Add me to any email chains:

Email: amanchaudhary.hhs@gmail.com

Summary

I've done LD, PF, CX, Extempt Debate, and Congress. With that being said I've been heavily focused on CX for the last couple of years. If arguments your opponent dropped arguments don't just say it's dropped explain the importance, same for extending arguments. And please signpost it helps me flow! I've fine with speed but I'd prefer to have the case.

I don't include roadmaps as speaking time and flashing doesn't count as prep. Just don't abuse this. Try not to waste time between speeches. Most tournaments already run late.

Policy:
You can spread however much you want in the constructives, I really don't care just flash the case to me. If you're not reading evidence then make this distinct (slow down, emphasize, etc) or I won't hear it. If you spread in the rebuttals I'm not going to flow it. I'm fine with any argument as long as it's clearly explained.

LD:

Framework is useless if it's not clearly linked to your arguments. Explicitly say how they link or I'm less likely to vote off of them. That being said I'd value framework above case arguments. Don't solely go for it but adequately put some time into this portion of the debate. It separates you from CX and PF.

If you're going to spread just flash the case, I'll follow along. 

PF:

PF isn't a speed debate so don't spread. I vote on strong links and impact calculus so make sure to highlight these. Evidence is really crucial in PF, having recent evidence and having strong internal warrants matters a lot. 

Please add me to the email chain: rpatel135798642@gmail.com

Speech drop is cooler tho

About me:

LV Hightower '24
POLICY DEBATER
Debated TFA, UIL, and NSDA policy circuit

I mostly judge to help out tournaments/schools with judging because I want tournaments to have more flow judges who know the events rather than parents

NOVICES!!

Stop reading my paradigm (read this section but nothing below)!!! I don't want my paradigm to influence the way you debate. I suggest you don't read it because it will get you confused. Just debate how your coach taught you and I will follow. As a novice, your #1 job is to have fun debating and enjoy your experience. After the round ask me as many questions as you would like and I will try to answer them to the best of my ability with my prior debate knowledge.

Just remember what you practiced and what your coach taught you, no matter win or lose it is great that you are here!

In novice rounds, I will never vote off theory unless it is absolutely egregious/abusive (if you don't know what this means forget I said it).

Scroll down for other events

CX
shortcut:
1 bad - 5 good
Planless K aff - I will use your debate round as an hour-and a half-nap nap then vote neg
DA - 5(who doesn't run DAs)
CP - 5
K - 3 (I only understand a couple so explain)
Topicality - 5 (these are so underused, T debate is what got my partner and I to our first nats)
Theory - 4 (I love good theory debates that aren't pointless if the theory debate is pointless your speaks will reflect it)

Paradigm:

The name of the debate is policy so that's what I expect. I hate going into these debates about how debate is bad and how debate as a norm hurts people. First of all, it really doesn't(why are you here) second of all idgaf. Acc debate something about the topic.Overall I'm tab, I will weigh any kind of argument (Cap good/bad, death good/bad, all that stuff) I'm not picky just make it make sense. The debates I hate judging the most are the debates where nothing is clear and I'm throwing a dart blindfolded for my ballot.

I see condo as an excuse for teams not doing speed drills (just get good)

Tech -x---------- Truth
Condo bad ----------x- Just get good
Policy ---x-------- K
Limits -------x---- aff ground
T -x---------- K aff
Policy fw ---x-------- Any other fw

In constructive spread however fast you want(as long as its understandable) just make sure I have speech doc, if you are reading analytics tell me and slow down and make it a noticeable change in your voice so I know what analytics.

If you want me to vote for T or theory it needs to make up at least 2 minutes of the final speech (2nr or 2ar). If you don't cover it at least that much it the arg has to be so convincing that I feel bad for you about the round.

Most of my cx comes from Aman Chaudhary, Issac Chao, and Valentin Jimenez, they taught me debate so go read their paradigm to find out more about me (good pf and ld cuz he is basically my only basis for those)

LD

I know a bit about the debate, if you are prog please run prog its what I will fully understand coming from CX. Other than that I really want to see a good debate between battling frameworks and values. I think the whole trad LD debate saying "My value is this... My value criterion is this" is overplayed. Just tell me why you win under a fw idc what you value who you value or how you achieve your value. Just outweigh the fw debate and prove you are right and you have my ballot.

I'm cool with DA, CP, and most K's (I'm not the biggest fan of the far-left identity K's there is nothing wrong with them but they leave me with the feeling of voting for the person, not the argument and that is a moral position I would prefer not to be in)

Overall, my ballot is pretty easy to get in LD just don't be basic and be offensive, win FW and outweigh.

