add me to the email chain (both please):
mrajusrikantam@gmail.com
qlspolicy@gmail.com

background: currently a 2nd year varsity policy debater for quarry lane (2N/1A) and student coach for novice policy at quarry lane, but briefly did PF and extensively did most speech events + congress for all 3 years of middle school

For Novice Policy (10/20/23):i recommend looking at my pf paradigm below and taking whatever applies to policy out of it. but for a more top-level and policy-debate oriented summary, my most important things/some reminders are:

1. i am tech > truth --- this essentially means that if an argument is dropped (not answered) by the other team, i wont let them make new responses and will take your argument as the "truth" in the round, giving you the full weight of it. however, you must point out the argument is dropped, explain the argument itself, and tell me why them dropping it is important. just extending it really isn't enough---and this goes for arguments that aren't dropped too. the flip side of this is to make sure that if you think an argument is winning, extend it in the 2nc/1nr for neg or 1ar for aff so that you can have it in the 2nr/2ar---i wont let you make arguments that weren't in previous speeches UNLESS it's a response to a new argument your opponents make.
2. do weighing and respond to your opponents arguments --- debate is about interacting with your opponents, not having a one-sided monologue. if you aren't comparing your arguments to your opponents (telling me why your evidence is better and their evidence is worse, explaining why your argument matters more than theirs, telling me why the reasoning behind their arguments is stupid, etc), it will be very hard for me to decide the debate. i will reward you making + explaining smart arguments and interacting with your opponent's arguments with high speaks.
3. extend your arguments fully --- for a DA, that means explaining your uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact—for a counterplan, that means solvency (how does your counterplan solve all of the affs plan) and net-benefit—for a K, that's your link, internal link, alternative, and if you need it, framework—and for topicality, that's your interp, violation, standards, and voter (more on this at the bottom***)—again, if you don't do this, it makes it hard to decide the debate because then i have to intervene and decide whether or not i will give you whatever part of your argument you didn't extend (which means you could lose a round you deserve to win). and again remember, extending an argument isn't just saying the words "link: the plans progressive taxes hurt the IRS" and moving on, but explaining HOW progressive taxes hurt the irs (all your warrants and arguments should come from the card you read before)
4. collapsing on neg --- i know it's tempting to go for everything in the 2NR, but you need to make a choice and go for one winning argument. that can be a counterplan + DA, just a DA, just the K, just T, or maybe even really explaining a turn or 2 turns you have on case. of course, make sure your arguments are offensive (reasons why the aff is actually bad and i should vote negative) and not just defensive (arguments that minimize how good the aff is/their impacts). if you are going for a DA, it is good to have case for weighing (your impact outweighs or maybe even turns theirs), and for the K or CP, it is good to have case against any solvency deficits (reasons your cp/alt don't solve all the of affs plan). if you're going for t however, you don't need to go for case or anything else at all because t is a procedural argument and is what i will evaluate first.
5. sending evidence/general in-round logistics --- make sure to adhere to your prep time and time your own prep + speeches---i will also be timing you, but it's a good practice to have. while i won't vote against you for minor and clearly accident clipping (not reading all of the highlighted words in your cards), if you are being really abusive then it's kind of forcing my hand. please just say "mark the card at (the last words you said)" if you want to start reading another card---i really don't want to vote on clipping. send speech docs on the email chain with all cards BEFORE speeches—this applies to any card you read, unless you decide to read it mid-speech (please include analytics for the 1nc/2ac---be kind to your opponents). and lastly, this goes without saying, but racist, sexist, homophobic/transphobic etc. arguments/behaviors will not be tolerated by me and result in bad speaks and/or being dropped.
6. flow!!!!! --- it's super important to make sure to respond to your opponents arguments and realize that they dropped some of your arguments. i'm gonna decide the round off my flow, so you should plan how to win the round off yours.

IF YOU'RE SCARED OFF BY THIS LONG EXPLANATION THEN JUST READ THE BOLD WORDS ABOVE AND THIS PART: having done novice policy extensively myself and currently coaching my own novices, i have a lot of sympathy for novice policy debaters. i know this type of debate is hard to grasp and i want to do my best to help you understand it, so that you can enjoy policy and stay in the event if it's for you. please feel free to ask me questions post round, whether or not its about the debate that just occurred or my decision---ill be happy to answer any policy-related questions you may have :) as we can see from my paradigm, i'll definitely have a lot to say. best of luck in all your rounds!

