Tabroom.com

JCHS Practice 3

2024 — Johns Creek, GA/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Nifemi Adenugba Hire None

Dorothy Agbame Hire None

Tasneem Ahmed Hire None

Seojean Ahn Hire None

Charlotte Albright Hire None

Dominik Anderson Hire

Noura Asgari Hire None

Shaurya Attal Hire

Aryan Bavera Hire

Dhwani Bhanushali Hire None

Ronak Bhatt Hire

Aalif Biswas Hire None

Mikia Bolden Hire None

Saanvi Boyapati Hire None

Sarah Burkett Hire None

Simon Carbonell Hire None

Maria Carter Hire

Monali Chakrabarty Hire

David Phillip Challenger Hire

Kellen Chancy Hire None

Samyak Chatterjee Hire

Gurbani Cheema Hire None

Isabel Chen Hire

Jerry Chen Hire

Last changed on Tue March 5, 2024 at 6:37 AM EDT

Jerry Chen

Northview '25

debatebtbc@gmail.com

Tech over truth. Take every thought and opinion in this paradigm with a grain of salt because any argument can win given the better debating. That means I will vote on any argument as long as it is on my flow and technically won, including arguments like death good and wipeout. My job as a judge is solely to evaluate the flow objectively and technically, not arbitrarily insert my opinions and let those insertions influence the decision.

Given that, the only things I will refuse to vote on are events that transpired outside of the round. Ad-homs, callouts, and attacks on personal character are not arguments.

Novices

---Less cards; more explanation. Too many novices read files and blocks straight down---I will reward teams that consistently extend previously read evidence before reading new cards and who directly engage in line by line.

---Flow! This is a super important practice and is overlooked in novice debates. Flowing well and using your flow effectively is the biggest difference maker when you're a novice, so take advantage of it.

---Abuse impact calculus. The best novice debates I have judged involved heavy impact weighing from both sides.

---Be efficient. You should know how to send a speech doc, reply all to an email, track prep, and do cross-ex by now.

Overview

---Give judge instruction. The top of your final rebuttals should clearly outline why I should vote for you and what I am voting on.

---"When debating ask the question of Why? Technical debating is not just realizing WHAT was dropped but WHY what was dropped matters and how important it is in the context of the rest of the debate. “If you start thinking in these terms and can explain each level of this analysis to me, then you will get closer to winning the round. In general, the more often this happens and the earlier this happens it will be easier for me to understand where you are going with certain arguments. This type of analysis definitely warrants higher speaker points from me and it helps you as a debater eliminate my predispositions from the debate." - Matt Cekanor.

Topicality

---Teams should clearly go for predictability outweighing debatability or vice versa, not go for a combination of both or a middle ground.

---Plan text in a vacuum is fine.

Counterplans

---Judgekick is good.

---You should read solvency advocates in the 1NC unless you're against a new aff.

---Fine for 2NC counterplanning out of add-ons.

---I'm pretty comfortable and probably err neg in competition debates. 2Ns let 2As get away with murder way too much with abusive perms that are clearly illegitimate---draw a line in the sand.

---Answer the net benefit or lose! You do not want to hand the neg a try or die push, especially because your deficits likely will not outweigh 100% risk of a conceded net benefit.

Disadvantages

---Disads must be coherent in the 1NC with clear uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact.

---Turns case is super important, true, and rarely answered correctly by aff teams---take advantage of it. You should also do in-depth impact calculus, especially if you're going for a linear disad without a counterplan.

Kritiks

---I'm a lot better for race-based critiques than postmodern ones. If you are reading the latter, more explanation and less buzzwords would be greatly appreciated.

---Framework interps should moot the plan. Going for the alternative coupled with links to the plan's material implications means you will lose to the perm double bind. I strongly prefer critiques that center around scholarship and discourse as opposed to materiality.

---Links should be in the context of the aff---no generic or uncontextualized links. PLEASE provide quotes or rehighlightings coupled with coherent extrapolation.

---Love tricks, and will quickly vote on one if dropped. However, the threshold for what constitutes an argument still applies. For example, simply asserting 'fiat isn't real' is not an argument with a warrant, and I will not evaluate 2NR extrapolation about presumption even if the aff team dropped it.

---I will not arbitrarily create a middle-ground interpretation---that is up to the debaters to do, although I do not find it very strategic.

Kritikal Affirmatives

---Your aff should be related to the resolution in some way, shape, or form. What this looks like is up to you, but I'm not down for recycled BS.

---Go for impact turns. Counterinterpretation approaches never made sense to me, because any coherent negative team could easily win DAs to your model.

---Fairness is a better impact than clash.

---Arguments like the Heg DA or Cap Good DA never made sense to me. Unless presented with some framing mechanism, I will heavily err aff on a question of reading an aff in one round not ending all of [insert thing that is good].

---Presumption is an arbitrary double standard---the role of the ballot is to determine whether or not the method of the 1AC is a good idea.

Theory

---Above all, slow down. These debates turn into block-spreading competitions at max speed, making them incredibly hard to adjudicate---do us all a favor and just slow down and do line by line.

---Conditionality is probably good, especially against new affs, and is the only theoretical reason to reject the team. Numerical interpretations are incoherent---it's about the practice, not the number.

Misc.

---Tag team cx is fine, I don't care.

---Inserting evidence is great (with summaries of the rehighlighting, of course). Teams that recognize questionably cut evidence and rehighlight on the fly should be rewarded.

Brian Choi Hire

Christine Choi Hire None

Charles Cortez Hire None

Ayanna Das Hire

Maya Isabel Davis Hire

Blake Deng Hire

Last changed on Sun January 14, 2024 at 12:31 PM EDT

Procedural Stuff

Call me Blake or BD instead of Judge, I don't like feeling old

Email chain: blako925@gmail.com

Please also add: jchsdebatedocs@gmail.com

Add both emails, title the chain Tournament Rd # Your Team vs. Other Team ex) Harvard Round 4 Johns Creek XY vs. Northview AM.

1AC should be sent at round start or if I'm late (sorry in advance), as soon as I walk in the room

If you go to the bathroom or fill your waterbottle before your own speech, I'll dock 1 speaker point

Stealing prep = heavily docked speaks. If you want to engage your partner in small talk, just speak normally so everyone knows you're not stealing prep, don't whisper. Eyes should not be wandering on your laptop and hands should not be typing/writing. You can be on your phone.

Clipping is auto-loss and I assign lowest possible speaks. Ethics violation claims = round stoppage, I will decide round on the spot using provided evidence of said violation

Topic Knowledge

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE.

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE

I debated in high school, didn’t debate in college, have never worked at any camp. I currently work an office job. Any and all acronyms should be explained to me. Specific solvency mechanisms should be explained to me. Tricky process CPs should be explained to me. Many K jargon words that I have heard such as ressentiment, fugitivity, or subjectivity should be explained to me.

