Harvard update (2/12/2024)

Not great for the K, except for maybe K's of language/rhetoric. In Policy v K rounds, I vote aff for the perm quite a bit. Not sure I have ever evaluated a K v K debate. In K aff v T-framework debates, I usually vote neg. Fairness and clash are pretty persuasive to me. I have voted for a non-topical aff a few times, but it's probably an uphill battle.

You should probably go slower than you would like in front of me, but I can usually keep up. If you really want me to keep up, I'd recommend leaving analytics in the doc.

I expect everyone to be nice and respectful to each other. Please be mindful of pronouns. Ask your opponents if you don't know.

I err neg on most counterplan theory questions, but I can definitely be persuaded that conditionality is a reason to reject a team, especially if there are more than 2 conditional worlds. Process CPs are kind of a gray area for me. I like them, but I could be convinced that they are bad.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain (davy.holmes@dsisdtx.us).

Some info about me:

Policy Debater from 1996-1998 for Gregory-Portland HS (Texas)

Assistant Policy Debate Coach from 1998-2002 for Gregory-Portland HS (Texas)

Debate Coach/Teacher at Sinton HS (Texas) from 2002-2003

Debate Coach/Teacher at Hebron HS (Texas) from 2003-2007

Debate Coach/Teacher at San Marcos HS (Texas) from 2014-2017

Debate Coach/Teacher at Dripping Springs HS (Texas) from 2017-present

Updated 1/3/2024

Top level observations for all debate events:

-You should not assume what your opponents' pronouns are. Ask if you don't know, and then make every effort to use them. When in doubt, referring to your opponents as "the aff" or "the neg" is probably a good idea.

-Slowing down and explaining things clearly is usually a good idea, especially in rebuttals.

-Perms that aren't explained aren't arguments.

-If a timer isn't running you shouldn't be prepping.

-I can't vote for something that I didn't flow or understand. I won't feel bad or embarrassed about saying I just didn't understand your argument.

Policy: My favorite event, but I am getting old. I am okay with speed, but clarity is important. I'm definitely more comfortable with plan-focused debate. If I was still a debater, I would probably be reading a small, soft-left aff, and my preferred 2NR would include a counterplan and the politics DA. For the most part, I think debate is a game. The negative should have access to predictable, topic-based ground. While fairness is likely an internal link to other impacts, it is also an impact in and of itself. Affirmatives that don't defend topical, hypothetical action by the resolutional actor will have a tough time getting me to vote for them. Neg kritiks require a lot of explanation and contextualization. I do not just assume that every K links. I have found that I am much more persuaded by links to a team's rhetoric or representations than other types of links. "They use the state and the state has always been bad in the past" won't usually beat a permutation. I am pretty bad for alts rooted in pessimism or alts that seemingly require an infinite amount of fiat. More than 2 conditional cps and/or alts dramatically increases the persuasiveness of condo theory.

Worlds: I tend to judge Worlds more than other debate events these days. I try to judge rounds holistically. My decision on who won the debate will be made before assigning points on my ballot. Line-by-line refutation is not an expectation. Debaters should focus on core topic arguments and major areas of clash. When appropriate, I enjoy detailed explanations and comparisons of models. Speakers 1-3 should take at least 1 POI.

LD: Even though I dislike this term as applied to debate, I am probably best for LARP and/or util frameworks. Not great for the K. Probably terrible for tricks or phil. Even though I think disclosure is good, there is less than a 1% chance that I'll vote on disclosure theory.

PF: I don't think PF judges should have paradigms. Unless your opponents are ignoring the resolution, I will not vote on theory in PF. #makepublicforumpublicagain

Congress: I pretty much never judge Congress. Students who expect to rank highly should make good arguments, clash with other representatives as much as possible, and participate fully throughout the session.

He/Him

Judge or Shauri is fine, if you call me Mr. Yedavalli or sir part of my soul will wither away

Add me on chains - hendricksondydebate@gmail.com

Did policy debate + speech events at hendrickson hs

LD:

I'll understand most of what you talk about, but I honestly have no clue what a trick is so I'm probably not the judge you want to run it in front of, unless you like explain it to me pre-round or something and believe in your teaching abilities.

I'm decently familiar with k lit bases but try to explain your K like I have no clue what you're talking about

PF:

Tech > Truth

Do your thing I'm a policy kid but that probably means I'll have a higher standard for progressive pf stuff. If you run it well though then I'll vote on it.

Have fun, try to gain something from your rounds, and be chill.

CX:

Top Level stuff

Overall I'd put myself at about 60% K debater and 40% policy debater so you should probably just run whatever, that being said I'm really bad about knowing K lit bases so don't assume I'm gonna understand more niche k topics.

I got indoctrinated into policy debate by Aly Mithani so if you want a better paradigm just look at his and imagine a more K version of it

Being fun is fun, try to enjoy yourself during rounds, make jokes and stuff, try to care a little bit, it just makes tournament days go by a bit faster so it'd be cool if you weren't a cx robot but if not that's cool too I guess.

If you're stealing prep trust me I'll notice, stare at you and take off speaks.

