I am a parent, and I value clarity and respect for all participants. Have fun and do your best.

I keep time silently but do honor the 30 second grace period. While you shouldn't take advantage of it frequently, just don't feel the need to abruptly stop when the timer goes off in the middle of an impactful closing thought. Don't worry so much as speaking up to the bell as giving a clear, cogent argument or rebuttal. Although I myself am a fast speaker, I'm not as keen on hearing rapidly paced, densely packed verbage ("spreading"), but rather a convincing and eloquent train of thought. Don't interpret my silence badly -- I'm just adhering to judging protocol. I do give detailed feedback in Tabroom. Good luck and enjoy yourselves!

I prefer constructive speeches that are succinct, and easy to flow with. Your contentions should be easy to understand. During the constructive speech, speak to me as much as possible - not to your computer.

During cross, do not aggressively control the debate. Give your opponent time to respond to your questions.

Speak as slowly as possible during your final speeches. I prefer time to digest the best points instead of trying to keep up with a regurgitation of everything you've said during the debate.

I do my best to let the arguments unfold in the round and not let my bias intervene. I don't mind any theoretical positions. All theoretical positions need to be won and fleshed out in round. In terms of speed, if you fly, I may need to ask you to slow a bit, and if your opponent needs you to slow and asks, I expect you too.

I am a parent judge, who prefers clear speaking, logical links, elaborate policy explanation, and precise points.

Please don't assume I know everything about your topic, and be mindful of your target audience (formal).

I'm also not really a fan of jargon, so please thoroughly explain it when you use it.

I am a lay judge, and I evaluate debaters based on the quality of their arguments, delivery, and overall persuasiveness of their case.

Please send me a rhetoric of your case at shyamknm@gmail.com before your debate. It is up to the debaters if you want to disclose with each other. Please feel free also to send your rebuttal speech document to make sure I get everything you say down. It is also your responsibility to tell me if the other team's evidence has flaws. I will not look through cards unless instructed to do so. I expect teams to keep track of their own time. I will have a five-second grace after overtime is called. I do not take anything into account after that.

Speak Clearly. Do not spread. If I can't understand, I can not flow your arguments down. Do not speak over each other.

Substance: Strong cases with easy-to-follow structure and well-defined impacts. If you use debate jargon such as "delink" or "turn" you must explain it to me or I won't take it into consideration.

Style: Strong rebuttal & frontlining is valued heavily. I look at how much of your case is left standing. I appreciate off-time roadmaps (telling me what you will cover in your speech).

Weighing: I consider all impacts. Weigh in a quantifiable manner. Tell me why your impacts are more important than the other team's.

Good luck!

I prioritize clarity, professionalism, and respect in debates. While strong arguments, logical reasoning, and evidence-based rebuttals are essential, the way teams conduct themselves during the debate is equally important. I value:

1. Content & Structure:
• Well-structured arguments with clear claims, warrants, and impacts.
• Rebuttals that address the opposing team’s arguments directly and effectively.
• Use of evidence and cards that are relevant, credible, and properly explained.
2. Composure & Conduct:
• Composure while delivering arguments and engaging in crossfire.
• Professional and respectful behavior toward opponents to ensure a positive debate environment.
• Avoidance of unnecessary aggression or rudeness that may disrupt the flow or morale of the debate.
3. Delivery & Engagement:
• Clear and persuasive communication.
• Logical consistency and adaptability to the flow of the debate.

Other Notes:

• I encourage teams to request cards only when necessary and to manage time effectively. Excessive or unreasonable card requests may be noted.
• If a team's behavior crosses the line into being overly aggressive or disrespectful, I will factor this into my decision as it detracts from the spirit of debate.

Ultimately, I look for a balance between strong content and respectful, composed delivery.

I am a parent/lay judge and heavily value creativity and strong points raised between teams in debate. No kritiks and no spreading. Looking forward to a great debate!

*Please add me to the email chain and send your case documents to me before the round.

email: kollisravanthi@gmail.com

Hi, I am a lay judge and here are a couple things that you need to know.

1. Please do not spread. If I don't understand what you are saying, you will hurt your chances of winning.
2. Try brining unique arguments. Debate will be interesting.
3. I don't flow cross but I'll listen. It there is something in cross that you want me to evaluate and use in decision, bring it up in your speech.
4. Explain your evidence, refutations, and arguments clearly. Remember Quality > Quantity.
5. I will provide a grace period of 5 seconds to complete your sentence, however I will not flow after your time runs out.
6. Avoid using technical terms in the debate. If you do, please explain what it means.
7. Please be respectful to your opponents and do not get too aggressive.
8. Prefer debaters to time.