Spreading

I WRITE SLOW AND MY HAND CRAMPS EASILY. PLEASE SLOW DOWN DURING REBUTTALS

My ears have become un-attuned to debate spreading. Please go 50% speed at the start of your speech before ramping up. I don’t care how fast or unclear you are on the body of cards b/c it is my belief that you will extend that body text in an intelligent manner later on. However, if you spread tags as if you are spreading the body of a card, I will not flow them. If you read analytics as if you are spreading the body of a card, I will not flow them. If I do not flow an argument, you’re not going to win on it. If you are in novice this probably doesn't apply to you.

While judges must do their best to flow debates and adjudicate in an objective matter that rewards the better debater, there is a certain level of debater responsibility to spread at a reasonable speed and clear manner. Judge adaptation is an inevitable skill debaters must learn.

In front of me, adaption should be spreading speed. If you are saying words faster than how fast I can move my pen, I will say SLOW DOWN. If you do not comply, it is your prerogative, and you can roll the dice on whether or not I will write your argument down. I get that your current speed may be OK with NDT finalists or coaches with 20+ years of experience, but I am not those people. Adapt or lose.

No Plan Text & Framework

I am OK with any affirmative whether it be policy, critical, or performance. The problem is that the 2AC often has huge case overviews that are sped through that do not explain to me very well what the aff harms are and how the advocacy statement (or whatever mechanism) solves them. Furthermore, here are some facts about my experience in framework:

I was the 1N in high school, so I never had to take framework other than reading the 1NC shell since my partner took in the 2NC and 2NR.
I can count the number of times I debated plan-less affs on one hand.
As of me updating this paradigm on 01/28/2023 I have judged roughly 15 framework rounds (maybe less).

All the above make framework functionally a coin toss for either side. My understanding of framework is predicated off of what standards you access and if the terminal impacts to those standards prove if your model of debate is better for the world. If you win impact turns against the neg FW interpretation, then you don't need a C/I, but you have to win that the debate is about potential ballot solvency or some other evaluation method. If the neg wins that the round is about proving a better model of debate, then an inherent lack of a C/I means I vote for the better interp no matter how terrible it is. The comparison in my mind is that a teacher asked to choose the better essay submitted by two students must choose Student A if Student B doesn't turn in anything no matter how terrible or offensive Student A's essay is.

Tech vs. Truth

I used to like arguments such as “F & G in federal government aren't capitalized T” or “Period at the end of the plan text or the sentence keeps going T” b/c I felt like these arguments were objectively true. As I continue to judge I think I have moved into a state where I will allow pretty much any argument no matter how much “truth” there is backing it especially since some truth arguments such as the aforementioned ones are pretty troll themselves. There is still my job to provide a safe space for the activity which means I am obligated to vote down morally offensive arguments such as racism good or sexism good. However, I am now more inclined to vote on things like “Warming isn’t real” or “The Earth is flat” with enough warrants. After all, who am I to say that status quo warming isn’t just attributable to heating and cooling cycles of the Earth, and that all satellite imagery of the Earth is faked and that strong gravitational pulls cause us to be redirected back onto flat Earth when we attempt to circle the “globe”. If these arguments are so terrible and untrue, then it really shouldn’t take much effort to disprove them.

Reading Evidence

I err on the side of intervening as little as possible, so I don’t read usually read evidence. Don't ask me for a doc or send me anything afterwards. The only time I ever look at ev is if I am prompted to do so during speech time.

This will reward teams that do the better technical debating on dropped/poorly answered scenarios even if they are substantiated by terrible evidence. So if you read a poorly written federalism DA that has no real uniqueness or even specific link to the aff, but is dropped and extended competently, yes, I will vote for without even glancing at your ev.

That being said, this will also reward teams that realize your ADV/DA/Whatever ev is terrible and point it out. If your T interp is from No Quals Alex, blog writer for ChristianMingle.com, and the other team points it out, you're probably not winning the bigger internal link to legal precision.

Case

I love case debate. Negatives who actually read all of the aff evidence in order to create a heavy case press with rehighlightings, indicts, CX applications, and well backed UQ/Link/Impact frontlines are always refreshing watch. Do this well in front of me and you will for sure be rewarded.

By the 2AR I should know what exactly the plan does and how it can solve the advantages. This obviously doesn't have to be a major component of the 1AR given time constraint, but I think there should at least some explanation in the 2AR. If I don't have at least some idea of what the plan text does and what it does to access the 1AC impacts, then I honestly have no problem voting on presumption that doing nothing is better than doing the aff.

Disads

Similar to above, I think that DA's have to be fully explained with uniqueness, link, and impact. Absent any of these things I will often have serious doubts regarding the cohesive stance that the DA is taking.

Topicality

Don't make debate meta-arguments like "Peninsula XY read this at Glenbrooks so obviously its core of the topic" or "every camp put out this aff so it's predictable". These types of arguments mean nothing to me since I don't know any teams, any camp activities, any tournaments, any coaches, performance of teams at X tournament, etc.

One small annoyance I have at teams that debate in front of me is that they don't debate T like a DA. You need to win what standards you access, how they link into your terminal impacts like education or fairness, and why your chosen impact outweighs the opposing teams.

Counterplan

I have no inherent bias against any counterplan. If a CP has a mechanism that is potentially abusive (international fiat, 50 state fiat, PICs bad) then I just see this as offense for the aff, not an inherent reason why the team or CP should immediately be voted down.

I heavily detest this new meta of "perm shotgunning" at the top of each CP in the 2AC. It is basically unflowable. See "Spreading" above. Do this and I will unironically give you a 28 maximum. Spread the perms between cards or other longer analytical arguments. That or actually include substance behind the perm such as an explanation of the function of the permutation, how it dodges the net benefit, if it has any additional NB, etc.

I think 2NR explanation of what exactly the CP does is important. A good 2N will explain why their CP accesses the internal links or solvency mechanisms of the 1AC, or if you don't, why the CP is able to access the advantages better than the original 1AC methods. Absent that I am highly skeptical of broad "CP solves 100% of case" claims and the aff should punish with specific solvency deficits.

A problem I have been seeing is that affirmatives will read solvency deficits against CP's but not impacting the solvency deficits vs. the net benefit. If the CP doesn't solve ADV 1 then you need to win that ADV 1 outweighs the net benefit.

Judge kick is not my default mindset, neg has say I have to judge kick and also justify why this is OK.

Kritiks

I don't know any K literature other than maybe some security or capitalism stuff. I feel a lot of K overviews include fancy schmancy words that mean nothing to me. If you're gonna go for a K with some nuance, then you're going to need to spend the effort explaining it to me like I am 10 years old.

Theory

If the neg reads more than 1 CP + 1 K you should consider pulling the trigger on conditionality.

I default to competing interpretations unless otherwise told.

Define dispositionality for me if this is going to be part of the interp.

Extra Points

To promote flowing, you can show me your flows at the end of a round and earn up to 1.0 speaker points if they are good. To discourage everyone bombarding me with flows, you can also lose up to a full speaker point if your flows suck.