***note for topicality, conditionality, and theory, if you're kind of lost: yes, if topicality is dropped by the aff or condo is dropped by the neg, i will automatically for the neg (for topicality) and aff (for condo) as long as you extend everything you need for it. i'll explain that below, but my recommendation for novice is that you just read your entire block from the 1nc/2ac to make sure you got everything (minus the cards on t---dont reread them, just read the tags of the cards). anyways, if you want a more thorough explanation: extend your interp (for topicality, this is usually a definition that is the first card you read in the 1NC [ex: job guarantee does not include job training], and for condo, it's the top or bottom line [condo ex: unconditionality/dispo/1 or 2 worlds solves]), explain why the other team doesn't meet your interp, also known as the violation (for t, this will be like "the aff violates---they include job training" or for condo "they are conditional and read 3 counterplans", your standards (which are probably prewritten and something like limits/ground for topicality, or depth/time skew for condo---make sure to explain them, or again, just reread your block from previous speeches) and your voter(essentially your impacts, probably fairness or education, but as long as you say the words "this is a voter" ill vote on it). theory is the same (interp, violation, standards, voter) but i'll be really hesitant to vote against the other team on it unless when you read your theory block in the 2ac/2nc/1ar, it says "this is a voter" or you yourself say "this is a voter"---otherwise, ill just reject the argument its on (probably the K or CP) but not vote completely against them on this issue. i love t and can pretend to like condo and theory, so if you have any questions, i'll be delighted.

For PF (4/2/23): tech > truth. i will judge off the flow. debate the way you want, but keep in mind that i am coming from policy and you should treat me like a tech judge. having been on the receiving end of interventionist rfds myself, i will strive to keep my personal bias to a minimum. however, that means that YOU have to do the work for me. do weighing. tell me what arguments matter more and why. be comparative. i value and reward the explanation and implication of arguments. don't just extend arguments—explain their importance and how it impacts the round. quality > quantity. on that note, make sure you are extending arguments correctly and fully (uniqueness/link/ILs/impact). i am good with speed/spreading, and i will be okay to judge a theory/k debate as long as it's no more than a JV-policy level debate. i err disclosure good and paraphrasing bad, though you are welcome to try and change my mind, i won't hack for them. send speech docs with cut cards BEFORE speeches—this applies to any card you read, unless you decide to read it mid-speech. have warrants to back up your claims. i don't really have a tolerance for bad evidence ethics, so send those docs and don't misrepresent your cards. frontline in the second rebuttal. if you go for an argument without frontlining defense, and then your opponents extend that defense, i will evaluate it as conceded defense. any argument that isn't responded to in the next speech, besides 1st constructive, i will consider dropped. offensive args in final focus must be in summary, and defense isn't sticky. any argument you want in the ballot must be extended in summary AND final focus, including dropped defense. take advantage of dropped offense + collapse! both are strategic decisions and i will reward them if they call for it. dont steal prep or be disrespectful. this goes without saying but racist, sexist, homophobic/transphobic etc. arguments/behaviors will not be tolerated by me and result in bad speaks and/or being dropped. admittedly, i am actually really intrigued by pf cross and all its theatrics. however, i won't evaluate cross unless it's brought up in a speech.

lastly, feel free to post-round me! i think its highly educational and good for debate. good luck everyone!

p.s. yes i know this pf paradigm is practically a copy of sachi patel's---she is and probably always will be my best connection to PF :)

For PF: Speaks capped at 27.5 if you don't read cut cards (with tags) and send speech docs via email chain prior to your speech of cards to be read (in constructives, rebuttal, summary, or any speech where you have a new card to read). I'm done with paraphrasing and pf rounds taking almost as long as my policy rounds to complete. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that do read cut cards and do send speech docs via email chain prior to speech. In elims, since I can't give points, it will be a overall tiebreaker.

For Policy: Speaks capped at 28 if I don't understand each and every word you say while spreading (including cards read). I will not follow along on the speech doc, I will not read cards after the debate (unless contested or required to render a decision), and, thus, I will not reconstruct the debate for you but will just go off my flow. I can handle speed, but I need clarity not a speechdoc to understand warrants. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that are completely flowable. I'd say about 85% of debaters have been able to meet this paradigm.

I'd also mostly focus on the style section and bold parts of other sections.

---

2018 update: College policy debaters should look to who I judged at my last college judging spree (69th National Debate Tournament in Iowa) to get a feeling of who will and will not pref me. I also like Buntin's new judge philosophy (agree roughly 90%).

