Nitin Chandran

Experience:
I did speech and debate in high school, with a background in extemporaneous speaking for four years, as well as participation in Public Forum (PF), Parliamentary Debate, and World Schools Debate.

Philosophy:
I approach judging with an emphasis on fair competition, effective communication, and the development of critical thinking skills. I believe that debate and speech events are not only about winning rounds but also about personal growth, effective expression, and the exchange of ideas.

Communication (Debate):
Clear and persuasive communication is crucial in all debate formats. I appreciate debaters who are articulate, organized, and able to adapt their communication style to different formats. Clarity of argumentation and effective use of evidence are essential components of a successful debate round.

Framework (Debate):
I am open to various debate frameworks and styles. In PF, I appreciate a focus on evidence-based arguments and the ability to weigh impacts effectively. In parliamentary debate, I value creativity, adaptability, and the ability to think on one's feet. In World Schools Debate, a balance between individual speaking skills and collaborative teamwork is essential.

Speech Events:
For speech events, I value well-researched and well-delivered speeches. Clarity, confidence, and effective use of rhetorical devices are important elements. In extemporaneous speaking, I appreciate speakers who can analyze complex issues on the spot, providing insightful and nuanced perspectives while communicating those ideas in an effective manner. In prepared speech events, I look for a clear structure, engaging delivery, and a genuine connection with the audience.

Evidence:
While evidence is important, I also value the ability of debaters and speakers to analyze and contextualize the information they present. Quality over quantity is key, and I am open to a mix of well-researched evidence and strategic analysis.

Etiquette:
I expect debaters and speakers to engage in respectful and professional behavior. Crossfire, questioning, and speeches should be challenging but remain courteous. I encourage a positive atmosphere in the round that fosters a healthy exchange of ideas.

Adaptability:
I appreciate debaters and speakers who can adapt their strategies based on the round, opponent, and format. Flexibility and the ability to switch between prepared and impromptu styles are valuable skills.

I look forward to judging your rounds and witnessing your passion for speech and debate!

Hi! I'm Matt (He/Him). I did LD for 3 years as my main event but I also did PA Parliamentary and World Schools. I am familiar with PF, but I am admittedly bad at it. I have been the LD Coach at Pgh Central Catholic HS since 2021. I've judged 162 rounds of LD, PF, Parli, and congress over the past 3 years on both the Pittsburgh-circuit level as well as State and National level break rounds.

Upper St. Clair '20 / Pitt '24

email: Matthew.hornak@gmail.com

TLDR: play nice, have fun, run whatever you want. I hate drops, think theory is usually unnecessary, want a strong framework debate, and won't buy impacts in LD that belong in PF/Policy.

NOTES ON DEBATE / CASES:

1. Framework. I understand dropping your frameworks when they are similar and debating them would just waste time. HOWEVER, framework is the heart of LD and what sets it apart from the other debates. Maintain that.

2. I like APPLICABLE philosophy.By all means run out of the ordinary things like Anarchy, AfroPess, Buddhist ethics, whatever you can think of. Just give me convincing reason to care about you bringing it up. Creativity in the framework is only gonna help you if you use it to weigh your impacts and extend it through the round. As for progressive stuff, run a K / theory if you think it'll actually lead to a substantive debate (don't steamroll some poor novice).

3.Evidence Ethics. Use scholarly and reputable sources. Don't expect a singular dropped card to win you a round. That being said, try and directly rebut line-by-line as much as possible. I prefer line-by-line to thematic, overarching arguments. If your opponent calls for evidence, you've got one minute to produce it -- I will heavily consider dropping you full stop for not being able to do so. I don't need you guys to do email chains but I also don't mind them, so do what you want.

4. Extinction/unweighted Impacts. I do not buy extinction impacts. they are inherently unweighable: how will causing or preventing infinite deaths ever be comparable to issues of inequality, justice, and morality? those arguments, if you chose to make them, need to be so excruciatingly clear and logical. After all, LD is rarely talking about the extreme ends of slippery slopes, but the grey area between both sides.

5. Cross-Apply. If you are going to say cross-apply a contention, you need to say more about why I prefer your contention over your opponent. I simply won't flow it and treat it as a drop if you just say "cross-apply" and leave it at that.