Xiwen Deng Hire

Saumya Dhore Hire

Sherrie Drummond Hire

Shelby Echols Hire None

Julie Essa Hire None

Alex Etingof Hire None

Delphina Foley Hire None

Katherine Forero-Rodriguez Hire None

Jayson Ty Gonzalez Hire

Keegan Grigsby Hire None

Avika Gupta Hire None

Fito Habban Hire None

Audrey Hall Hire None

Zachary Hall Hire None

Diane Han Hire None

John Hankey Hire

Last changed on Sat February 3, 2024 at 5:12 AM EDT

I would characterize myself as a 40% tech, 60% lay judge. I know the structure of debate and will make note of any missing formalities, but I'm likely unaware of many of the JV or more advanced terms. I'm looking for a debater who is confident, passionate, can be clearly heard, and is clear in what they are saying. Speaking fast is fine and all, but it can't come at the cost of being understood. Clearly laying out what your contentions are as you go is also appreciated. Not keeping time is a huge problem in my eyes. Numbers are usually lost on me as scale is a better quantifier generally. I generally value strong arguments and reasons over cold onslaughts of statistics. Numbers and statistics are still necessary for a lot of facts and are far from useless, but just be aware of that and try to supplement them as well as avoid leaning on raw numbers too much.

I value crossfires a lot and try to flow them. The most entertaining part of the debate and the part that most tests the skill of a debater is the crossfire. I will spot logical fallacies and count it against you (particularly if I sense the logical fallacy to be intentional), although not nearly as much as I'll count it against you if your opponent catches you using one. I'll count it against your opponent as well if they don't call you out for using one. Don't use logical fallacies if you can help it. Try to keep the crossfire on track and don't fall down ridiculous arguments with your opponent. I like responses to answers and responses to responses, but make sure that they make sense and don't go on for too long. There should be at least 2 questions asked during each crossfire (pro & con or pro/con & pro/con).

As a judge, I will be flowing, keeping time, and keeping the debate moving if necessary. Do your best to ensure it's not necessary. That being said, I do prefer keeping track of prep time. Unless I make a mistake and request you to step in on tracking it, expect me to be the ultimate judge as to how much prep time you have left. I don't take specific time requests for prep time ("can I have 2 minutes of prep time?") and will instead have you say when you want prep time and when you're done. Otherwise, the timer will run until you say stop. If this is a problem for you, you can always set your own timer to track your requested time. I prefer to do the coin toss and I carry around a quarter(s) partially for this purpose.

Whether you're from the After School Program or one of our locations, I'm familiar both with "Electric cars are better than gas cars" and "The United States Federal Government should ban single use plastics" topics that we will be having today. While I don't have a particular expertise in either topic, I'm generally well read on a variety of topics and have been hearing plenty about both as a debate teacher for Ivy Bridge Academy. I am likely to spot if you're making facts up and have weak arguments and I will value a visible inherent knowledge of the subject being debated.

Concerning my background outside of debate and other details about me, I'm 24 and I'm currently a novice debate teacher at Ivy Bridge Academy who has taught 2 semesters now of After School Programs in debate. I have an associate degree in computer science and am currently working on my bachelor's at Georgia State University. I plan to use this degree (and other certifications currently in progress) to secure a job in Cybersecurity, ideally as a Pen Tester. I love tinkering with technology and am very familiar with many things computer and have a decent knowledge regarding many other technologies. I like video games, music, anime, and D&D.

Vidhatri Hegde Hire None

Jack wei Hong Hire None

Nitya Jaswani Hire None

Kesar Jindal Hire None

Stryder Jones Hire None

Saanvi Kadiyala Hire None

Felix Kahn Hire None

Warner Kahn Hire None

Spoorthi Kakarla Hire None

Elly Kang Hire

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 12:51 PM EDT

she/her | add me to the email chain: ellykang@mit.edu

competed in nat cir public forum for 4 years at marist

general notes

tech > truth

please preflow before the round

i will always prefer better comparatively weighed arguments

love weighing introduced earlier (especially in rebuttal!)

warranted analytics > unwarranted evidence

can handle speed but will clear you if i can't understand + you should be slowing down on taglines, send speech docs in the email chain if you spread

if you do paraphrase, please at least have cut cards. if evidence is called for and sent in the email chain, it should be sent in cut card format. if you don't have a cut card for key evidence, your speaks and the argument will be dropped.

won't evaluate arguments in cross unless they're made in speeches

rebuttal

must frontline in second rebuttal (at the very minimum, frontline what you collapse on and every offensive argument)

implicate your responses and tell me why they matter in context of the round

summary + final

defense isn't sticky

collapse in the back half. for anything you collapse on, extend every part of the argument (uniqueness, link, internal link, impact)

back half should be consistent. everything in final needs to be in summary or i won't evaluate it

progressive argumentation

i do believe reading cut cards and open source disclosure are good norms, but reading those shells is not an auto win. you have to win the shell for me to vote off it

i don't like friv theory that doesn't actually contribute education or fairness to debate + probably won't evaluate it. i consider friv anything that isn't disclosure, paraphrasing, or content warning theory. but note i have a fairly high threshold for what requires a content warning

have judged kritiks several times, but not the most familiar with them. if you read one, i'll do my best to evaluate

other notes

i give speaks solely based on strategic decisions in round

if you are any kind of -ist in round, i will immediately drop you with the lowest speaks i can give

if you have any questions you can always ask! feel free to email me if there are any others after the round

Alisha Kapoor Hire

Suhani Kapur Hire None

Nabihah Khan Hire None

Eli Kim Hire None

Hayden Kim Hire None

Theodore Kim Hire

Samhitha Kovi Hire

Last changed on Fri February 23, 2024 at 9:40 AM EDT

Hello!

I was a PF debater for several years and broke at a few national tournaments for JV, including Harvard, Stanford, and Yale. I am no longer in the debating scene, but I am still familiar with how PF debate works. Treat me as a flay: I understand the tech and lingo, but I have absolutely zero topic knowledge.

For Varsity: I detest theory and K's. Do not run them in front of me. If you do, I will default to the other side.

TLDR: Obviously, no racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. Please respect opponents. Generally, I vote for whoever has the best weighing and whichever case is still standing. I expect a clear warrant to buy a case. Speaks depend on how well you execute your speeches and cross. When calling for evidence, please send a CUT CARD. Include me on any email chains. Signpost all speeches following 1st rebuttal.

Cases: I like comprehensible cases with some nuances. If you do happen to be reading a squirrely case, send me evidence beforehand. Don't read faster than 200 wpm. I'm not a huge fan of spreading, but if you really need to, send me a case doc beforehand. otherwise, do whatever.

Responses: Destroy your opponent’s case on the uniqueness, link, and impact level. I like aggressive rebuttals. Turns are fantastic. Make sure to sign post, so I can flow all your responses. 2nd rebuttal must frontline some arguments or at least the turns. Weighing here is a bonus, but not required.

