Tabroom.com

Ivy Cup Championship 2

2024 — Johns Creek, GA/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Nifemi Adenugba Hire None

Dorothy Agbame Hire None

Tasneem Ahmed Hire None

Dominik Anderson Hire

Aanya Arikepudi Hire

Gia Atmakuri Hire

Manasi Avdhani Hire

Oluwashina Babalakin Hire None

Aanya Baddela Hire

Last changed on Sat May 11, 2024 at 9:55 AM EDT

Add me to the email chain: aanya2cool@gmail.com

I've been doing public forum debate for roughly 6 years under Ivy Bridge and Lambert, made some deep elim rounds

General Preferences:

1 - Come pre flowed unless we're flipping before round

2 - Give off time roadmaps (a simple "my case, their case, weighing" will do fine)

3 - Signpost in speech

4 - Be prepared for me to call for cards after round - DO NOT cite something you don't have a card for

5 - Send speech docs if you're planning on spreading

6 - Don't prep while you exchange cards

Case:

1 - Logical warrants > evidence dumps

2 - Don't misrepresent evidence

3 - I love framework debates, but don't read it unless you know how

Rebuttal:

1 - Implicate every response, especially turns

2 - I only evaluate turns when you a) extend a clear warrant for why it's a turn and b) weigh it

3 - Frontline

Summary:

1 - Collapse

2 - Resolve the weighing debate by a) reading comparative weighing and b) responding to the opponents weighing if you're 2nd summary

Final Focus:

1 - I don't evaluate anything new in final focus unless it was in grand cross

2 - This is a personal preference but please, please, please don't just repeat summary - final focus is supposed to blow up the reasons why you win, not just go over the round like summary does

Speaker Point Philosophy:

I start everyone at 28, and I increase/decrease based on how you did in the round

You get speaks if you:

1 - were funny

2 - did a line by line in rebuttal

3 - used final focus to explain why you won instead of just repeating summary

4 - had a good amount of topic knowledge in cross

You lose speaks if you:

1 - were rude in cross by speaking over the other team or interrupting them a lot

2 - brought up a lot of new things in final focus (if it's just some new things I won't dock speaks but I also won't flow it)

3 - were openly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

4 - misrepresented evidence, let's encourage better evidence norms guys

Nirvi Baddela Hire

Last changed on Sat May 11, 2024 at 7:05 AM EDT

I've judged 1 local tournament before this and went to 7 PF nationals. I go to SFMS, I'm 13 in 7th grade. Consider me a tech > truth judge since I will be flowing. I have researched the UNSC a lot so I will most likely know all the terms, but please explain what they are. Also, please let me know who is who before the round starts. My email is nirvi5star@gmail.com and feel free to ask any questions before hand.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You don't need to read all of this but general things to win my ballot are:

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Weighing - be comparative (my impacts __ outweigh theirs on __because ___.) Try not to start this in final focus as it makes it hard for me as a judge.

Time - I will be timing your speeches for speaker points (I allow 10 seconds overtime) but please keep track of your own as well. If you don't have enough things to say, you can always weigh the impacts even in rebuttal.

Speed - I'm completely fine with fast speaking but if the opponent doesn't understand, then I would prefer you slow down so both teams can actually debate.

Focus - I'm fine if you collapse but definitely explain your case well enough (15-20 secs) and frontline all responses against it. Also, respond to any turns against ANY case or it's considered offense for the opps. Definitely extend dropped turns. If you want me to vote on any argument, extend it all the way through.

Signpost - PLEASE DO THIS!! I will probably remove speaks if you don't. I won't be able to flow if I don't know where you are. Also provide a quick off-time roadmap before 2nd rebuttal, summary, and final focus (our case, their cases, weighing).

Cards - Please include me in email chains, I like these better than just showing the card in person since I can pull it up after round as well. If any cards are shady or not what you say they are, I will count that into my decision but please bring that up if you are the other team during the speech after. Only once in a blue moon do I call for cards myself after round, so you guys sort that out.

Prep - I will be timing running prep, so the total time basically. I'm not too specific about it, so if you use 34 seconds, I'll count it as 30 seconds, but please don't abuse this. Also, don't steal prep (using the time that someone is finding or receiving a card to prep) since it's just unfair.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Each Speech

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Case- I'm okay with spreading but send a speech doc before round, although I wouldn't recommend it. I value quality over quantity so if you have one really fleshed out argument with multiple sub points, that works better for me than 10 different contentions. Impacts are a really big part of my decision so it's unlikely that I buy a contention with none.

