I debated for four years at John Hersey High School in Arlington Heights, Illinois, from 1989-90 to 1992-93. I debated policy for two of those years and Lincoln-Douglas for the other two. While I did not keep count, I suspect that I lost more rounds than I won. I am returning to debate after an absence of nearly thirty years. I am new to the Public Forum format.

It is my belief that debate should be educational and fun. I am interested in creative and thoughtful arguments; expressive and persuasive speaking; and civil and respectful engagement.

I have been working as a judge for school districts since 2017. As a 2016 graduate from the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities, I have staffed five presidential campaigns. I also have worked in the field of public health and tutored economics. I staffed a COVID testing center for four months. I am passionate about environmental economics, and how the intersections of public health and economics have an impact on human health and wellbeing. I wrote a paper about the differences between carbon taxes and cap and trade policies during my junior year of high school, and have worked for both Kirsten Gillibrand and Tom Steyer. Gillibrand received an A- for her campaign from Greenpeace, and Steyer has been a proponent of carbon taxes. My other academic work involves performing a chi-square analysis on Brasica rapa to determine the effect of a carcinogen. I have helped coach students and also was the captain of the speech team my junior year of high school, and I competed in Student Congress. I try to judge public forum as much as possible, and have judged multiple times in a year.

Speaking

If a student is speaking too fast, I will let the student know they are speaking too fast. I can also provide time signals when students are at one, two, or three minutes. Students can speak as fast as they would like to speak.

Evaluating Speeches

I evaluate speeches based on evidence and reasoning. The role of the final focus should be to succinctly summarize an argument. The argument should be extended in the summary speech. I weigh evidence over analytics. While style is important, please recognize that rational speeches are generally stronger and my preference. Reasoning should be based on facts, and either argument can be supported if it is argued well.

I would like to see speeches that are content driven and are well-researched. In the past, I have recognized when evidence is factually incorrect. Evidence should also support the overall argument.

I am some what new judge. I am a judge for Vel Phillips Memorial HS in Madison, Wisconsin.

My background is in State Government, and I am active in local politics, including standing for election on more than one occasion.

Please limit the use of any speed talking and debate jargon. Referring to arguments by their substance rather than card names is necessary.

Keeping a consistent narrative or story during the round between the partners is important. Any weighing should err on the side of realistic impacts, even if they are smaller, than large improbable arguments as realistic problems and solutions tend to be more persuasive.

Send me case/speech docs at the start please (lankella@wisc.edu) email or sharing a google doc is fine, I don't much care if I don't have access to it after the round if you delink me or if you ask me to delete it from my inbox. I have a little trouble picking up finer details in rounds where connections are fuzzy and would rather not have to ask mid round to finish my flow.
(WDCA if a team is uncomfortable sharing up front that's fine, but any called evidence should then be shared).

I judge occasionally and value clear explanations and direct response to arguments and points.

Hello, I'm Bidyadhar but feel free to call me Bidy.

I am a lay judge, therefore I might have difficulty understanding you/ your arguments at times. Make sure to be clear and concise with your speaking so there is less confusion. Also make sure to explain your points, so not only can I understand, but also your opponents can understand. Although I don't flow cross, I will be listening to the questions asked and responded, so to keep that in mind.

I do minimal research about the topic and will consider the facts, but I prefer argumentation over facts. If you're going to BS, make sure its credible. I don't want absurd BS, don't make claims that lead me to conclude that you're insensitive or ignorant.

I will try my best to provide adequate advice after the round, but if you don't understand please ask.

Be respectful, and I'll be respectful. No yelling, bullying, racism, sexism, all the isms.

Most importantly have fun, and improve as not only a debater, but as a person.