Summary: Hardest, but also most important speech of the round. My ballot will likely be decided after this speech. I expect these 3 things:

Extend case. Bring up some key authors and the uniqueness, link, and impact.
Frontline. If you don’t frontline, I assume you concede. I especially love analytical frontlines, but be careful, because some things actually need evidence.
Weigh. Give me some good warrants and evidence. I love, love, love pre-req/short circuit. If you weigh like this and your opponent doesn't address it/weigh similarly, then I will vote fore you. Meta-weighing is great, but not needed. This is the most important part of the summary, so give me a clear heads-up when you start weighing.
Extend responses. If a turn goes unaddressed, please extend it! Don't go for all responses, just pick 1 or 2 max and properly implicate them

Final Focus: As I almost always have my ballot by summary, I rarely flow this speech. Don't bring up new evidence/responses. I will not even consider them. Please spend at least 30 sec weighing here, as this is one of the main purposes of this speech.

Cross: This is not a key voting place for me, but I will use it determine speaks. If some important point is made in cross, just bring it up at the beginning of any speech and I'll consider it.

i award points to ppl who...

-seem confident. doesnt mean you know whats going on, but if you keep your game together and make it look like you’re still in control, thats pretty good. thats kinda tough sometimes, man.

-not boring voice. dont be monotone. imma fall asleep at the very beginning then.

-hand gestures. love these. more, more, more

-either be assertive or friendly. no aggressive and no passive. and obviously be respectful.

-knows what they’re talking about and can actually debate. you’d be surprised by the number of people who fail to get points from this category. be a good debater guys. stop calling out dumb technicalities

-80s song references

i take away points from ppl who…

-are disrespectful, rude, disgustingly mean, or have bad behavior. i will hack the system to give you a 25 BECAUSE APPARENTLY THIS POSSIBLE I KNOW FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE

-make it obvious that they’re not cooperating with their partner. your partner is like the other half of your brain. please respect them.

-mumble

-concede something that goes against them. good debaters never do this. be a good debater.

-give bad speeches. this is a kinda iffy category and its really hard to decide. if you have a significant amount of time left, i’ll dock points. if you consistently contradict yourself, i’ll dock points. dont worry too much about this part. you have to be rlly bad if i dock points for bad speech.

-any harry styles, olivia rodrigo, ariana grande, doja cat reference

okay, here’s what numbers mean to me:

30: never stop debating. move up to the next level. you’re actually so good. will rarely give this out

29: rlly rlly good. this is expected for excellent debaters and i encourage you to keep debating.

28: you’re getting there. at least you didnt screw up. will use this most often, especially for average debaters.

27: please try harder next time. follow the advice in my feedback

26: what are you doing with your life? i will almost never give this out because im too nice

yea and of course cant forget the "have fun debating!!!1!!1!"

just be a good debater :D

put #samisthebomb.com in the chat so i know you read my paradigm

Selvaganesan Krishnamurthy Hire

Caren Lee Hire

Kathy Li Hire

Allen J Liu Hire

Nan Ma Hire

Last changed on Fri May 3, 2024 at 6:50 PM EDT

Hello debaters, this is my paradigm. I suggest reading through all of it, but the TLDR is at the bottom.

In my paradigm I'll be answering a few common questions:

- Are you OK with spreading?

I'm not OK with spreading, so if you decide to spread, please send me your speech doc so I can read you case more thoroughly.

- Truth>Tech

Actually, I prefer Tech>Truth, and I prefer strategic arguments and carded responses. Analytics are fine, I would prefer carded responses more, as they are easier for me flow and evaluate.

- Do you allow for my camera to be off? (ONLY APPLIES TO ONLINE COMPETITIONS)

Strictly no, I don't trust turned off cameras just in case it isn't you actually debating. It is fine if you turn off your camera if you're not speaking, but when you're speaking please remember to turn it on, or else I will remind you.

- Is it OK if me and my partner talk during my opp's speech? (ONLY APPLIES TO IN-PERSON COMPETITIONS)

It's fine if it's a soft whisper that I can ignore. If you're laughing or talking loudly, no matter if you are friends with your opponents, it'll be an automatic speaker point deduction, as it's taken as rude offence by both the judge and the opp's.

- How would I get a 26 or 30 for speaker points?

If I hear someone use derogatory or racial language, it's an automatic 26 for both that person and their partner. To get a perfect 30, speak concise, and I would prefer if you spoke in the middle, so don't speak too slow, as you can't get out all the information, but don't speak so fast that I can't understand what your saying. Additionally, I know that crossfire isn't really important to most judges, but I care about crossfire. It can show me how much you understand the topic (and what you're saying). Don't be too aggressive though, try to calmly answer the questions but if your opponent keeps on mistaking/misunderstanding you question or fails to respond to it correctly, I will be sure to note that down. I definitely take off points though if you bring up new evidence in summary, grand cross, or final focus.

TLDR: In short terms I am a tech leaning flay judge. Speak concisely and clear, no stuttering or stumbling, and please no making up evidence. That just makes the job of me and your opponent harder. No bringing up new evidence after second cross. That's basically it. Further details in my actual paradigm.

Where I am

<-Lay----------Flay---↑------Tech->

Remember debaters, your score doesn't define how well of a debater you are. It only defines how well you did in that specific round. If you get a slightly lower score than your opponents or partner, don't feel discouraged because it's just once and you have many more rounds and debates to go. So no matter if you take the L in the round, remember that you all are great debaters, and keep pursuing your passion in debate! (Unless you're forced by your parents to do debate).

Anishka Majumdar Hire

Stuti Mohan Hire

Rajveer Nadkar Hire

Shreya Nambiar Hire None

Keva Nimgaonkar Hire

Last changed on Sat February 3, 2024 at 4:27 AM EDT

My email is iheartbooks137@gmail.com. Please add me to the email chain.

I am not currently debating, but I have done policy debate for the past 2 years and I have decent topic knowledge for this year. I also have experience judging rookie & novice policy, as well as novice, JV, & varsity public forum.

Top Level: I am open to most arguments, impact calc is key, truth over tech, do line by line, be nice

What to do:

The most important thing in debating for me is DON’T DROP ARGUMENTS because it’s hard to flow.
If you want to go for a specific argument, make sure to extend it all the way into the last speech so that I can clearly outline arguments on the flow. If you don’t, that is considered dropping. And if the other team points it out, I may vote on that, so be careful.
Always provide a roadmap so that I can line up the flows in order.
In general, introduce new arguments in the 1AC and 1NC, then respond to answers in the 2AC and 2NC, extend and explain in the 1NR and 1AR, and then finally do impact calc, framework, summarizing, etc. in the 2NR and 2AR. Again, I’d like to emphasize extending and explaining.
If you’re going to run any Theory argument, it must be well explained throughout the entirety of the debate that you are extending it for. If you are neg, you should spend about 5 minutes of the 2NC or even the entire 1NR on theory arguments (such as condo, framework, etc).
Send speech docs as quickly as possible. I understand if you're taking prep time, but if there are some unexpected tech issues, try to get that resolved immediately.
Speak as clearly as possible for you.
Be nice to everybody. It doesn't matter if the other team is your sworn enemy or if your partner did something wrong. You should treat every person in the room with respect. If you fail to do so, expect low speaker points.

