rules of debate. If you read something like mouthwash theory, I won't vote off of it.

- Please ask any other questions before the round.