I am a parent judge and I have judged few tournaments.

I will be judging on the framework and team spirit.

Have fun debating!

Email me at soccerlado@gmail.com if you have any questions. Before the round starts, I will give you some time to ask me any questions.

My experience: I have competed in 3 years of Varsity Public forum and 4 years of Varsity Congress.

What I am looking for:

-I will be flowing, so please respond to all your opponent's arguments. I would prefer that by the end of the debate, all arguments have been touched.

- I will be fact checking, do not lie

-Quality over quantity

-During Cross Ex, I expect respect from both speakers. I want argumentative questions. Keep your questions and answers relatively short. Please do not read off your case while answering a question.

-Please make your arguments very clear. Make it easy for me to flow.

- Show impacts!

Speaking preferences: Your speaking will influence my decision.

- You can speak as fast as you want, as long as you enunciate each word. Please speak loudly and clearly!

- I want to see confidence!

- I will allow a 10 second grace period, if you consistently go over this grace period, this will impact your speaker points.

- Do not prep during dead time!

Look forward to a good debate.

updated nov 2023 for gbx

I have been out of debate (washed/retired) for almost 2 years

this means

1) start your speeches SLOW so i can actually hear them

2) if i dont catch/minunderstand anything because its unclear/makes no sense to me,its your fault

---

yes email chain : anshureddy30@gmail.com

Harker 2022

Debated in LD for 5 years

favorite argument I ever read: T/FW vs K aff

policy:

(Case/DA/CP) > T/Theory >> Phil/Tricks > K

99% of my debates have been here - take that as you will

logical argument > unexplained claims, i love some W logic

i also enjoy creative impact turns, examples i have gone for: co2 ag, renewables bad, heg, spark, decol bad->loose nukes

t/theory:

i have had some fun theory debates, some with arguments worth hearing, some not

defaults: NO RVIS, reasonability (debate it out tho)

will be a lot harder to convince me to vote on an rvi

ks:

womp womp

thugs ts out

if it doesn't look like I understand what's going on its because I don't

lbl in the 2nr>>> the big overview

answer this question pls (or question its answer as aff): "lowkey what does the alt do?"

phil/tricks:

i have zero debate experience here - mostly avoided it all my life

surprise me

misc:

fine with inserting rehighlightings

refer to arnav dani and muzzi khan's paradigm for debate arguments I agree with

Email: 22DhruvS@students.harker.org (add me to the email chain/google doc)

Judging:

- Tech > Truth

- Please signpost (Tell me where on the flow you are)

- Please number responses.

- Please focus on warranting your arguments. Quality of args > quantity.

- Please weigh (Tell me why your arguments are more important than your opponent's arguments)

- I'll listen to cross but it won't affect my decision unless you bring it up in later speeches (it will affect speaks).

Speaks/Other:

- Be confident and assertive but not rude during cross

- Don't steal prep time (Don't prep while your opponents are sending you evidence)

- Don't lie about evidence (If you do, your speaker points will drop)

Please ask me before the round starts if you have any questions about my judging philosophy.

Deven Shah Harker '22, Stanford '26 deven@devenshah.com

Hi, I'm Deven! I debated LD and formerly policy in high school. I've won several octas bids, NDCA, and twice broken at the TOC. I read everything from cybernetics to agenda politics.

I appreciate debates that involve substantive clash, where both teams forward good, clear, rejoining arguments from the start. This means I am bad for most theory, "tricks," arguments designed to confuse, strategies that rely on proliferating arguments instead of advancing a few good ones, etc.

Least favorite phrases: "LARP," "evaluate the debate after x speech," "Colt Peacemaker," "Nebel T," "disclosure is racist," "theory double-bind," "give me a 30."

Policy
Be sure to add me to the email chain: beerud@gmail.com
Affirmative - Have a good impact calc but don't always have the same impact of nuclear war, nuclear war, extinction, nuclear war because when judging I'll probably have some skepticism around there. Make sure you clearly know your aff so you don't get stumped by "what does your ___ evidence say" it's one thing to ask bad questions, it's another thing to answer bad questions badly.
K Affs - Only go for it if you know what you're doing - I hate it when you poorly execute a K, so be sure to properly know the advocacy and what it entails. I'd be glad to judge performance affs but make sure you know what you're doing.
FW versus K Affs - If you go against a K aff be sure to do this, framework should be your go to argument against any K-affs. Some of the best policy debates were super contextualized framework args against kritikal teams with flushed out impact arguments.
Topicality - I wouldn't exactly advise you going for T in the 2nr but if that's your thing, go for it. Don't just spit out interns and counterinterps at each other without knowing what you're doing. Make it extremely clear why the plan is bad for debate.
Ks - I definitely like k args, so I'm down to vote for a k. This doesn't mean I'm just going to vote for a team that proposes to read a k in front of me. Although I will vote for generic links that are nearly dropped by the other team, I will reward you if your link is specific to the aff. Make your decisions at your own risk when it comes to the 2nr. It is also especially important to have multiple framing arguments and perm arguments (if necessary). In order to get my vote, I need to have a clear understanding of the alt and what it does for us.
DA/CP - The more specific they are to the aff the easier it is for me to vote for them. I'm not exactly a fan of a politics DA, but if that's your thing, go for it. The link for the DA and the solvency/net benefits for the CP will be important, so make sure you take that into consideration.

PF
Speed - When it comes to Pofo I'm not exactly a fan of speed. If you still choose to speak fast, make sure you are clear and not just blurting out arguments. If that's the case, I'm not inclined to vote for you.
Extension Args - Be clear as to what specific cards/arguments you want me to extend in the Summary/FF. Make sure you signpost before your speech so I know where you are at any given time in the speech. I prefer logical warrants over cards, so make sure you don't say "I have a card so it's true" because then you won't exactly get my vote.
Evidence - I might call for evidence after the round is over if necessary. Make sure you present evidence when asked to and not to refuse. DO NOT PARAPHRASE ANY NEW CARDS OR YOU WILL BE IMMEDIATELY D/Qed. Don't make me vote for the opposing team just because you want to save time.
Case Specifics - Don't pile card after card on me without any logical reason why to prefer that card. Don't have seven different contentions of thirty seconds each because it'll get all messy on the flow. Make sure to tell me why your impact outweighs theirs and do a decent impact calc. Don't drop impact.
Framework - Be sure to provide a framework for me and stick with it till the FF telling me why to vote for your framework and why you win on that framework. Don't argue each other's framework if you're using the same one. I once judged a round in which one team was proposing util and the other was proposing CBA and they KEPT ARGUING WHY TO PREFER THEIR FW. Don't do that. If neither teams propose a framework I'll go default to CBA.
Crossfire - Don't be too rude in cross - it's okay to a certain extent but don't be talking forever and ever to the extent where your opponent has to ask you to stop. I won't flow useless arguments in cross, but I will flow concessions or cross arguments brought up in later speeches.

Congress - Many of my rules for presentation and content still apply here. Keep your speeches within the alloted time and don't ignore the PO when they're gaveling you down. I reward debaters who advance debate rather than merely reiterating previously discussed points. If you speak late in cycle, either do the most to bring up unique points, respond to previous speakers, or do a summary/crystallization speech on the major voters in the round. Critiquing loopholes in a bill or the way a resolution is written will win extra points from me. Same goes for amendments, provided they're germaine and substantive. Keep your questions tactful and strategic- I know what softballs and gotchas look like. As in PF, don't be rude in cross-ex.

Otherwise, be sure to have fun and have a great time debating.