PF

I really don't understand this event. I will try to vote as best as I can. I would judge it as a lay CX round about who outweighs the topic. Just be persuasive and make good args and you will be fine. I am very sorry if I jf you. :)

Speaker Points

I tend to give high speaks. I start at a 29 and give you points if you do something good or entertaining and take points if you do something dumb or talk past time.

If you say "Yeet that argument out of the window" with a straight face in your speech I'll give you one extra speaker point, For WSD I'll give points as I see fit

atharvdebate@gmail.com | (add me to every email chain)

Background

I am Atharv Shukla, class of 2026 at Elkins High School. I am primarily a policy debater, but I have minimal experience/knowledge in events such as DX, NX, FX, PF, and LD. As for addresses, I don't really care whether you call me "judge" or not, as long as a moderate level of professionalism is maintained. For your information, my pronouns are He/Him, but once again, I don't really care what you call me.

Also, I'm like half deaf so pls send the doc--much appreciated!

General

tldr: don't be lazy.

Tech > Truth

Of course, I will not tolerate anything along the lines of racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc.

Like mentioned above, add me to every email chain. I used to have prefs on email chain over speechdrop, but do whatever gets the round moving faster. You gotta realize that, as a judge, I could care less about your docs. I'm also kinda slow so just send over most of your stuff and I'll flow it.

As for speaks, I will award them in a range of 26-30 (<26 if you really mess up). 30 speaks is for a perfect debate: no stuttering, no awkward pausing, no lack of flow, no abusive card cutting, etc. I start at 27, as I assume that level of competence in your debating. If your speech makes me laugh for the right reasons, you gain speaks. For doing any of the aforementioned activities you lose speaks.

Show humility in a debate round. Don't deliver a 30-second speech because you believe your opponent is "incompetent". Show respect for me and each other, and I will show it back. I give you three strikes for misconduct (two if I'm in a bad mood).

Feel free to ask me for additional RFD after the round, after all, it is my job. I have learned so much from my judge RFD (especially in rounds where I've had my a** handed to me) and I believe it is very important to learn from your mistakes.

Speaking:

Every time you say, "I'm gonna start on my case and then attack my opponents", you lose 0.2 speaks. Literally say "6 off and top down" or "6-123", I will know what you mean.

Spread if you want to just send the docs I'm deaf. Slow down on the taglines tho.

Policy

"pf is baby ld,
ld is baby policy,
policy is in its own league" - Asad Ahmed

I am generally very friendly and don't keep up with the usual grumpy stereotype of most policy judges (don't be the reason I develop it). I will engage in small talk before and after round. I'm also a policy debater so I WILL point you out on your bs (however I won't vote off it cause judge intervention is bad).

If you're gonna spread please be good at it, otherwise i will not hesitate to start docking speaker points.

"Email chains. Yes, I want to be on it. Yes, card docs are appreciated. I will give a warning if I catch someone clipping cards. If it continues to happen after the warnings, I will stop the round. Ev with missing paragraphs in between highlighted lines, misquoted or misattributed authors, etc. are reasons for teams to lose the round on evidence ethics. I will stop the round and evaluate the evidence when the team calls for an ev ethics challenge. Cards that start in the middle of a paragraph or clearly omit paragraphs (even if unhighlighted) ARE forms of cheating and I WILL drop debaters on it." - Nine Abad

Theory

Idrc about theory, however, I will flow it and if the opponent is unable to properly respond and shut it down, I will give that argument (however less its worth for "drop the argument") to the side that successfully ran it. Run content-focused arguments that are relevant to the aff/neg. If the opponent concedes "drop the team" I'll probably give you the win. My beliefs:

• condo is good (3+ condo is debatable tho...)
• condo perfcon good
• disad perfcon bad (idk why you need theory on this tho...)
• general disclosure okay (put your contact info on the wiki)
• hyperspecific disclosure bad (just ask for the 1ac and nothing more)
• Ks good
• K affs good
• links of omission bad
• education with spillover I/L > fairness > education without a spillover I/L
• fiat good
• 50-state uniformity is utopian but a norm (I think you can read stuff like "Texas says no")

K:

• I'm not voting on procedural standards bad unless you have piles upon piles of evidence on it. If this is your only clash on fw I'm probably just flowing aff on the k. (pess and other ontology is an exception)
• Pls don't run a K if you have no idea what it says; I hate messy K debates and tend to just default to anything else in the 2ar.
• Don't run K bad theory, for the love of god just say 'materiality good' or something.
• Tell me how to evaluate the K. Do i weigh the alts? Why does your framework matter? Why should I vote on the perm over the alt? Don't just spam cards, explain to me how I'm voting and you'll be happy with my ballot.
• I'll applaud you for running a discreet K, I don't find it to be abusive. Vice versa, don't complain if it's not on openev.