It's Fall 2015. I judge all types of debate, from policy-v-policy to non-policy-v-non-policy. I think what separates me as a judge is style, not substance.

I debated for Texas for 5 years (2003-2008), 4 years in Texas during high school (1999-2003). I was twice a top 20 speaker at the NDT. I've coached on and off for highschool and college teams during that time and since. I've ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some favorite memories include "china is evil and that outweighs the security k", to "human extinction is good", to "predictions must specify strong data", to "let's consult the chinese, china is awesome", to "housing discrimination based on race causes school segregation based on race", to "factory farms are biopolitical murder", to “free trade good performance”, to "let's reg. neg. the plan to make businesses confident", to “CO2 fertilization, SO2 Screw, or Ice Age DAs”, to "let the Makah whale", etc. Basically, I've been around.

After it was pointed out that I don't do a great job delineating debatable versus non-debatable preferences, I've decided to style-code bold all parts of my philosophy that are not up for debate. Everything else is merely a preference, and can be debated.

Style/Big Picture:

• I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author+claim + warrant + data+impact" model) over breadth (the "author+claim + impact" model) any day.

• When evaluating probabilistic predictions, I start from the assumption everyone begins at 0%, and you persuade me to increase that number (w/ claims + warrants + data). Rarely do teams get me past 5%. A conceeded claim (or even claim + another claim disguised as the warrant) will not start at 100%, but remains at 0%.

• Combining those first two essential stylistic criteria means, in practice, many times I discount entirely even conceded, well impacted claims because the debaters failed to provide a warrant and/or data to support their claim. It's analogous to failing a basic "laugh" test. I may not be perfect at this rubric yet, but I still think it's better than the alternative (e.g. rebuttals filled with 20+ uses of the word “conceded” and a stack of 60 cards).

• I'll try to minimize the amount of evidence I read to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). In short: don't let the evidence do the debating for you.

• Humor is also well rewarded, and it is hard (but not impossible) to offend me.

• I'd also strongly prefer if teams would slow down 15-20% so that I can hear and understand every word you say (including cards read). While I won't explicitly punish you if you don't, it does go a mile to have me already understand the evidence while you're debating so I don't have to sort through it at the end (especially since I likely won't call for that card anyway).

• Defense can win a debate (there is such as thing as a 100% no link), but offense helps more times than not.

• I'm a big believer in open disclosure practices, and would vote on reasoned arguments about poor disclosure practices. In the perfect world, everything would be open-source (including highlighting and analytics, including 2NR/2AR blocks), and all teams would ultimately share one evidence set. You could cut new evidence, but once read, everyone would have it. We're nowhere near that world. Some performance teams think a few half-citations work when it makes up at best 45 seconds of a 9 minute speech. Some policy teams think offering cards without highlighting for only the first constructive works. I don't think either model works, and would be happy to vote to encourage more open disclosure practices. It's hard to be angry that the other side doesn't engage you when, pre-round, you didn't offer them anything to engage.

• You (or your partner) must physically mark cards if you do not finish them. Orally saying "mark here" (and expecting your opponents or the judge to do it for you) doesn't count. After your speech (and before cross-ex), you should resend a marked copy to the other team. If pointed out by the other team, failure to do means you must mark prior to cross-ex. I will count it as prep time times two to deter sloppy debate.

• By default, I will not “follow along” and read evidence during a debate. I find that it incentivizes unclear and shallow debates. However, I realize that some people are better visual than auditory learners and I would classify myself as strongly visual. If both teams would prefer and communicate to me that preference before the round, I will “follow along” and read evidence during the debate speeches, cross-exs, and maybe even prep.

Topicality:

• I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.

• Abuse makes it all the better, but is not required (doesn't unpredictability inherently abuse?).

• Treat it like a disad, and go from there. In my opinion, topicality is a dying art, so I'll be sure to reward debaters that show talent.

• For the aff – think offense/defense and weigh the standards you're winning against what you're losing rather than say "at least we're reasonable". You'll sound way better.

Framework:

• The exception to the above is the "framework debate". I find it to be an uphill battle for the neg in these debates (usually because that's the only thing the aff has blocked out for 5 minutes, and they debate it 3 out of 4 aff rounds).

• If you want to win framework in front of me, spent time delineating your interpretation of debate in a way that doesn't make it seem arbitrary. For example "they're not policy debate" begs the question what exactly policy debate is. I'm not Justice Steward, and this isn't pornography. I don't know when I've seen it. I'm old school in that I conceptualize framework along “predictability”; "topic education", “policymaking education”, and “aff education” (topical version, switch sides, etc) lines.