Argument specifics:

DA: Make sure that the uniqueness still applies for Politics DAs and that your DA actually links to the aff (the more specific, the better).
CP: HAVE A NET BENEFIT! I can’t stress this enough, you MUST have either an external net benefit like a DA or an internal one (it may be embedded within the counterplan text or in a separate card). If you’re unsure whether there’s an INB, it's better to read a DA that fits and kick it later rather than having to defend a CP with no NB. Also, decide on the status of the CP with your partner (condo, dispo or unconditional).
K: I am most definitely not a K debater. I dislike running them, going against them, or deciding on them. That being said, if you extend the K well and answer EVERYTHING, especially on framework, then I don’t necessarily mind voting on it. I will also allow essentially any K that you want to run, as long as your coach is okay with it. K affs are a whole other topic and I don’t like those either. However, if you’re going to run one, remember the rules for answering both the K stuff (like framework, alt fails, condo, etc.) and regular case defense/offense.
T: Make sure you have both a clear violation (I strongly suggest that you have carded evidence for this, but it can technically just be an analytic) and standards for your topicality arg. Also, try not to run more than 3 Ts because at that point, you’re just trying to create a time skew for the aff. I may decide not to vote on topicality just because of that.
Affs: Don’t drop solvency, and answer/extend the aff using a line-by-line (LBL) strategy. Try to have 2 or 3 advantages with a couple of impacts for each. Generally, try to have less impacts (maybe three max) and more internal links (really double down on these). For the 2AC specifically, short extensions of the 1AC cards are all that are necessary.
Case negs: These MUST be aff-specific. That means actually reading through the cards and checking whether they respond to the aff, and creating analytics for arguments that don’t have carded responses.

Things to know:

If you want to introduce a claim about recent events that negates something the other side has said, with or without evidence, that is fine. However, it must be either generally common knowledge or at least able to be easily Googled.
I like voting on CPs, DAs and impact-based arguments.
I LOVE a good impact calc debate, and I enjoy seeing clash.
Truth over tech (for the most part), clarity over speed, quality over quantity of arguments
I WILL NOT tolerate any type of discrimination whatsoever. In addition, there are a few arguments I am unwilling to listen to, including but not limited to: sexism good, racism good, genocide good, and rape good. If you are considering reading one of those arguments, don’t.
If my RFD doesn’t make sense or something isn’t explained clearly, I will do my best to clarify.
You can call me Judge or Keva. My pronouns are she/her.
Please don’t hold any hard feelings about the results. The point of debating in tournaments is to improve your speaking and debating skills, and it’s impossible to do that if you win all the time. In my experience, the rounds I’ve lost are the ones where I’ve learned the most.

Speaker point scale (for rookie/novice)

Below 27.0: Being blatantly rude, aggressive, or showing any "ism" (being sexist, racist, etc.) on purpose and outside the scope of debate arguments
27.0 to 28.4: Good foundation but additional prep is probably needed
28.5 to 29.0: Solid but you still have room for improvement (average range)
29.1 to 29.4: Great debating, keep up the good work
29.5 to 29.9: Really smart debating, amazing job
30: Literally perfect, nothing could be better (I have never given a 30 and don't plan on doing so)

If you get me a caramel frappuccino before the round, I'll bump speaks by 0.4.

If you tell me a good joke (it actually has to be funny), I'll increase speaks by 0.2.

Good luck!

Pavani Pai Hire None

Jihyo Park Hire None

Sofia Parker Hire None

Jesenia Perez Hire

Anvika Pulipaka Hire None

Aiza Rasheed Hire None

Aleena Rasheed Hire None

Sahasra Regoti Hire None

Anaya Riaz Hire None

Brian Rohner Hire None

Ava Santos Hire None

Ben Schultz Hire

Last changed on Sat January 27, 2024 at 11:16 AM EDT

Debated 4 years Marquette University HS (2001-2004)

Assistant Coach – Marquette University HS (2005-2010)

Head Coach – Marquette University HS (2011-2012)

Assistant Coach – Johns Creek HS (2012-2014)

Head Coach – Johns Creek HS (2014-Current)

Yes, put me on the chain: bencharlesschultz@gmail.com

No, I don’t want a card doc.

Its been a long time since I updated this – this weekend I was talking to a friend of mine and he mentioned that I have "made it clear I wasn’t interested in voting for the K”. Since I actually love voting for the K, I figured that I had been doing a pretty bad job of getting my truth out there. I’m not sure anyone reads these religiously, or that any paradigm could ever combat word of mouth (good or bad), but when I read through what I had it was clear I needed an update (more so than for the criticism misconception than for the fact that my old paradigm said I thought conditionality was bad – yeesh, not sure what I was thinking when I wrote THAT….)

Four top top shelf things that can effect the entire debate for you, with the most important at the top:

11) Before I’m a debate judge, I’m a teacher and a mandatory reporter. I say this because for years I’ve been more preferred as a critical judge, and I’ve gotten a lot of clash rounds, many of which include personal narratives, some of which contain personal narratives of abuse. If such a narrative is read, I’ll stop the round and bring in the tournament director and they will figure out the way forward.

22) I won’t decide the debate on anything that has happened outside of the round, no matter the quality of evidence entered into the debate space about those events. The round starts when the 1AC begins.

33) If you are going to the bathroom before your speech in the earlier speeches (constructives through 1nr, generally) just make sure the doc is sent before you go. Later speeches where there's no doc if you have prep time I can run that, or I'll take off .4 speaks and allow you to go (probably a weird thing, I know, but I just think its stealing prep even though you don't get to take flows or anything, just that ability to settle yourself and think on the positions is huge)

44) No you definitely cannot use extra cross-ex time as prep, that’s not a thing.

55) Finally, some fun. I’m a firm believer in flowing and I don’t see enough people doing it. Since I do think it makes you a better debater, I want to incentivize it. So if you do flow the round, feel free to show me your flows at the end of the debate, and I’ll award up to an extra .3 points for good flows. I reserve the right not to give any points (and if I get shown too many garbage flows maybe I’ll start taking away points for bad ones just so people don’t show me horrible flows, though I’m assuming that won’t happen much), but if you’ve got the round flowed and want to earn extra points, please do! By the way you can’t just show one good flow on, lets say, the argument you were going to take in the 2nc/2nr – I need to see the round mostly taken down to give extra points

Top Shelf:

This is stuff that I think you probably want to know if you’re seeing me in the back

· I am liable probably more than most judges to yell “clear” during speeches – I won’t do it SUPER early in speeches because I think it takes a little while for debaters to settle into their natural speed, and a lot of times I think adrenaline makes people try and go faster and be a little less clear at the start of their speeches than they are later. So I wait a bit, but I will yell it. If it doesn’t get better I’ll yell one more time, then whatever happens is on you in terms of arguments I don’t get and speaker points you don’t get. I’m not going to stop flowing (or at least, I never have before), but I also am not yelling clear frivolously – if I can’t understand you I can’t flow you.