Relax and have fun debating,

Sravanthi

Debate: I am a lay judge, please speak at an appropriate pace and explain why your side is more important for me to vote on. Define any terms that you don't think a non-debater will know. For clashing arguments, try to tell me why your side of the argument is more clear and probable. Please explain how your arguments work and also explain your evidence rather than just saying the name of the author. Please time yourselves and your opponents, as I will not keep track of time. Be respectful and enjoy the debate!

For speech: I value your presentation skills like body language, eye contact, and clarity. For interpretations, I like to clearly see many different characters and connection with the audience through your expressions and theme of the piece. In oratory, I enjoy good humor and stories that make your speech seem more personable.

For impromptu/extemp: using your full time to the best of your ability is one of my top judging mechanisms. I will look to see how much you can develop your content and not be repetitive.

One thing I've noticed having judged semi/final rounds at the TOC in Kentucky, the best speakers have a great connection with the audience, whether that's humor in extemp/info/impromptu, incredible expressions and gestures in interp, and personal stories in oratory, they really make an effort to make their speech be memorable.

I coach speech and debate at Davis HS.

------

1. I don't want to be on email chains. If there's a dispute about what evidence says, I'll ask to look at a laptop.

2. I flow, but if you communicate clearly, I'll be more likely to look for a way to vote for your side first. Big picture overviews, even in speeches early in the round, can be extremely helpful here.

3. Speed-reading (spreading) is embarrassing and exclusionary. <230 wpm, non-negotiable. Slow down further for taglines, plantexts, and important quotes from the evidence. I invite school board members and new coaches to watch rounds: they should be impressed, not confused, offended, or scared.

4. I don't flow cross unless you explicitly tell me to write something down by looking at me and saying "write that down".

5. I don't like teams that cheat. If your opponents are misconstruing evidence and you want to stake the round on it, a useful phrase to know is: "I am making a formal evidence challenge under NSDA rule 7.3.C., for distortion of evidence. We are stopping the round and staking the round's outcome on the result of this formal evidence violation."

6. Clash is essential. Make arguments at the first opportunity available to you. In policy, this means that I want to see all the neg positions established in the 1NC. In PF, I want you to cover both sides of the flow in every speech from 2nd rebuttal onward.

7. I only vote on arguments that are mentioned in each side's final speech of the round.

8. If you start your speech by saying "3-2-1", I will say "Blastoff"! "3-2-1" is not necessary!

9. I am inclined to give bonus speaker points if I see an effort to "read me" as a judge, even if you read me wrong. Cite my paradigm if you need to. Learning to figure out your audience is a crucial life skill. On a related note: if you use the secret word 'barnacles' in your speech, I will give you and your partner 0.3 extra speaker points, since it means you read my philosophy thoroughly.

10. Kritik arguments: Don't do them in PF. Approach with caution in other events. I have no K background. Go even more slowly and explain thoroughly, in terms accessible to a layperson. Explain either how the K proves/disproves the resolution, or offer an extremely compelling alternative ROTB. I have no shame in writing "I didn't understand half the words in the K so I didn't vote for it."

11. Tips for communicating effectively:

11a. Number your refutations: "my first response is..."

11b. Use cross-ex effectively -- the goal is to get concessions from your opponent that can be used in speeches.

------

PF:

No off-time roadmaps in PF. I will start the clock if you start roadmapping.

Don't steal prep time. If a card is requested, teams have 60 seconds to find the card and add it to the file sharing mechanism of the round -- anything beyond that comes out of the prep time of the team that can't find their own evidence. If evidence can't be found, there needs to be an argument made in a speech to drop it (eg. "Drop their argument because they could not share the supporting evidence: we were not given a fair chance to review and dispute its claims.").

If both teams agree to it before the round, and the tournament doesn't explicitly disallow it, I am fine with waiving Grand Cross and granting both teams an additional minute of prep time.

Plans and fiat are educational; I have an extremely loose interpretation of PF's "advocacy" and I will effectively never vote down a team for presenting a "plan" in Public Forum, unless it's extremely niche.

I am very likely not the judge you want if you're running a non-canonical PF strategy, like a "kritik".

I don't give weight to any argument labeled as an "overview". Overviews are heuristic explanations to help me make sense of the round.

------

POLICY/PARLIAMENTARY:

Policymaker paradigm.

You're welcome to run non-traditional positions (K's included)IF you keep them to a conversational pace and explain why it means I vote for you. Theory/K's should be impacted more than just saying "voter for fairness and education".

Closed cross-x: one person per team speaking!

I like smart counterplans that discuss technical details.

------

LD:

My default is to vote based on the "truth" of the resolution, but you can propose alternative frameworks.

Philosophical "evidence" means very little to me. A professor from Stanford making a specific analytical claim is functionally the same as you making that argument directly.

I'm bad at flowing authors and try to get the concepts down in as much detail as possible instead. For philosophical arguments, I generally prefer clearly explained logic over hastily-read cards. However, evidence related to quantitative things should be cited because those studies are highly dependent on precision/accuracy and are backed up empirically.