NOTES ON SPEECHES / SPEAKING:

1. Speed. I prefer slower, traditional style debate. If you need need need to spread, I can make it work for you, but I'd prefer you avoided it.

2. Speak respectfully. Debate is a space to explore and test ideas. Respect that ability for your competitor as well. Police your speech a little and try and avoid tropes that are easily misconstrued toward offensiveness. Before you come to a tournament, genuinely consider what positions you advocating; even if you are running "main arguments" of the topic, consider how your rhetoric may be implicitly xenophobic, racist, sexist, etc. ((in 2023, I heard "migrants will bring disease and copious amounts of crime" more times than I can count)). If your opponent is being rude and offensive, handle it professionally and if it is a genuine cause of concern for you, let me know privately post round / let tab know.

3. Drops are the necessary evil of debate, but they do not decide my rounds. If your final speech consists entirely of drops, I'm 90% sure I will not pick you up; your arguments are all why your opponent is bad, not why their arguments are bad or yours are any better. I still respect drops because those are the rules, but please don't hinge my decision on that.

OVERALL:

Have fun. not just as in "be happy when you win and remember its all learning Kiddos!!11!" I mean, crack some jokes, make me and your opponent smile! this isn't life or death it's 3 to 5 people sitting in a room way to early on a weekend. make this more bearable pleaseeeeee.

PF/LD/Parli: I am a flow judge; however, arguments must be clearly stated and explained (i.e., minimize spreading). Since I will be flowing, please accurately summarize your case during your final focus. If you inaccurately state that someone has dropped an argument or brought up new evidence, I will lower speaks. I like to see technical arguments tied logically to outcomes. I prefer arguments directly connected to the resolution (i.e., I consider long link chains to be generally weaker arguments). I expect all participants to behave in a polite and professional manner.

Public Forum -

I am a traditional flow judge and former extemper and public forum debater who prefers clear analysis, well-cited arguments and clearly outlined voting issues in summary and final focus.

I look extremely unfavorably upon theory arguments in public forum. I believe they undermine the educational value of the activity and are one of the core reasons why policy debate has little value as an educational activity, in my opinion. I still vote off the flow, but import the worst aspects of policy debate into public forum at your own risk. I have never heard a theory shell run in round that didn't make me feel like I had lost an hour of my life that I will never get back - but hey, there's a first time for everything, I suppose.

I try and balance my final decision between who had persuaded me more of their position overall and who won the key arguments of the round. I find that the winning team almost always is stronger in both regards, but if it is close I typically award the win to the team who has persuaded me more of their position overall.

Along those lines, I don't score the rounds based on a strict win-loss basis for each contention. For example, if the affirmative had the better argument on several contentions, but negative had the stronger argument on the main contention at issue in the round, I typically would award the win to negation.

Teams that clearly outline their reasons for decision/voting issues in the third and fourth speeches tend to do better than those that do not. I like it when teams clearly tell me what issues they believe defined the round and why I should vote for them.

I will not hold the speed of your delivery against you, but spread at your own risk. I can only judge based on the arguments I hear. I prefer a more conversational style but am fine with some faster reading - but if I miss points because you read too fast, that's on you.

I am here to listen to the best arguments you've brought to defend your side. I tend not to rate highly teams that get lost in PF-jargon or who try and score technical points in lieu of making a strong argument.

If you are asked to provide a source and you are unable to provide it, I follow PHSSL rules and consider that an automatic loss. Providing analytical and empirical evidence is always necessary. Citing sources is essential for you to formulate your argument, for your opponents to accept the statistics you provide, and to give me the judge a basis to judge the data both teams are using to convince me their argument is superior. Technology or wifi issues are not an excuse - you should be prepared and have downloaded your case and cards so they're accessible offline before the tournament - as we all know, wifi can be spotty at debate tournaments.

My background: I am a public forum coach. I have judged more public forum rounds than any other event combined over the last three school years. I have an educational background in international affairs and a professional background in public policy and education. I do my best to not allow my prior knowledge to influence my decision-making and strive to decide every round by the arguments brought to bear within the four walls of competition room.

Lincoln Douglas Debate -

I generally prefer a more conversational style. If I miss something because you're talking fast, that's on you.

I evaluate the importance of your value and value criterion depending on how its used in the round. Several times, I've found that the winner of the framework debate isn't necessarily the winner of the round.

I strongly prefer when students give explicit voting issues at the end of the round. Tell me how you want me to evaluate the round, and if you don't I'll evaluate it as I see it.

I don't love jargon but cross-apply, extend, turn, etc are fine

I generally decide the winner based on who won the key argument of the round

Evidence is great. I strongly prefer it, but if you have a strong logical argument a lack of evidence won't hurt you.

I'm a flow judge, and I prefer traditional debate and am not a fan of K or theory.

Policy -

No spreading. It's poor communication and a sign of an inability to deliver your argument competently, concisely and persuasively. Is it standard in policy? Yes. Do I care? No.

No K's or identity arguments. I love substantive debate - it's why we're here, right? To debate policy?

Limit theory only to topicality. Need to have proper warrants, links, and impacts. Proper use of impacts is essential to policy formation.

I am a traditional judge. Speak loudly, clearly, and please do not spread unless you are experienced enough that you can do it successfully.

My paradigm isn't very complicated, but you'll notice that I'm a bit different that your average judge out on circuit these days. I'm pretty old school. At my core I'm a policy maker. I'm not a fan of critical arguments however, if they can be explained as a policy option then go for it. However, if I wanted to judge a round about how great the world would be if we were all just nicer to each other, then I'd be over in the LD pool. I have voted on both critical affs and negative K arguments, but I have a lower tolerance for them. Speaking of LD, I'm going to add on some LD specific stuff at the bottom.

I will never say that I'm a Tab judge. I'm just not. I will not make any excuses for that. I think it's unrealistic to assume anyone comes to a round with no biases. For example, I spent 20 years as a meteorologist. I have a degree in Atmospheric Sciences and was on television for most of that 20 years. SO, I will evaluate ANY warming arguments both for and against with a great degree of scrutiny. If you're going to run climate arguments in one my rounds you had better know your stuff because I will almost guarantee that I know the material much better than you do and I did it for a living and I won't accept half-baked or poorly understood arguments. Just because you can read something doesn't mean I have to accept it as truth especially if I know better, no matter WHAT your opponent says. THAT is the real world.

Politics arguments...understand that you can run them but know this, I am a complete non-believer in the theory of political capital. I don't believe it exists, nor will I ever be convinced that it exists. I do however believe that decisions are made and will be made with political considerations as a key motivator. That however doesn't mean that a president's ability to get something passed is impacted by some immeasurable, unquantifiable power metric that has no threshold where success or failure can be predicted.

Are you getting the idea that I'm a real world kind of judge? Good, because that's me in a nutshell. I love high quality, well researched discussions on what ifs, but they need to be based on real science, realistic scenarios, or at least scenarios with impacts that can be reached with a quality link chain. This year's resolution is EXTREMELY tangible and has so many real world implications that you should treat it as such. If we end up in the weeds talking about garbage that's only important to half a dozen people in a fringe think tank located in the broom closet of a lost downtown community college, then don't waste 90 minutes of my time.

Okay, enough with the I hate stuff. How about what I like. Well constructed arguments with strong links, well thought out analysis and clearly delivered. I like debaters that look like they're having fun. This is verbal gladiatorial games, and that's why we love it. Keep it cordial. Make it light when you can and engage with the judges when it's appropriate. We have to spend a good amount of time in a room together, so let's make the best of it. In the end, one team will win, and one team will lose, but we should all feel like we spent meaningful, entertaining, and educational time together.

With regard to LD since I judge that occasionally, like I said above, I'm a bit old school and that applies here as well. I DO NOT like my LD to be like my policy. They are different events for a reason. I detest progressive LD with a passion because every time I've judged it, it has turned into really poorly done policy debate. I'm a traditional LD judge that enjoys the value clash. I'm sure that will come as a disappointment to many of you, but it is what it is. Spreading in LD is unnecessary. I've been judging policy for nearly 20 years so It's not like I can't handle it. I just don't like it in LD. Just like I mentioned above, if you read it, I like clear analysis. Strategic arguments are worth their weight in gold...and speaker points. Keep it fun. Keep it fair. Keep it entertaining.