Open cx, prompting, spreading are all chill but my flow is mid so if your gonna do a card doc try to be clear on analytics

I'll follow along with your doc and read your cards

I'll probably forget to start a timer at some point so time yourself and your opponents

If your a varsity debater hitting a novice you do not have to destroy someone new to the activity to make yourself look/feel good your not gonna lose the ballot or anything but I'll just be bummed out and you'd probably prefer that the person filling in your speaks is not bummed out.

Don't be a bad person - y'all can figure out what that means

Biases

I think condo is probably good, and if a team that everyone in the room knows is losing goes for theory I'll have a harder time being objective on it

If you read an RVI I will unconsciously and consciously take you less seriously for the rest of the debate

I think competing interps > reasonability, but T v policy aff is something I'm not great at judging and if it's muddled I'd probably be biased by if I just think the aff should be part of the resolution

As someone who has only been a 2N I have a neg bias when it comes to most things about the model of debate cause I think the neg side is already on the short end of the stick

Entertainment bias: I kinda just like seeing more creative strategies and usually it'll help speaks in particular eg (against planless affs running a pik that displays research instead of. framework + cap, or adv cp with 1AC ev as a solvency advocate)

If your opponents read something that you'd think any slightly competent judge would ignore (i.e. absurdly random and subjective procedurals) feel free to give a thumbs down and move on. On the other side if you read one of these your kinda just throwing away time.

Framework/T-USFG

I evaluate this through a lens of offense-defense of each teams model of debate

Aff teams have to give a clear role for negative teams within their model of debate and should be able to adequately differentiate that from if the sides were just swapped in a given round because ssd just solves that

I think debate probably is just a game (I read K's against warmakers all of last year but will definitely pick up the phone if Lockheed Martin gives me a job offer). Though at the same time being stuck within this space probably does change your subjectivity at least a little bit (I'd feel kinda bad about working for a hedge fund)

Fairness isn't a terminal impact and definitely is non-unique but it's the aff teams job to prove that; clash > fairness

Remember this is about a model for the entire debate space not just how this round should've gone - negative teams have to make it clear that their model of debate makes the space as a whole better.

T

I will evaluate all T arguments mostly from a competing interps standpoint unless you give a compelling reason to evaluate it on reasonability (prefer reasonability isn't compelling)

If you do read a T even as a time suck - it is your burden to provide a case list if you're not able to give one then the aff will win on that flow 95% of the time.

I lean more towards limits than aff ground because I see policy debate as inherently aff biased.

Evidence quality matters otherwise it's a race to the bottom

Neg teams using clash have to explain what ground they are losing because of the affirmative or just why it makes the research burden too high to clash with well.

In order to win a T debate you must explain why your model would be better for debate examples are good for this but including one or two examples with a good explanation for its value is significantly better than spamming examples without reason

Ks

I'm into Ks, I think they're fun and (usually) good at educating debaters. That being said I'm definitely not as well read on as much K lit as I should be so if you go [X author obviously means Y] it will not be obvious to me. Also buzzword spamming is kinda weird but I should be able to get what your saying.

If you are running an identity K and you're demonstrably not within that identity I understand that as a debater you're a vessel for your scholarship but optically you do kinda lose the inherent moral high ground you get by reading a K

I don't really get why perf con doesn't justify severance on a reps K, but if you can give me a good reason then I'm down cause it (probably) is good for education.

Perceptually I don't really like seeing one-off K teams completely ignore the case debate in the neg block imo it just supercharges aff framework offense, in the 2NR though more power to you.

Fiat is fake and policy affs are often just as utopian as K-alts, but you should still have a coherent solvency mechanism for how your alt works.

The only K I think I'm legitimately biased against are psychoanalysis Ks: imo psychoanalysis is probably pseudoscience and kinda patronizing, if you could equally run psychoanalysis or some other K against a team in front of me I'd choose the other K but if you'd be substantially better off running psychoanalysis just send it and if I vote you down feel free to be upset at me.

CPs

I definitely prefer counterplans that actually engage with the specific processes of the plan to generic agent counterplans.

Agent CP's will often get the job done for me just fine, but I think more specific ones especially using 1AC cards as solvency paired with a DA is much more compelling for me as a judge and much more frustrating for an opponent to go against

Adv CPs are cool, and Adv CPs made with a random unhighlighted portion of a 1AC solvency card are super dope

I'm about 50/50 on whether your cheaty counterplans are chill or not so I wouldn't base any cp decisions for a round based on me being the judge

DAs

Yeah I don't really have much of an opinion on these they're kinda the most fundamental neg arg, just make the story of it make some sense as the round goes on.

For politics DAs I don't really like the idea of just handing a team the uniqueness debate because they cut an article slightly later than the other teams, so as a neg team I just want you to do a little bit of work to contextualize why that actually means your ev should be preferred and for the aff team try to get at warrant comparisons because like 75% of the politics uniqueness cards that I've ever read didn't have a legit warrant.

Misc.

Death good args are not good

Wipeout will be listened to but given a side eye

Good formatting of a doc that you send is good and makes your arguments easier to follow

There's a fine line between banter and disrespectfulness, try your best to not cross it

I'm not 100% sure about how my face looks during a debate but if I look upset I'm probably just thinking and if I look happy then just keep doing what you're doing

Try to give me time to switch flows, so just slow down a bit at the top of your new flow.

I'll probably default to judge kick but it's liable to switch based on arguments

Light blue >>> green > yellow > anything else