· I don’t flow with the doc open. Generally, I don’t open the doc until later in the round – 2nc prep is pretty generally when I start reading, and I try to only read cards that either are already at the center of the debate, or cards that I can tell based on what happens through the 2ac and the block will become the choke points of the round. The truth of the debate for me is on the flow, and what is said by the debaters, not what is said in their evidence and then not emphasized in the speeches, and I don’t want to let one team reading significantly better evidence than the other on questions that don’t arise in the debate influence the way I see the round in any way, and opening the doc open is more likely than not to predispose me towards one team than another, in addition to, if I’m reading as you go, I’m less likely to dock you points for being comically unclear than if the only way I can get down what I get down is to hear you say it.

Argumentative Stuff

Listen at the end of the day, I will vote for anything. But these are arguments that I have a built in preference against. Please do not change up your entire strategy for me. But if the crux of your strategy is either of these things know that 1 – I probably shouldn’t be at the top of your pref card, and 2 – you can absolutely win, but a tie is more likely to go to the other side. I try and keep an open mind as much as possible (heck I’ve voted for death good multiple times! Though that is an arg that may have more relevance as you approach 15 full years as a public school DoD….) but these args don’t do it for me. I’ll try and give a short explanation of why.

1. I’m not a good judge for theory, most specifically cheap shots, but also stuff seen as more “serious” like conditionality. Its been a long long time since anyone has gone for theory in front of me – the nature of the rounds that I get means there’s not usually a ton of negative positions – which is good because I’m not very sympathetic to it. I generally think that the negative offense, both from the standpoint of fairness and education, is pretty weak in all but the most egregious rounds when it comes to basic stuff like conditionality. Other counterplan theory like no solvency advocate, no international fiat, etc I’m pretty sympathetic to reject the argument not the team. In general, if you’re looking at something like conditionality where the link is linear and each instance increases the possibility of fairness/education impacts, for me you’ve got to be probably very near to, or even within, double digits for me to think the possible harm is insurmountable in round. This has come up before so I want to be really clear here – if its dropped, GO FOR IT, whether alone or (preferably) as an extension in a final rebuttal followed by substance. I for sure will vote for it in a varsity round (in novice rounds, depending on the rest of the round, I may or may not vote on it). Again – this is a bias against an argument that will probably effect the decision in very close rounds.

2. Psychoanalysis based critical literature – I like the criticism, as I mentioned above, just because I think the cards are more fun to read and more likely to make me think about things in a new way than a piece of counterplan solvency or a politics internal link card or whatever. But I have an aversion to psychoanalysis based stuff. The tech vs truth paragraph sums up my feelings on arguments that seem really stupid. Generally when I see critical literature I think there’s at least some truth to it, especially link evidence. But

3. Cheap Shots – same as above – just in general not true, and at variance with what its fun to see in a debate round. There’s nothing better than good smart back and forth with good evidence on both sides. Cheap shots (I’m thinking of truly random stuff like Ontology Spec, Timecube – stuff like that) obviously are none of those things.

4. Finally this one isn’t a hard and fast thing I’m necessarily bad for, but something I’ve noticed over the years that I think teams should know that will effect their argumentative choices in round – I tend to find I’m less good than a lot of judges for fairness as a standalone impact to T-USFG. I feel like even though its never changed that critical teams will contend that they impact turn fairness, or will at least discuss why the specific type of education they provide (or their critique of the type of education debate in the past has provided), it has become more in vogue for judges to kind of set aside that and put sort of a silo around the fairness impact of the topicality debate and look at that in a vacuum. I’ve just never been good at doing that, or understanding why that happens – I’m a pretty good judge still for framework, I think, but youre less likely to win if you go for a fairness impact only on topicality and expect that to carry the day

Specific Round Types:

K Affs vs Framework

Clash rounds are the rounds I’ve gotten by far the most in the last 5-8 years or so, and generally I like them a lot and they consistently keep me interested. For a long time during the first generation of critical affirmatives that critique debate/the resolution I was a pretty reliable vote for the affirmative. Since the negative side of the no plan debate has caught up, I’ve been much more evenly split, and in general I like hearing a good framework press on a critical aff and adjudicating those rounds. I think I like clash rounds because they have what I would consider the perfect balance between amount of evidence (and specificity of evidence) and amount of analysis of said evidence. I think a good clash round is preferable than almost any round because there’s usually good clash on the evidentiary issues and there’s still a decent amount of ev read, but from the block on its usually pure debate with minimal card dumpage. Aside from the preference discussed above for topicality based framework presses to engage the fairness claims of the affirmative more, I do think that I’m more apt than others to vote negative on presumption, or barring that, to conclude that the affirmative just gets no risk of its advantages (shoutout Juliette Salah!). One other warning for affirmatives – one of the advantages that the K affords is that the evidence is usually sufficiently general that cards which are explained one way (or meant to be used one way) earlier in the round can become exactly what the negative doesn’t need/cant have them be in the 2ar. I think in general judges, especially younger judges, are a little biased against holding the line against arguments that are clearly new or cards that are explained in a clearly different way than they were originally explained. Now that I’m old, I have no such hang ups, and so more than a lot of other judges I’ve seen I’m willing to say “this argument that is in the 2ar attached to (X) evidence is not what was in the 1ar, and so it is disallowed”. (As an aside, I think the WORST thing that has happened to, and can happen to, no plan teams is an overreliance on 1ar blocks. I would encourage any teams that have long 1ar blocks to toss them in the trash – if you need to keep some explanations of card warrants close, please do, but ditch the prewritten blocks, commit yourself to the flow, and listen to the flow of the round, and the actual words of the block. The teams that have the most issue with shifting argumentation between the 1ar and the 2ar are the teams that are so obsessed with winning the prep time battle in the final 2 rebuttals that they become over dependent on blocks and aren’t remotely responsive to the nuance of a 13 minute block that is these days more and more frequently 13 minutes of framework in some way shape or form)

K vs K

Seems like its more likely these days to see clash rounds for me, and next up would be policy rounds. I’d actually like to see more K v K rounds (though considering that every K team needs to face framework enough that they know exactly how to debate it, and its probably more likely/easier to win a clash round than a K v K round on the negative, it may be more strategic to just go for framework on the neg if you don’t defend the USFG on the aff), and I’d especially love to see more well-argued race v high theory rounds. Obviously contextualization of very general evidence that likely isn’t going to be totally on point is the name of the game in these rounds, as well as starting storytelling early for both sides – I’d venture to say the team that can start telling the simple, coherent story (using evidence that can generally be a tad prolix so the degree of difficulty for this is high) early will be the team that generally will get the ballot. The same advice about heavy block use, especially being blocked out into the 1ar, given above counts here as well.