Rebuttal - If you're first, make sure you ration your time out and get to respond with 2-3 really good, implicated responses to each case. I don't do analysis for you, so explain why your argument matters to me. If you're going 2nd, I need you to frontline first, respond second. If there are too many responses against all your cases, definitely drop at least 1 and thoroughly frontline.

Summary - I HIGHLY recommend you weigh in summary through well explained impacts. Collapse here if anywhere since it makes it complicated for the other team to effectively respond, I just think it's a backhanded move. I appreciate if you case extend, frontline (or extend from 2nd rebuttal), extend 1 key response that's well explained to each case, then weigh. This makes the ballot clear for me.

Final Focus - Basically do the same thing, settle any disputes about cross/clash points if needed, but mainly just make it a mini summary. Here, you should tell me which contention I should vote on and why (impact weighing), along with why their arguments don't matter to me. This is the most important speech that wins or loses a lot of teams their rounds.

Crossfire - I'm totally fine with aggression, but I prefer calm and collected teams that handle questions well. Try to make cross a time to poke holes in their cases to bring up in future speeches. I don't flow this, but I definitely award speaks for it.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Speaks

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Here are a few things you can do to gain higher speaks:

1 - Be calm and collected in cross with good questions, it makes you seem confident +1

2 - SIGNPOST/ROADMAP (this includes sticking with it and not going all over the place) +0.5

3 - Consistent speed/good time management +0.5

4 - Doing a speech completely off the flow +1 (+2 if both speeches are off the flow)

5 - Also, if you make me laugh at any point, +1

6 - any k-pop reference + 0.3

If you do none of this, the base speaker points for me is 27 but I will add more if I feel like you deserve more (along with taking away if you’re rude).

Dhwani Bhanushali Hire None

Shane Blaiss Hire None

Mikia Bolden Hire None

Vanessa Campbell Hire None

Samyak Chatterjee Hire

Vivian Weijia Chen Hire

Akshay Chenna Hire

Charles Cortez Hire None

Blake Deng Hire

Last changed on Sun January 14, 2024 at 12:31 PM EDT

Procedural Stuff

Call me Blake or BD instead of Judge, I don't like feeling old

Email chain: blako925@gmail.com

Please also add: jchsdebatedocs@gmail.com

Add both emails, title the chain Tournament Rd # Your Team vs. Other Team ex) Harvard Round 4 Johns Creek XY vs. Northview AM.

1AC should be sent at round start or if I'm late (sorry in advance), as soon as I walk in the room

If you go to the bathroom or fill your waterbottle before your own speech, I'll dock 1 speaker point

Stealing prep = heavily docked speaks. If you want to engage your partner in small talk, just speak normally so everyone knows you're not stealing prep, don't whisper. Eyes should not be wandering on your laptop and hands should not be typing/writing. You can be on your phone.

Clipping is auto-loss and I assign lowest possible speaks. Ethics violation claims = round stoppage, I will decide round on the spot using provided evidence of said violation

Topic Knowledge

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE.

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE

I debated in high school, didn’t debate in college, have never worked at any camp. I currently work an office job. Any and all acronyms should be explained to me. Specific solvency mechanisms should be explained to me. Tricky process CPs should be explained to me. Many K jargon words that I have heard such as ressentiment, fugitivity, or subjectivity should be explained to me.

Spreading

I WRITE SLOW AND MY HAND CRAMPS EASILY. PLEASE SLOW DOWN DURING REBUTTALS

My ears have become un-attuned to debate spreading. Please go 50% speed at the start of your speech before ramping up. I don’t care how fast or unclear you are on the body of cards b/c it is my belief that you will extend that body text in an intelligent manner later on. However, if you spread tags as if you are spreading the body of a card, I will not flow them. If you read analytics as if you are spreading the body of a card, I will not flow them. If I do not flow an argument, you’re not going to win on it. If you are in novice this probably doesn't apply to you.

While judges must do their best to flow debates and adjudicate in an objective matter that rewards the better debater, there is a certain level of debater responsibility to spread at a reasonable speed and clear manner. Judge adaptation is an inevitable skill debaters must learn.

