Extemp:

y'all know what to do. Prioritize delivery > content for now. However, if you have exceptional content, that will be recognized.

CX Paradigm:

***Full disclosure: I'm not in Policy anymore...I'm not too familiar with the new resolution, so make sure to def acronyms/shortened phrases in your constructives so I can follow.

I'll be judging Rhetoric like a normal lay judge because that's who you'll have for the rest of the year. Have a consistent story throughout all ur speeches. Also, make sure to clearly extend args. Don't make the flow too cluttered. Whoever has clearer args + weighed better wins obv.

Be kind.

Congress, extemp and impromptu at Bellarmine College Preparatory. I did policy for over a year and did both parli and pf for a couple tournaments.

For debate

I will flow all the arguments, but I need you to tell me why I should vote for you.

Impact out your arguments; otherwise, why should I care.

If you are rude, you will not win; debate is supposed to be fun, so don't make others hate it because of you.

You can spread but send me the doc. If your spreading you better be clear otherwise I won't flow it.

I like ethos inside of debate.

Bottom line - make whatever argument you want but impact out your arguments and be kind.

Congress

Congress has been my main event the past three years and I've reached sems at Nats, TOC, finaled at state

content: I want to see a very in-depth debate with quality sources. Don't falsify ev. Have clash don't give your speech in a vacuum.

delivery: Be respectful and have good rhetoric. I feel like using rhetoric is undervalued in congress but it's one of the most important aspects.

cross: ask good questions. Don't stall.

Bellarmine '24. Stanford '28.

Add me to the email chain: rohanlingam2015@gmail.com

I have a deep level of respect for the preparation that goes into debate tournaments. I will do my best to reciprocate that dedication with a firm commitment to judging rounds strictly on technical execution, not my personal opinions. I'm not a blank slate, so always err on the side of explanation, story-telling, and persuasion. Be scrappy. Go for the path of least resistance. Don't shy away from clash. Given that, I’ll list several of my ideological dispositions below to be as transparent as possible — each of which can be reversed by out-debating the other team. My one unshakeable belief is that I will not vote on ad homs, strategies that rely on events that occured outside the round, and evidence ethics challenges.*

I don’t want a card doc. I’ve found it increasingly problematic that teams treat these docs as a third rebuttal. I will never reorganize a debate by reading evidence myself. Evidence is for you to explain and impact out.

K Affs: I’m very good for T-USFG against affirmatives that do not defend a hypothetical enactment of the resolution. Fairness is the best impact. I’m also very persuaded by defensive negative arguments that subsume a majority of affirmative offense, including switch-side debate and topical versions of the aff.

T: Interpretations couched in the language of predictable limits are best. Spend more time on internal link comparison than on high-level impact comparison at the top of your final rebuttals. I would prefer to not evaluate contrived interpretations that have questionable caselists. Especially for the negative, T debating is about painting a story of what worlds of debate would look like under each model using concrete examples. I’m not persuaded by a 2NC that rants about possible fringe affirmatives; explain why being able to read these affirmatives would make it impossible to debate.

CP: Infinite conditionality is good. Default is judge kicking the CP. Neg-leaning on most theoretical objections, but aff-leaning on international, private actor, and multi-actor fiat. Most affirmative objections are better communicated in the language of competition. I think affirmative competition interpretations are best grounded in defenses of specification as 'functions' of the plan. Generally not a fan of generic process CPs. Perms should be paired with a solvency deficit to flip offense-defense framing affirmative (obviously barring PDCP). Problems with CP planks not having advocates are better expressed through deficits rather than theory.

DA: I wish every 2NR in debate was disad/case. I find most overly simplistic, hyperbolic impact calc unhelpful in evaluating debates. The link is usually more important than uniqueness to me. Spin matters far more to me than evidence. I’m a sucker for rebuttals that go through each portion of the DA and explain numbered framing issues for how I should evaluate that specific portion.

Case: I am happy to vote negative on presumption provided burdens are explained and won.

K: I’m very good for 'extinction outweighs' against Ks that fail to moot the affirmative. I'm best for FW models that entirely exclude the case or the K. Neg teams should probably go for FW in front of me. I will always start evaluating these debates with FW. I will decide in favor of one side’s interpretation, not arbitrarily manufacture a middle ground.

Lay: I will never penalize (and will, in fact, be enthused by) a team who adapts to the slowest judge on their panel. Accordingly, I will excitedly adjudicate a debate that deals with stock issues and deep logistical case presses.

*There are only two scenarios where I will consider these arguments. First, if Team A has read a miscut card in an earlier debate, Team B has made substantial good-faith efforts to reach out to them about it (which includes multiple emails), and Team A continues to read the same miscut card, I’m very willing to vote for Team B. Second, if a team has disclosed an affirmative as “new” despite reading cards from earlier rounds, that is the textbook definition of cheating. You deserve to lose.

The most important thing to IMPACT OUT all of your arguments. Don't just tell me that a Federal Jobs Guarantee will be expensive. Explain to me WHY this argument should win you the debate and why it is more important than the Aff's claims. By the rebuttal speeches, tell me what arguments you are winning, why they are the most important arguments in the debate, and why that means you have won.

The next most important thing is to EXPLAIN your arguments. Do not just read a card and move on. Explain to me the implications of the evidence, and why it's relevant to the debate.

Delivery obviously matters, but I tend to place greater importance on well-prepared strategies, and thorough analysis/explanation.

my views align with Aswin Surya

Paradigm for Rhetoric Debate Tournament

Tech > truth

I want warrants for everything - don't just say x evidence says this, that's why it's true. Explain to me WHY it's true.

I love cross-examinations that are subtle but set up the other team in a double bind that they can't get out of.

I will vote on Topicality, but I don't enjoy those debates. The best and most interesting debates interact with the core of the affirmative's advocacy.

Paradigm for Bellarmine Congress Classic:

I evaluate congress mostly on content, but good delivery and showcasing your personality through your delivery style will get you higher ranks. Confidence is always key and will get you much farther than solely relying on brilliant argumentation. I especially value strong rhetoric and persuasion, so the better rhetoric you have, the better you will do.

I'm usually tech > truth and I don't assume links in your speech, so make sure to explicitly warrant everything with relevant evidence and analysis - If there is absolutely no weighing being done in terms of relative arguments, my disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined.

Never fake your cites - there's always evidence you can find that backs up what you're saying. Trust me I would know.

Every time you stand up for cross-ex, you need to have a clear gameplan and intention to extract some sort of concession - even clarification questions should be strategic. Good CXes will boost your ranks

Make sure you know the role of your speech in the context of your round - e.g. don't give a constructive as a crystal or pre-empt a million different arguments in the authorship (few is fine)

I value strong logic behind refutations and really enjoy creative ways of linking to arguments that make you stand out. Also, condensing down and simplifying the debate as you get later in the round, especially in late mid-round speeches and crystals, will get you higher ranks.

The most important aspect of congress is in-round adaptability - that means never breaking cycle and always being ready to flip. If you're using canned speeches without listening to what other speakers are saying, you will do worse.