I'm pretty close to tabula rasa. I'm not going to tell the contestants what to say to persuade me; it's up to them to come up with that. If contestants weigh arguments, I consider the relative weight they assign when evaluating the round.

I do have some preferences, though. I prefer real world topical arguments to fanciful ones (e.g., Harry Potter DA). I prefer resolution based arguments to theory, though I understand that sometimes theory is useful. I tend not to vote neg on topicality unless they can show aff's case is clearly abusive. I will vote on what is presented in the round, though, not based on an idea of what I think debate should look like.

I also have some preferences regarding structure. Signpost, signpost, signpost! Refer to arguments by which points and sub-points they fall under, as well as the sources of the cards.

I have no philosophical objection to speed, but if you speak to quickly for me to flow, you won't get credit for all your arguments. Word economy is preferable to speed.

My competition background is in LD. I have been judging LD and PF for about 8 years now. I also judge WS, but not CX (except for an NCX round once in a blue moon).

Ask me anything else you would like to know; I'm very approachable.

Hello, I'm a fourth-year debater from campus high school! Please don't be afraid to ask questions before the round I will gladly answer them. I prefer clean line-by-line debate so please make the flow easy to follow. 

if you have preferred name(s) or pronouns that aren’t listed on tabroom please tell me, I myself am cis but I see the affects that dead naming can have on people and I would never want to inflict that on any of you by accident 

Tech>Truth 

Case specific links > generics 

I'm big on presentation and politeness, please introduce yourself and be polite :) nice speakers who aren't as gifted in the tech of debate will always get better speaks than those who are skilled in tech but are rude 

Spreading- online do not spread I will instantly give you the lowest speaks, in person I'm open to it unless disability concerns are involved. I do have an auditory processing disorder but I've gotten better at learning to adapt and accommodate speeds, do what style works best for your style of debate I will yell CLEAR! if I can't process what you're saying 

I love out-of-the-box arguments so anything you'd be afraid to run in the round will work with me (just because you’re a novice doesn’t mean you should run away from K’s, have to learn them somehow!)

If I'm able to disclose then don't be afraid to ask for my reasoning/where you could improve however don't try to debate me on my decision unless you want me to catch you outside. Remember to have fun and can't wait to judge y'all :)

extra speaker points if you can squeeze a nicki minaj quote somewhere in your speech :)

background: debated for eden prairie high school in minnesota as a PF competitor on the local and national circuits.

tldr: tech over truth. pls pls pls collapse + weigh. idk much theory, so don't run it. ask questions before round. HAVE FUN. it's the reason we do debate.

general

akhil.perla18@gmail.com for the email chain

i don't time speeches so y'all should be timing yourselves. i stop flowing after 10 seconds over and 20 over is when i start deducting speaker points.

creative arguments are great! i will evaluate pretty much any well-warranted argument.

i REALLY dislike argument dumps in case. constructives with 4+ unwarranted contentions honestly gets away from the spirit of debate. fewer arguments that are well-warranted and have cleanly explained links will be rewarded far more than contention dumps that force opponents to pick and choose what to respond to.

i am not opposed to speed up to the point that it starts outpacing how fast i can write. if you're going too fast for me to flow, i just won't be able to get the warranting down as well.

i don't flow cross, so if you want something from cross to matter when i'm making my decision, make sure to bring it up in an actual speech.

if there's no offense on either side of the flow, i tend to default to the con team.

this hopefully goes without saying, but at the very least frontline turns in second summary.

evidence

don't paraphrase. if you get called out for it, that piece of evidence gets wiped off the flow for me.

especially egregious evidence/misrepresentation will result in an auto-drop.

weighing

weighing guides my ballot -- win the weighing and I look to evaluate that argument first

the earlier that weighing mechanisms are introduced, the more value i give to them when i make a decision.

extensions

i have a relatively high threshold for extensions. if you want warrants to be flowed through, make sure the argument is well frontlined and fleshed out.

speaks

average is a 28. anything above 29 means that the debater combined exceptional delivery with creative and high-quality argumentation. evidence issues drops you to 25 and anything offensive is an auto-20.

misc

well intentioned feedback from my technical judges was the most helpful advice i got as a debater. also, i think debaters are entitled to know why they won or lost a round. i welcome post-rounding and will stay as long (as reasonably possible) after the round as you'd like to answer questions.