• “We're in the direction of the topic” or “we discuss the topic rather than a topical discussion” is a pretty laughable counter-interpretation.

• For the aff, "we agree with the neg's interp of framework but still get to weigh our case" borders on incomprehensible if the framework is the least bit not arbitrary.

Case Debate

• Depth in explanation over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant will do more damage to the 1AR than 5 cards that say the same claim.

• Well-developed impact calculus must begin no later than the 1AR for the Aff and Negative Block for the Neg.

• I enjoy large indepth case debates. I was 2A who wrote my own community unique affs usually with only 1 advantage and no external add-ons. These type of debates, if properly researched and executed, can be quite fun for all parties.

Disads

• Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments are less so.

• From an offense/defense paradigm, conceded uniqueness can control the direction of the link. Conceded links can control the direction of uniqueness. The in round application of "why" is important.

• A story / spin is usually more important (and harder for the 1AR to deal with) than 5 cards that say the same thing.

Counterplan Competition:

• I generally prefer functionally competitive counterplans with solvency advocates delineating the counterplan versus the plan (or close) (as opposed to the counterplan versus the topic), but a good case for textual competition can be made with a language K netbenefit.

• Conditionality (1 CP, SQ, and 1 K) is a fact of life, and anything less is the negative feeling sorry for you (or themselves). However, I do not like 2NR conditionality (i.e., “judge kick”) ever. Make a decision.

• Perms and theory always remain a test of competition (and not a voter) until proven otherwise by the negative by argument (see above), a near impossible standard for arguments that don't interfere substantially with other parts of the debate (e.g. conditionality).

• Perm "do the aff" is not a perm. Debatable perms are "do both" and "do cp/alt"(and "do aff and part of the CP" for multi-plank CPs). Others are usually intrinsic.

Critiques:

• I think of the critique as a (usually linear) disad and the alt as a cp.

• Be sure to clearly impact your critique in the context of what it means/does to the aff case (does the alt solve it, does the critique turn it, make harms inevitable, does it disprove their solvency). Latch on to an external impact (be it "ethics", or biopower causes super-viruses), and weigh it against case.

• Use your alternative to either "fiat uniqueness" or create a rubric by which I don't evaluate uniqueness, and to solve case in other ways.

• I will say upfront the two types of critique routes I find least persuasive are simplistic versions of "economics", "science", and "militarism" bad (mostly because I have an econ degree and am part of an extensive military family). While good critiques exist out there of both, most of what debaters use are not that, so plan accordingly.

• For the aff, figure out how to solve your case absent fiat (education about aff good?), and weigh it against the alternative, which you should reduce to as close as the status quo as possible. Make uniqueness indicts to control the direction of link, and question the timeframe/inevitability/plausability of their impacts.

• Perms generally check clearly uncompetitive alternative jive, but don't work too well against "vote neg". A good link turn generally does way more than “perm solves the link”.

• Aff Framework doesn't ever make the critique disappear, it just changes how I evaluate/weigh the alternative.

• Role of the Ballot - I vote for the team that did the better debating. What is "better" is based on my stylistic criteria. End of story. Don't let "Role of the Ballot" be used as an excuse to avoid impact calculus.

Performance (the other critique):

• Empirically, I do judge these debate and end up about 50-50 on them. I neither bandwagon around nor discount the validity of arguments critical of the pedagogy of debate. I'll let you make the case or defense (preferably with data). The team that usually wins my ballot is the team that made an effort to intelligently clash with the other team (whether it's aff or neg) and meet my stylistic criteria. To me, it's just another form of debate.

• However, I do have some trouble in some of these debates in that I feel most of what is said is usually non-falsifiable, a little too personal for comfort, and devolves 2 out of 3 times into a chest-beating contest with competition limited to some archaic version of "plan-plan". I do recognize that this isn't always the case, but if you find yourselves banking on "the counterplan/critique doesn't solve" because "you did it first", or "it's not genuine", or "their skin is white"; you're already on the path to a loss.

• If you are debating performance teams, the two main takeaways are that you'll probably lose framework unless you win topical version, and I hate judging "X" identity outweighs "Y" identity debates. I suggest, empirically, a critique of their identity politics coupled with some specific case cards is more likely to get my ballot than a strategy based around "Framework" and the "Rev". Not saying it's the only way, just offering some empirical observations of how I vote.