Policy v policy Rounds

I love them. A good specific policy round is a thing of beauty. Even a non-specific counterplan/DA round with a good strong block is always great. As the season goes on its comparatively less likely, just based on the rounds I usually get, that I’ll know about specific terminology, especially deeply nuanced counterplan terminology. I honestly believe good debaters, no matter their argumentative preference or what side of the (mostly spurious) right/left divide in debate you’re on, are good CASE debaters. If you are negative and you really want to back up the speaker point Brinks truck, a 5+ minute case press is probably the easiest way to make that happen.

Individual argument preferences

I’ll give two numbers here – THE LEFT ONE about how good I think I am for an argument based on how often I actually have to adjudicate it, and THE RIGHT ONE will be how much I personally enjoy an argument. Again – I’ll vote for anything you say. But more information about a judge is good, and you may as well know exactly what I enjoy hearing before you decide where to rank me. 1 being the highest, 10 being the lowest.

T (classic) --------------------------------------- 5/4

T (USFG/Framework) ------------------------ 1/1

DA ------------------------------------------------ 3/2

CP ------------------------------------------------- 4/2

Criticism ----------------------------------------- 1/2

Policy Aff --------------------------------------- 2/2

K Aff ---------------------------------------------- 1/3

Theory ------------------------------------------- 8/9

Cheap Shots ------------------------------------ 10/10

Post Round:

I feel like I’ve gotten more requests lately to listen to redos people send me. I’m happy to do that and give commentary if folks want – considering I saw the original speech and know the context behind it, it only makes sense that I would know best whether the redo fixes the deficiencies of the original. Shoot me an email and I’m happy to help out!

Any other questions – just ask!

Abhay Prasad Shetty Hire

Ruhi Singareddy Hire None

Saanvi Sinha Hire

Last changed on Sun April 28, 2024 at 9:35 AM EDT

Hi! My name is Saanvi Sinha. I have debated Public Forum for 6 years. I know what I'm talking about when it comes to debate, so don't question me on my decision after round.

Non-negotiable, you being rude(sexism, racism. bullying, homophobia, etc.) in round or before, results in a dent in your speaker points and a loss. Debate should be a safe community, and if it's not, my view of you is never going to be good.

Some general stuff, I will be keeping a timer, but I would recommend keeping your own timer. Please notify me of the amount of prep time just so that we can make sure we have no problems ("running prep", "30 seconds"). Just so you know, I don't flow crossfire, but if you address me, I will write it down. If you're going to spread, send me a speech doc before, otherwise rules below apply. Also, this is just me, but don't eat with your camera on. I get nats are long and not fun sometimes, but just turn your camera off if you are going to eat.

Be respectful at the end of the round too, I know you might be sad about losing, but I still want to see a "Thanks for debating" or "Good debate" at the very least.As a judge, I give verbal feedback at the end of the round. Going verbally allows me to give you more in-depth feedback, but if you are not okay with me doing so, please let me knowbefore the round starts so I can type it up. Also, I usually like to give detailed feedback so that after every round you can improve as much as possible. What this means is that I don't think you are a bad debater, just everyone has room for improvement, so I like to point that out, rather than what you are good at.

Before the round, you can ask me any questions that you have about my paradigm (terminology and if I didn't address anything). I know I sound like a lot, I just don't want anyone to be confused about anything.

Novice PF

1. Case-For most Novice students, they aren't allowed to create their own contentions. If you are allowed, I would ask that the contention is not too far-fetched, as you are only a novice student.

2. Rebuttal- Your rebuttal should include responses to most of their points. It would be easier to go line by line, and please number the responses. It is not required for the 2nd speaker to frontline (respond to responses), but I would definitely recommend it. If you do frontline, please frontline the turns. If you frontline, but don't frontline the turns, I might not buy your case and it would be difficult for you to win.

3. Summary- Summary must frontline on both sides if not done so in the earlier speeches. I would recommend extending responses, as I would know what I am voting on, but if you don't, I will still evaluate it. I consider a case extended if you frontline it or talk about it.

4. Final Focus- Final Focus must focus on the big picture of the debate. If you could, try to extend responses and your case. Please try to weigh. What this means is that you should compare why your impacts are more important. It isn't necessary to weigh in Novice, but I would definitely suggest it.

5. Speaking- Typically, Novices speak at a good speed, but if you don't clarity is more important. As a debater, I understand that it is difficult without speaking fast, but I must be able to understand you. If I say "Clear" 2 times or more, I will reduce speaker points.

6. Asking for cards- I don't usually call for cards, but if I do, I need you to have cards, or I will not evaluate it in the round. If your card contradicts what you are saying, I don't care about that point anymore.

If you have reached this point, tell me your favorite thing to do before the round starts for +0.3 speaker points.

JV PF

I don't like theory or K's because it muddles everything up, and actually doesn't change my decision. If you read it, I won't punish you in anyway, but I just won't evaluate it, so don't waste time doing that.

1. Case- Some of y'all have more far fetched arguments. I would say stay out of the memes and focus on a case that makes logical sense. As long as you can give me direct evidence, stating this leads to that, I will buy the contention, but I don't want any bad vision leads to nuclear war arguments.

2. Rebuttal- Your rebuttal should include responses to most of their points. It would be easier to go line by line, and please number the responses.

Try to implicate your responses, tell me why it matters. For turns, your turn should have an impact or you need to weigh the turn, otherwise I'd probably evaluate it as offense.

For JV, I would want the second rebuttal to frontline at least the turns, or I will be extending them on your case. You do not have to respond to every single point, but I would like you to respond to the majority of the arguments, and at the very least, the turns.

3. Summary-

Let's start with first summary. So there is a few things that I require for a good summary. First, is your case. So on this, I need some proper frontlining and extensions of case. Don't try to extend case but not frontline because that's bad and I'm not going to evaluate the argument. Second, the opponent's case. Here, I just need some extensions of a few responses, preferably turns WITH their impact, on the main points. You can try to respond to they're frontlines, but it isn't required, and finally weighing. I need weighing in this speech. Don't be a bad debater and not weigh until Final Focus, because I'm not gonna evaluate by then. And please specify the type of weighing you are going to use, I do not want to have to work to figure out the weighing mechanism. Please warrant how you outweigh in whatever weighing mechanism, I'm not going to evaluate "We outweigh on everything." My weighing order is

1. Advanced Weighing Mechanisms

2. Prerequisite

3. Probability

4. Magnitude

5. Timeframe

6. Any Others

As for second summary: it's pretty much like the first summary, just please frontline the responses that were extended to again.

4. Final Focus- Final Focus must focus on the big picture of the debate. If you could, try to extend responses and your case. Weighing is the most important thing in final focus, so please spend time weighing in the speech. Comparative weighing is preferred because it allows me to compare why I should weigh one type of weighing over the other.

5. Speaking- As a debater, I understand that it is difficult without speaking fast, but I must be able to understand you. If I say "Clear" 2 times or more, I will reduce speaker points.