In front of me, adaption should be spreading speed. If you are saying words faster than how fast I can move my pen, I will say SLOW DOWN. If you do not comply, it is your prerogative, and you can roll the dice on whether or not I will write your argument down. I get that your current speed may be OK with NDT finalists or coaches with 20+ years of experience, but I am not those people. Adapt or lose.

No Plan Text & Framework

I am OK with any affirmative whether it be policy, critical, or performance. The problem is that the 2AC often has huge case overviews that are sped through that do not explain to me very well what the aff harms are and how the advocacy statement (or whatever mechanism) solves them. Furthermore, here are some facts about my experience in framework:

I was the 1N in high school, so I never had to take framework other than reading the 1NC shell since my partner took in the 2NC and 2NR.
I can count the number of times I debated plan-less affs on one hand.
As of me updating this paradigm on 01/28/2023 I have judged roughly 15 framework rounds (maybe less).

All the above make framework functionally a coin toss for either side. My understanding of framework is predicated off of what standards you access and if the terminal impacts to those standards prove if your model of debate is better for the world. If you win impact turns against the neg FW interpretation, then you don't need a C/I, but you have to win that the debate is about potential ballot solvency or some other evaluation method. If the neg wins that the round is about proving a better model of debate, then an inherent lack of a C/I means I vote for the better interp no matter how terrible it is. The comparison in my mind is that a teacher asked to choose the better essay submitted by two students must choose Student A if Student B doesn't turn in anything no matter how terrible or offensive Student A's essay is.

Tech vs. Truth

I used to like arguments such as “F & G in federal government aren't capitalized T” or “Period at the end of the plan text or the sentence keeps going T” b/c I felt like these arguments were objectively true. As I continue to judge I think I have moved into a state where I will allow pretty much any argument no matter how much “truth” there is backing it especially since some truth arguments such as the aforementioned ones are pretty troll themselves. There is still my job to provide a safe space for the activity which means I am obligated to vote down morally offensive arguments such as racism good or sexism good. However, I am now more inclined to vote on things like “Warming isn’t real” or “The Earth is flat” with enough warrants. After all, who am I to say that status quo warming isn’t just attributable to heating and cooling cycles of the Earth, and that all satellite imagery of the Earth is faked and that strong gravitational pulls cause us to be redirected back onto flat Earth when we attempt to circle the “globe”. If these arguments are so terrible and untrue, then it really shouldn’t take much effort to disprove them.

Reading Evidence

I err on the side of intervening as little as possible, so I don’t read usually read evidence. Don't ask me for a doc or send me anything afterwards. The only time I ever look at ev is if I am prompted to do so during speech time.

This will reward teams that do the better technical debating on dropped/poorly answered scenarios even if they are substantiated by terrible evidence. So if you read a poorly written federalism DA that has no real uniqueness or even specific link to the aff, but is dropped and extended competently, yes, I will vote for without even glancing at your ev.

That being said, this will also reward teams that realize your ADV/DA/Whatever ev is terrible and point it out. If your T interp is from No Quals Alex, blog writer for ChristianMingle.com, and the other team points it out, you're probably not winning the bigger internal link to legal precision.

Case

I love case debate. Negatives who actually read all of the aff evidence in order to create a heavy case press with rehighlightings, indicts, CX applications, and well backed UQ/Link/Impact frontlines are always refreshing watch. Do this well in front of me and you will for sure be rewarded.

By the 2AR I should know what exactly the plan does and how it can solve the advantages. This obviously doesn't have to be a major component of the 1AR given time constraint, but I think there should at least some explanation in the 2AR. If I don't have at least some idea of what the plan text does and what it does to access the 1AC impacts, then I honestly have no problem voting on presumption that doing nothing is better than doing the aff.

Disads

Similar to above, I think that DA's have to be fully explained with uniqueness, link, and impact. Absent any of these things I will often have serious doubts regarding the cohesive stance that the DA is taking.

Topicality

Don't make debate meta-arguments like "Peninsula XY read this at Glenbrooks so obviously its core of the topic" or "every camp put out this aff so it's predictable". These types of arguments mean nothing to me since I don't know any teams, any camp activities, any tournaments, any coaches, performance of teams at X tournament, etc.

One small annoyance I have at teams that debate in front of me is that they don't debate T like a DA. You need to win what standards you access, how they link into your terminal impacts like education or fairness, and why your chosen impact outweighs the opposing teams.

