A little about me:

Currently coaching: Sage Hill School 2021-Present

Past Coaching: Diamond Ranch HS 2015-2020

I also tab more tournaments, but I keep up with my team so I can follow many of the trends in all events.

-

I prefer all of my speakers to make sure that any contentions, plans or the like are clear and always link back to the topic at hand. You're free to run theory or K at your peril. I've heard great rounds on Afro-pessimism and bad rounds on it. I've loved a round full of theory and hated rounds full of theory. All depends on how it's done, and what the point of it.

I am a social studies teacher, so I can't unknow the rules of American government or economics. Don't attempt to stay something that is factually inaccurate that you would know in your classes.

Be respectful of all parties in the room - your opponent(s), your partner (if applicable) and the judge. Hurtful language is in not something I tolerate. Pronouns in your names are an added plus.

Speaking clearly, even if fast, is fine, but spreading can be difficult to understand, especially through two computers. I will say "Clear" if I need to. In an online format, please slow down for the first minute if possible. I haven't had to listen to spreading with online debate.

For LD, I don't mind counterplans and theory discussions as long as they are germane to the topic and as long as they don't result in debating the rules of debate rather than the topic itself. In the last year most of my LD rounds have not been at TOC bid tournaments, but that doesn't mean I can't follow most arguments, but be patient as I adjust.

Truth > tech.

*It's work to make me vote on extinction or nuclear war as a terminal impact in any debate. That link chain needs to be solid if you're doing to expect me to believe it.*

In PF, make sure that you explain your terminal impacts and tell me why I should weight your impacts vs your opponents' impacts.

WSD - I have been around enough tournaments to know what I should hear and I will notice if you're not doing it well. Thinking global always. Models should always be well explained and match the focus on the round. Fiat is a tricky thing in the event now but use it as you see fit.

I am a new judge to the speech and debate community. Please DO NOT spread, but I have been trained to understand the basics of debate, structure and rules. I did not compete in speech and debate as a student, but did participate in Model UN at a national level for four years. I am not a "tech judge" but I will flow the round.

As with any other judge, please make sure to extend your arguments, respond to your opponent's points and weigh impacts throughout the round.

Vyom Mathrani

Damien High School '26

Contact/Email Chain: vyom.k.mathrani@gmail.com

----

General Approach:

Welcome to my judge paradigm! I am open to a variety of debating styles and strive to provide a fair and comprehensive evaluation of each round. Please feel free to add me to the email chain, and don't hesitate to ask for clarifications or questions about my judging preferences.

----

Congressional Debate:

As a judge, in this congressional debate, I'm looking for a few key things. First, I want to see clear, logical arguments. Your points should be well thought out and backed by solid evidence. I appreciate when debaters use real-world examples to support their arguments. It shows me that you understand how these issues play out in real life, not just in theory.

I also value strong public speaking skills. Confidence, clarity, and engagement with the audience are important. However, don't sacrifice substance for style. It's great if you're a charismatic speaker, but I'm more impressed by what you're saying than how you're saying it.

Here are some tips to score higher in speaker points and/or ranking:

1. Be concise and to the point. Don’t wander off-topic.
2. Engage with your fellow debaters. Rebuttals and counterarguments show me you’re listening and thinking critically.
3. Show some passion! I want to see that you care about the topic you're debating.
4. Lastly, respect is key. Even when you disagree, be respectful to others' viewpoints.

Remember, I'm here to judge your debating skills, not your personal beliefs. I'm looking forward to seeing what you bring to the debate!

----

Novice Policy:

1. Clarity in Speaking: Speed (spreading) is acceptable, but clarity is crucial. If I can't understand you, I'll ask for clarification.

2. Signposting: Clearly outline your arguments. Failure to signpost will impact your speaker points.

3. Respectfulness: Always maintain a friendly demeanor towards your opponent.

4. Argumentation: Ostentatious or harmful arguments will not be tolerated. Show a deep understanding of your material, both in speeches and cross-examinations.

5. Structure: Ensure your arguments are well-structured and complete.

6. Rebuttals: You may introduce new arguments in rebuttals, but I prioritize quality reasoning over novelty.

7. Prep Time: Do not misuse prep time. Any indication of stealing prep will lead to a reduction in speaker points.

8. Topicality: Avoid dropping topicality arguments.

Preferred Arguments/Strategies for Novice Policy

1. Conditional Arguments (Condo): When you use conditional arguments, you present multiple advocacies or plans and clarify that they are conditional. This means you can choose to defend or discard them as the debate progresses. The key is to be strategic in how you deploy these arguments, making sure they are well-developed and not contradictory. Properly leveraging conditional arguments can provide flexibility and adaptability in your strategy, potentially swaying the debate in your favor.

2. Kritiks: If you're engaging with Kritiks, even if you're not highly experienced, always make sure to respond to them. Ignoring a Kritik can be risky, as it may lead the judge to favor the other team. To effectively respond, understand the core argument of the Kritik, directly address its link and impact, and if possible, offer a counter-critique or turn. It’s important to engage with the philosophical or ideological critique at its root rather than just treating it as a policy argument.

3. Disadvantages and Case Analysis: A well-constructed disadvantage (DA) involves a clear link to the affirmative's case, a specific impact, and an impact calculus that explains why this impact is significant and urgent. In your case analysis, focus on directly refuting the key points of the affirmative's case and demonstrating a clear clash. A strong case strategy should also include a solid defense of your own case, ensuring you're not just on the offensive but also safeguarding your position.

Remember, clarity and strategic thinking are crucial across all these argument types. Make your points succinctly and ensure they logically contribute to your overall case narrative

Speaker Points:

Minimum 27.5, unless you did something really wrong

+.2 points if you make fun of Richard Parmar in an actually funny way (make fun of his paradigm; it doesn't matter)

----

Parliamentary Debate:

-Maintain a positive attitude towards both teammates and opponents.
-Feel free to spread, but remember, clarity is key.

----

Feel free to approach me for any further inquiries about my judging style or preferences. Happy debating!