Varsity PF

I don't really like theories or K's because it muddles everything up, and actually doesn't change my decision. If you read it, I won't punish you in anyway, but I just won't evaluate it, so maybe don't waste time doing that. If you have to read theory, just don't contradict yourself (ex. para but your cards are paraphrased).

1. Case- Some of y'all have far- fetched arguments. Focus on a case that makes logical sense. As long as you can give me direct evidence, stating this leads to that, I will buy the contention, but I don't want any bad vision leads to nuclear war arguments. This however, doesn't require it to be on a generic packet, I recommend you do that, but just don't lead to any sketchy or weird arguments. One thing to highlight, and this goes for any judge, if they aren't able to understand what your contention is about, it's not likely for a win, so keep that in mind.

2. Rebuttal- Your rebuttal should include responses to most of their points. It would be easier to go line by line, but just signpost if you don't. Implicate your responses, tell me why it matters. For turns, your turn needs to have an impact or you need to weigh the turn otherwise it will not be evaluated as a turn, instead as offense. I'd prefer you respond to the impact, and not just cross-apply your responses on their link-ins. For Varsity, I require the second rebuttal to frontline (most of the responses) to the contentions you are extending, or I will be extending the responses on your case.

3. Summary-

Let's start with first summary. So there is a few things that I require for a good summary. First, is your case. So on this, I need some proper frontlining and extensions of case. Don't try to extend case but not frontline because that's bad and I'm not going to evaluate the argument. Make sure to extend impacts as well, I would recommend writing out how you are going to extend it so that's there's not a lot of "uhs" and "ums." Second, the opponent's case. Here, I just need some extensions of a few responses, preferably turns WITH their impact, on the main points. You should respond to their frontlines that they made, because otherwise that's just extending through ink. I want to see why their frontline doesn't apply, and finally weighing. I need weighing in this speech. Don't be a bad debater and not weigh until Final Focus, because I'm not gonna evaluate by then. And please specify the type of weighing you are going to use, I do not want to have to work to figure out the weighing mechanism. Please warrant how you outweigh in whatever weighing mechanism, I'm not going to evaluate "We outweigh on everything." By the way, weighing is not saying "our impacts are .... and their impacts are." My weighing order is

1. Advanced Weighing Mechanisms

2. Prerequisite

3. Probability

4. Magnitude

5. Timeframe

6. Any Others

As for second summary: it's pretty much like the first summary, just please frontline the responses that were extended on your case again.

4. Final Focus- Final Focus must focus on the most important things, so give me the voters of what you want me to vote on. Any offense and defense that you want me to focus on should me emphasized. Weighing is the most important thing in the speech, so please spend most of your time doing that. You must do comparative weighing in this speech. Please for my sanity, don't introduce new things in final focus. My ballot is pretty much already decided by summary speech, so it's not going to do anything, and just make me think of you/your partner as a bad debater/speaker.

5. Speaking- As a debater, I understand that it is difficult without speaking fast, but I must be able to understand you. If I say "Clear" 2 times or more, I will reduce speaker points.

6. Asking for cards- I'll probably not call for many cards, but if I do, I need you to have them, or I will not evaluate it in the round. Paraphrasing is okay for me, but cards would be better. If your card contradicts what you are saying, I drop the point AND speaker points. You cannot miscut evidence after this much experience. There is the evidence out there, you have to put in the effort to look for it, and if it's really not out there, don't run the argument :)

Sree Sivakumar Hire None

Kamilah Smith Hire None

Patrick Smith Hire

Last changed on Sat February 3, 2024 at 12:49 PM EDT

I have been a PF debate coach at Ivy Bridge Academy for the past 7 years and I also did policy debate at Chattahoochee High School and UGA. Here are things that are important to me in debates and will influence my decision:

1. Debate is fundamentally about winning arguments, so make good arguments. I will do my best to evaluate your argument as objectively as possible but make sure contentions are well-developed with clear warrants, evidence, and impacts. The more unrealistic the argument, the less likely I’ll vote for it, but I do also believe it is the burden of your opponent to clearly articulate why the argument is wrong.

2. Frontlining - while not doing this isn’t technically against the rules, I highly encourage it and will reward teams that do it effectively with better speaker points. I don’t consider something dropped in the 2nd rebuttal, but I do expect teams to cover everything you plan on extending. I also like teams condensing to one contention in the second rebuttal if it makes strategic sense.

3. Summary - condensing down to a few key voting issues is important to me. If you don’t do weighing in rebuttal, then it should start here. Anything, including defense, must be in the summary if you want me to evaluate it. Don’t drop responses or contentions in these speeches. I will reward summary speakers who make good strategic decisions and manage their time well.

4. Final Focus - Clear voting issues and weighing are important to me. I will only evaluate arguments extended in the summary here. Having a clear narrative and focusing on the big picture is important, as well as answering extended responses. This is also your last chance to win key responses against your opponent's case. Make sure to not just extend them, but explain them, answer the summary, and what the implications are if you win x response.

5. Paraphrasing - I’m fine with it, but you need to be able to produce either a card or the website if asked. If you can’t produce it in time or deliberately misrepresent the evidence, then I will ignore the argument, and in extreme cases, vote the guilty team down.

6. Weighing - this is important to me, but I think debaters overvalue it a bit. The link debate is more important in my opinion and realistic impacts are as well. Try and start the weighing in the rebuttal or summary speeches. Comparison is key to good weighing in front of me.

7. Crossfire - any argument established in crossfire must be brought up in the subsequent speech for me to evaluate it. I will reward creative and well thought out questions. Please don’t be rude or aggressive in the crossfire. That will definitely hurt your speaker points. Civility is very important to proper debate in my humble opinion. You can sit or stand for the grand cross.

8. Speaking - I will give higher speaks to passionate speakers who are good public speakers. I did policy, so I’m fine with speed, but I don’t like spreading unless you absolutely have to cover. Please clearly signpost which argument you are responding to and when you are moving to the other side of the flow or weighing.

9. Prep - I will do my best to keep track of it, but please, both teams should also be tracking the time.

10. References - any well-executed Biggy, Kendrick, J. Cole, Drake, or Childish Gambino reference will be rewarded. Don’t overdo it though and I reserve the right to decrease points if it’s way off point.

11. Speech docs - if you share your case with me, then it will help me flow, understand your arguments, and I won't have to call for ev, so I will give both speakers 2 extra points if they do so.

Vishesh Sood Hire

Ashwini Srihari Hire

Anika Srinivasan Hire None

Ishita Sukul Hire None

Octavius Szeto Hire None

Kshiti Tadimarri Hire None

Anaket Tank Hire None

Melissa Vega Hire None

Marcela Vega Aranda Hire None

Neaharika Velluri Hire None

Megha Velmurugan Hire

Nethra Venkatesan Hire None

Rajiv Verma Hire None

Pranaav Vyakarna Hire None

Grace Yan Hire

Evelyn Zhang Hire None

Ruoning Zhao Hire

Angela Zhou Hire None

Login to Tabroom

JCHS Practice 3

2024 — Johns Creek, GA/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges