Lynbrook Speech and Debate Camp Session 1 Tournament
2019 — San Jose, CA/US
Maya Belur Paradigm
Anitez Gautam Paradigm
Ishani Gupta Paradigm
Audrey Iwashita Paradigm
Vivek Iyer Paradigm
Sidharth Kannan Paradigm
TLDR: Run whatever you want. Creative arguments are always appreciated and significantly more fun to listen to than hearing your stock aff for the fifteenth time. I'll listen to whatever you say and vote off anything you read, no matter how progressive or stupid or out there it is. I have experience on reading LARP, K, Theory, Tricks, and Phil.
Any "generally think" thing in the paradigm is up for debate, just there so you understand where I stand as a debater/judge.
1. LARP: yes go for it, I read it, I like it
Generally think that under 3 condo is fine. I will listen to and evaluate more than that and will not drop speaks for reading 17 condo, but the more condo args there are, the more I believe the shell and the lower my threshold for responses will tend to be.
PICs: yea ok, but the more ground you steal the more I tend to think its abusive.
Plans are good! Obviously they aren't necessary, especially not for phil or K affs but if you're neg strat is plans bad, my threshold for responses will be pretty low.
otherwise, I enjoy a well formed Politics DA, I enjoy your creative CP's and I enjoy specific plans.
a bad theory debate is INSANELY boring to watch and listen to and your speaks will reflect that.
Friv theory is fine, but pls do make it fun to watch. If the shell is ridiculous and funny, and your responses are ridiculous and funny I will give you both 30's cuz you probably made my day. The more frivolous the shell, the more likely I am to buy the reasonability args
love to hear it
Defaults: Competing interps, No RVI's
on the RVI: I default no RVI's because I had to put something. If you make an argument for an RVI, I'm not hard to win it in front of.
look at theory for defaults
I don't like the Nebel shell against a stock aff
I'm ok with the T vs K aff
Read it, love it
read them, love them
Familiar with most authors, but that doesn't mean I'll hack for you.
I will hold you to a high standard of explanation
I do like the giant 2nr overview that line by lines the aff and uplayers out of all their offense.
see friv theory section.
Have fun, the more fun you're having the more fun I'll have
Jacob Liu Paradigm
Pranay Mamileti Paradigm
Yash Mishra Paradigm
Shreeram Modi Paradigm
Hey I'm Shreeram (he/him) (if you can't pronounce my name just call me judge that's fine):
Lynbrook 22' FWIW
Judges who say that they are "tab" are most likely lying. I'm not gonna lie to you, I hate some things and love when debaters do other things. If I see you do those things in a debate you're most likely going to win.
Things to know:
1. I'll vote for any theory argument, literally anything so long as it doesn't personally attack the other debater. What that means is YES run shoes theory, DO NOT run "opponent is fat" theory. I hate when people complain about shells being too friv. If it's that friv you should have no trouble beating it.
2. Please for the love of god collapse in the 2n. Go for a CP/DA fine, go for case turns fine, hell even go for shoes theory just don't go for all of them.
3. I have the most experience going for CP/DA on neg and 1AR theory/plan aff. That doesn't mean I won't evaluate your wacky high theory or trix strat but if the lit is vauge explain it or I'll have no idea what you're talking about and will not vote for you. Lit I'm comfortable with/doesn't need much explanation: Schopenhauer*, Baudrillard, Berlant.
4. If you're going to randomly start extemping shit in the 1AC I'm automatically taking off 0.2 speaks. If something is prewritten just put it on the doc or I probably won't catch it.
5. Same thing from theory applies to tricks. Instead of complaining about how bad your opponent's tricks are JUST RESPOND TO THEM!!! And if you can't then obviously they debated better than you.
Defaults: Comp worlds, Competing interps, Epistemic confidence, Drop the Debater, no RVIs, Theory/T > ROB
29.9-30 = See you at ToC!
29-29.8 = You should clear/be on the bubble
28.5-29 = average
26.5-27.9 = you made some important strategic errors/lacked a clear strategy
<26.5 = I found something about this debate very annoying
Clipping is an automatic L25. If you think your opponent is clipping just record them and stop the round after the speech. If they clipped then I'll end the round there. If they didn't then you get the L25.
Racism/Homophobia/Ableism is an automatic L0 I shouldn't even have to say this.
For clipping chances are I'll catch it. If I don't then just have a recording ready and stop the debate. If I feel there has been clipping then I'll the initiator of the ethics challenge a win, if there hasn't been clipping they'll get a loss.
*I will not evaluate ANY argument that says death good or is based around the race/orientation of a debater. If you have to ask, chances are you shouldn't read it.
Rachana Muvvala Paradigm
Achintya Rajan Paradigm
Lay judge no spreading. No ks. No tricks. None of that nonsense. Some theory is okay.
Naman Singhal Paradigm
tabula rasa, tech > truth
run anything u want as long as its warranted
above 250 WPM give me a speech doc
30 speaks if I find something funny
L20 for discriminatory, sexist, homophobic, etc. rhetoric
Twisha Sundararajan Paradigm
Aditya Suresh Paradigm
Maria Thomas Paradigm
Nevin Thombre Paradigm
Zach Uriarte Paradigm
3-High theory, Tricks
4-Non-T Affs, Phil
5- Stuff I don't understand
1)Don't run friv theory
2) If you run complicated phil or K's explain them well, I don't vote on things I cant understand
3) I have a PF background so I really like watching good LARP rounds
4)Auto L 20 if you're racist, advocate for slavery, run a suicide alt, insult cats
5) +.5 speaks if you give me food, +.2 speaks for having the speech doc sent out on time
6) Spreading is fine, I will clear you 2x before dropping speaks
7) I don't care if you collapse, just be strategic