Disads:

Policy debate needs more DAs. My favorite DAs are: ptx, readiness, tradeoff, specific econ, etc. DAs need impact weighing. I need to know why your DA is going to happen before the plan can prevent the impacts. Paint me a big picture, I tend to get lost on weird impacts. If the aff points out you have no timeframe, consider the DA lost. If you're running it as a net benefit of a CP, you need to prove to me why the CP doesn't link into the DA. DA+CP in the 2nr is lit and I will not hesitate to vote you up if it makes sense.

My freshman year I mostly read the China and DoD Tradeoff disads--idk if that helps lmao.

Counterplans:

In my opinion, every 1nc should have at least one counterplan. I love competition, so debate on the perm. Say the perm is intrinsic or severance, tell me why the permutation isn't topical. I love perms specifically, so PDB, PDCP, PDPCP, PDP, and more are alright by me.

I love external net benefits just please don't go for a federalism NB if you kicked the fed DA into the block.

Topicality:

90% of 1nc t is bs. If your 2nr strat is t-prog there is a 99% chance I'm voting aff. So many judges say only run T is you think it's legit, but I think it's okay to run 3 Ts in the 1nc for a time skew, as long as you drop 2 of them in the block. My general rule of thumb is 3 Ts max with the most legit one in the block (but preferably none because topicality is BS).

1nc:

I don't really care if the 1nc is like 12 off, I think it's actually kind of fun. I applaud one card Ks as long as you maintain them in the block, and I personally will probably up your speaks if you extend like 80% of your off into the block (for fun). I don't find these 1ncs to be abusive, just have some discretion against inexperienced teams ig.

K-aff:

I think K affs are cool. My personal favorite arguments against K affs are presumption, t, ballot pik, K, etc. If you're doing KvK I will 100% get lost on the fw flow so there is a 99% chance I'm gonna go alt vs. alt.

LD

Refer to policy paradigm above but here's some more yapping:

idk what larping is

ld fw is stupid--I think util is bad for a whole flurry of reasons (eugenics, justice, etc.)[email me after round and I'll send you cards on it]

i will evaluate LD the same way i evaluate policy so just consider that

ld theory is also lowk stupid and i have a very low threshold on it( i.e if your shell against theory is like an avg policy shell I'll consider it defense unless you highkey blunder dat ho

prog > trad (still hate LD theory tho I'm ngl)

Also, if you collapse on K in the 2nr, all 6 minutes need to be K+Case.

Public Forum

Dawg it's just case debate.

Run something stupid and I might vote you on it.

for high level debate refer to policy paradigm.

for low level debate treat me as adam sandler.

Add me to any email chains:

Email: mybilv@gmail.com

About me:

I've done LD, CX, Extempt Debate, Congress, and a few speech events. I’ve done 3 years of Varsity Policy Debate, 1 year of Varsity LD Debate. I’ve competed at NSDA Nationals, TFA State, and UIL State.

General:

If you are spreading please make sure to flash me the case. I don't care about speed as long as you flash me the case I will follow along. DO NOT spread analytics because I will not flow it. Slow down for analytics and other important details. Signposting is crucial in debate, please do it. It will help me flow along better. For any debate I want to see clash amongst the arguments. Breakdown every detail: its significance, impact, etc. Extend that into drops as well. If your opponent drops an argument don't just say you win because they dropped it explain to me why that argument wins you the round.

Preferences:

tech>truth

1. t

2. cp

3. da

4. case

5. framework

6. larp

7. theory

8. k

9. phil

10. tricks

Policy:
You can spread however much you want, but just be mindful in terms of clarity and comprehensibility. If you are spreading through analytics I will not flow. Please slow down for analytics and important details. Learn to control your speed and modulation to place emphasis on where you want me to focus on and vote off of. I'm fine with any arguments you run as long as you clearly explain it. I hate K’s so please don't run them but if you do again just explain it thoroughly.

LD:

I prefer more of a traditional LD debate, not a big fan of the progressive LD, but I did debate policy for the majority of my debate career so I will understand progressive args. Framework is crucial in LD but is not the only thing that will win you the round. Please make sure to link your framework to your case and tell me why you win the framework debate.

PF:

Treat me as a lay judge in this event. However, PF isn't a speed debate so don't spread. I vote on strong links and impact calculus so make sure to highlight these. Evidence is really crucial in PF, having recent evidence and having strong internal warrants matters a lot.

With all that being said above all make sure to have fun! If you do crack jokes and make it a fun debate round I might give extra speaker points ;) but be mindful and respectful of everyone