Counterplan

I have no inherent bias against any counterplan. If a CP has a mechanism that is potentially abusive (international fiat, 50 state fiat, PICs bad) then I just see this as offense for the aff, not an inherent reason why the team or CP should immediately be voted down.

I heavily detest this new meta of "perm shotgunning" at the top of each CP in the 2AC. It is basically unflowable. See "Spreading" above. Do this and I will unironically give you a 28 maximum. Spread the perms between cards or other longer analytical arguments. That or actually include substance behind the perm such as an explanation of the function of the permutation, how it dodges the net benefit, if it has any additional NB, etc.

I think 2NR explanation of what exactly the CP does is important. A good 2N will explain why their CP accesses the internal links or solvency mechanisms of the 1AC, or if you don't, why the CP is able to access the advantages better than the original 1AC methods. Absent that I am highly skeptical of broad "CP solves 100% of case" claims and the aff should punish with specific solvency deficits.

A problem I have been seeing is that affirmatives will read solvency deficits against CP's but not impacting the solvency deficits vs. the net benefit. If the CP doesn't solve ADV 1 then you need to win that ADV 1 outweighs the net benefit.

Judge kick is not my default mindset, neg has say I have to judge kick and also justify why this is OK.

Kritiks

I don't know any K literature other than maybe some security or capitalism stuff. I feel a lot of K overviews include fancy schmancy words that mean nothing to me. If you're gonna go for a K with some nuance, then you're going to need to spend the effort explaining it to me like I am 10 years old.

Theory

If the neg reads more than 1 CP + 1 K you should consider pulling the trigger on conditionality.

I default to competing interpretations unless otherwise told.

Define dispositionality for me if this is going to be part of the interp.

Extra Points

To promote flowing, you can show me your flows at the end of a round and earn up to 1.0 speaker points if they are good. To discourage everyone bombarding me with flows, you can also lose up to a full speaker point if your flows suck.

Anushka Dingare Hire

Sohan Divvela Hire

Last changed on Sat May 11, 2024 at 11:53 AM EDT

Hi, I'm Sohan, and I'm a Middle Schooler debating for Ivy Bridge Academy. I've done debate for 2 years on both the local and national circuits.

I know all of the topics..... you don't have to give definitions, but if you can, it would be appreciated and I will probably give you boosted speaks.

He/Him Pronouns

add me to the email chain - srdiv12@gmail.com

TLDR- I AM A Tech judge, tech > truth,WARRANT PLEASE I BEG YOU

Be nice and respectful. Being rude and condescending will not make up for you not knowing how to make winning analysis and I will drop speaks. I understand debate can be stressful but try your best to make it fun. If you make me laugh, I'll boost your speaks.

How I Evaluate Rounds:

I evaluate rounds by first seeing what argument or impact the weighing being won is pointing me to and I see who has links into that weighing. I will not vote for an argument that has 100% conceded weighing if you aren't winning the link into the weighing. If both teams are winning links into the same weighing, I need link comparison, uniqueness comparison, etc. to break the clash

With that being said, I think weighing is overrated and prioritized way too much by judges. That's not to say it's not important. If both teams win substantial offense, I need weighing to evaluate the round, but if you are not winning a substantial link into your weighing, you can't just win off of weighing.

Everything has to be warranted and implicated in every speech and extended in the back half for me to vote on it. I will not vote for something that does not have a warrant regardless of whether it is pointed out. I'll only do this if its egregious, so I'll still vote for something a little under warranted provided the other team doesn't point it out.

Basically, read any argument you want. If you win the argument and weigh it well, I will vote for you.

Prep Time/Timers:

I will be keeping track of time, but time yourself just in case.

3 minutes of prep time, but

4:30 if you are mavving.

Technical Stuff and Preferences:

No new arguments after 1st summary and you cannot add parts of an argument that were missing when you first read them. If an argument didn't have an internal link in case or rebuttal, it can't suddenly appear in summary. I'm quite picky about having parts of arguments when it comes to case. If you do not have a warrant in case, I'm not letting you materialize it out of thin air in rebuttal (assuming your opponents point it out).

I'm okay with speed. If you're going over 1050 words for a 4-minute speech, I'll need a doc to flow off of. Go faster than that at your own risk but I should do fine provided I have a doc.

The state of evidence in PF is really really bad. I won't vote off of evidence that is bad or unwarranted over a good, thought out analytic

~~Progressive Debate: MIDDLE SCHOOL AND ASP SKIP THIS~~

Not a big fan of theory but you are more than welcome to run it. I'll objectively evaluate most procedural theory like para and disclo and have experience debating it. I have a high threshold for theory and likely will not vote off of friv like shoes so don't be mad if I drop you for running that.

You can read Ks. I have a good bit of experience debating against them but not running them so please explain your literature and WARRANT it. So many K rounds I see have negative warranting and just devolve to the K team out spreading under warranted claims and attaching the word epistemological or pedagogical to different arguments without ever explaining to me the judge how I should be voting. Please give the issues Ks discuss the quality discussion they deserve, because when done right these can be some of the best debates.

Speaks:

I will try to make my speaks determinations based on your technical decision-making, organization, sign-posting etc ---- essentially how easy you make it for me to follow you and know how to vote. I will not make my determinations off fluency. As someone who struggled with stuttering a lot, I understand how speaks can punish people with different abilities and will try to stay away from that.

That's it. Have fun, thats the most important thing about debate!!!

Any well incorporated j.cole, kendrick, or yeat reference will get boosted speaks. DONT OVERUSE IT!!!!!

If you bring me food +3 speaker points

Manasvi Dokiparthi Hire

Last changed on Sat May 11, 2024 at 11:23 AM EDT

Hi all, my name is Manasvi Dokiparthi... you're probably reading this because I'm your judge for your future round!

Add me to email chain (don't even ask)- manasvi.sathvik@gmail.com

I'm a 2 year PF debater who has experience with both 1st and 2nd speaker, so you may use debate jargon if you wish to do so! I will have a tech flow, so I will be trying to go into detail and I will flow most of what you say in your speech. You may speak fast if you wish to do so- obviously not to the fact people won't be able to understand you. I will be timing speeches and I expect you to do so as well. Make sure to keep track of your prep as well. At the end of the debate, I will be making my ballot and I will tell you who I voted if you want me too. I am not going to tell speaks tho

tech ------>--------------------------- truth

Here are some important things you need to know abt speaker points:

--------------------------------------------------------

1) Simply no hate speech

Even though this is an obvious thing, I seen in happen in debates. Please don't do this and be as respectful as you can. If you fail to do so, I will automatically deduct your speaks by 2 points.

2) Try your best- you got this!!

3) Don't be aggressive with your partner!

You and your partner are a team, please work together. I will remove 2 speaks SPECIFICALLY TO YOU if you yell at your partner.

4) Don't talk to your partner during yours' or their speech- there is a reason why it's their speech. This rule applies mainly to regular crossfires.

I will be removing speaker points if I notice this happening

5) Let your opponent talk during crossfire!! I will deduct speaks if you fail to do so.

6) I start speaker points at 28 and I either increase/decrease based on what I see in the round.

7) I will deduct speaks if you don't fill the time

8) +0.5 if you send speech doc, +0.3 if u make me laugh

Responses

-------------

1) I love turns! Make sure to extend turns throughout the debate and weigh them!

2) If you're doing 2nd rebuttal, I would prefer that you frontline during your speech.

3) Elaborate your response- try to implicate it. Why does it matter, what difference will it make in today's debate?

Summary and Final Focus

-----------------------------

1) I will be making my decision solely based on what is extended through the Summary and Final Focus speech. If you frontline to a response that hasn't been made in Summary or Final Focus I will not consider that at all.

2) Please weigh your impacts starting from Summary all the way to Final Focus

3) No new evidence pls, I will not consider it at all

Weighing

-----------

1) Focus on 1-2 weighing mechanisms in your speech that COMPARE both impacts. Don't just say for example, "Judge we win on magnitude because we affect 1 mil lives" make sure to address the other impact and elaborate.

2) Weighing is super important to me, so take that into consideration.

3) If your varsity PLEASE META WEIGH, why should I listen to your impacts, why are your weighing mechanisms more important? Make the decision for me.

Speech ranking (what's most important to me)

---------------------------------------------------

1) Summary

2) Final Focus

3) Rebuttal

4) MP and Cross

If you are middle school: IGNORE PLSS ---------

K's

----

I'm not the best with K's- ik what they are and I have a bit of experience debating against them. If you will run K's pls have a warrant and actually explain it too me.

Theory

------

I have little experience with Theory, I would love to watch teams running it as I also want practice watching and seeing how teams respond. You are welcome to use theory but I won't vote off of it. I'm in 7th grade so chill if ur gonna use K's or Theory

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional things:

Please SIGNPOST

I will be flowing 5-10 after your speech so you may finish what you're saying
Give an off-time roadmap before each speech
Come pre-flowed before the round
If you spread for any of your speeches please send speech doc or else I won't be able to evaluate the things I didn't hear

That basically sums up what I want to see during a round... I wish you good luck on your rounds!!

Farren Drummond Hire

Shelby Echols Hire None

Julie Essa Hire None

Alex Etingof Hire None

Delphina Foley Hire None

Jayson Ty Gonzalez Hire

Fito Habban Hire None

Zachary Hall Hire None

John Hankey Hire

Last changed on Sat February 3, 2024 at 5:12 AM EDT

I would characterize myself as a 40% tech, 60% lay judge. I know the structure of debate and will make note of any missing formalities, but I'm likely unaware of many of the JV or more advanced terms. I'm looking for a debater who is confident, passionate, can be clearly heard, and is clear in what they are saying. Speaking fast is fine and all, but it can't come at the cost of being understood. Clearly laying out what your contentions are as you go is also appreciated. Not keeping time is a huge problem in my eyes. Numbers are usually lost on me as scale is a better quantifier generally. I generally value strong arguments and reasons over cold onslaughts of statistics. Numbers and statistics are still necessary for a lot of facts and are far from useless, but just be aware of that and try to supplement them as well as avoid leaning on raw numbers too much.

I value crossfires a lot and try to flow them. The most entertaining part of the debate and the part that most tests the skill of a debater is the crossfire. I will spot logical fallacies and count it against you (particularly if I sense the logical fallacy to be intentional), although not nearly as much as I'll count it against you if your opponent catches you using one. I'll count it against your opponent as well if they don't call you out for using one. Don't use logical fallacies if you can help it. Try to keep the crossfire on track and don't fall down ridiculous arguments with your opponent. I like responses to answers and responses to responses, but make sure that they make sense and don't go on for too long. There should be at least 2 questions asked during each crossfire (pro & con or pro/con & pro/con).

As a judge, I will be flowing, keeping time, and keeping the debate moving if necessary. Do your best to ensure it's not necessary. That being said, I do prefer keeping track of prep time. Unless I make a mistake and request you to step in on tracking it, expect me to be the ultimate judge as to how much prep time you have left. I don't take specific time requests for prep time ("can I have 2 minutes of prep time?") and will instead have you say when you want prep time and when you're done. Otherwise, the timer will run until you say stop. If this is a problem for you, you can always set your own timer to track your requested time. I prefer to do the coin toss and I carry around a quarter(s) partially for this purpose.

Whether you're from the After School Program or one of our locations, I'm familiar both with "Electric cars are better than gas cars" and "The United States Federal Government should ban single use plastics" topics that we will be having today. While I don't have a particular expertise in either topic, I'm generally well read on a variety of topics and have been hearing plenty about both as a debate teacher for Ivy Bridge Academy. I am likely to spot if you're making facts up and have weak arguments and I will value a visible inherent knowledge of the subject being debated.

Concerning my background outside of debate and other details about me, I'm 24 and I'm currently a novice debate teacher at Ivy Bridge Academy who has taught 2 semesters now of After School Programs in debate. I have an associate degree in computer science and am currently working on my bachelor's at Georgia State University. I plan to use this degree (and other certifications currently in progress) to secure a job in Cybersecurity, ideally as a Pen Tester. I love tinkering with technology and am very familiar with many things computer and have a decent knowledge regarding many other technologies. I like video games, music, anime, and D&D.

Nachiket Hegde Hire

Aditi Hemanth Hire

Tian Hu Hire None

Andrew Jiang Hire

Spoorthi Kakarla Hire None

Suhani Kapur Hire None

Swara Khatri Hire None

Diya Khurana Hire None

Eli Kim Hire None

Hayden Kim Hire None

Theodore Kim Hire

Vridhi Kishore Hire

Ananya Kommuri Hire

Last changed on Sat February 3, 2024 at 3:54 AM EDT

Hi! My name is Ananya Kommuri and I'm a varsity debater at IBA. I usually give generous speaks, and the only things that will tank your speaks are …

1: Spreading: please read at a clear speed. I am okay with you reading fast unless you are stuttering on your own words - that's not okay.

2: Be respectful: If you are sexist, racist, or homophobic you WILL get below a 26 (Yes, that is possible). Also be respectful to your opponents guys - otherwise you just look annoying.

3: Crossfire: Please don't scream over each other - let the other person talk. Don't cut them off unless they've been talking for a long time. (Anything above 20 or 30 seconds)

I would like to be included in the email chain for sharing cards - you don't even have to ask me. My email is: ananyakommuri@gmail.com

Ways to win a debate:

Weighing: please, please, PLEASE weigh in summary and final focus. This is probably the MOST important thing in a debate - if you don't tell me why your impact matters more than the other person's, than I really don't care about your argument and you're more likely to lose the round. Do NOT give me an hypothetical impact like nuclear war without sufficient evidence and sufficient weighing. Also, COMPARATIVE WEIGHING. Don't tell me you weigh on magnitude because you affect more people and then move onto something else - EXPLAIN your weighing. I would rather you explain your weighing instead of saying three random weighing mechanisms and not explaining it at all.

Frontline: I don't think this happens much in Novice, but if you frontline in second rebuttal and first summary I will be more impressed. If you have no idea what that is, don't worry about it.

Collapsing: This is not as important, because it doesn't happen much in Novice. Just tell me the biggest reason I should vote for you - one argument that you think is the most important. It's easier for me to vote as judge instead of trying to see which of your contentions is more important than the other. Again, not as important as weighing. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, don't worry about it.

Lastly, PLEASE SIGNPOST. I have NO IDEA what you're talking about if you move all over the place. Tell me what part of their argument you're responding too - it makes flowing as judge SO MUCH EASIER.

Mei Kumaran Hire

Ethan Kwon Hire

Last changed on Sat May 11, 2024 at 5:45 AM EDT

add me to the email chain - ethanyoonkwon@gmail.com

Ive done pf for 3 years at iba with multiple natties

tech > truth

I am ok with going fast but if your not clear I WILL NOT FLOW THE ROUND, I will yell clear if you need to be clearer

1 - I will evaluate anything

2 - have warrants - if you extend a contention with no warrant but your opponent doesn't point it out, I will have to vote off that contention. However, if they do point it out, I most likely am obligated to drop that contention off my flow

3 - i'm fine with tag team CX, I don't really care about cross anyways

4 - CROSS IS NOT A SPEECH. You must extend something said in cross or I will not evaluate it

5 - YOU MUST EXTEND WARRANT AND CARD FOR EVERY CARDED ARGUMENT YOU MAKE THROUGH THE ENTIRE BACK HALF OF THE DEBATE FOR ME TO EVALUATE IT

6 - weighing is incredibly important to me, but don't just tell me a mechanism and say you win on it, you need to give me comparative analysis of specifically why you win said weighing debate, and also preferably meta-weigh

7 - I get that sometimes you have lots of content and it may take a few extra seconds, but I'm 100% not going to evaluate anything that is 10+ seconds over time

8 - K's and theory and stuff like that is cool, just make sure it's believable (don't make it too wild tho im literally in 7th grade chill out)

9 - frontline clearly, especially if you're going to spam blocks in rebuttal

rebuttal:

if your second speaker you need to frontline, if your dropping tell me so that i wont vote off that case and you will save time.

summary

frontline, weigh, extend responses and extend cases

ff:

don't extend through ink - tell me what I should judge the debate on and clearly write the ballot for me.

speaks:

ngl I just copy pasted the speaks stuff from what everyone at IBA writes cuz I was too lazy to actually make my own and I weigh on the same scale anyway

26-26.9- You dropped your entire case, fell short on allocated time, and overall did not present debater skills.

27-28 I couldn't fully understand you (clarity) or your case. You dropped some points and may not have shown synergy with your partner.

28.1-29 You spoke clearly and barely dropped anything.

29.1-30 Had no notable flaws, and I don't have any speaking feedback to give.

+0.5 speaks for asking ur opponents to say wallahi during cross

+0.5 speaks if you can also say alpha

i am also open to bribing and will give you a high boost in speaks if you buy me food XD trust Im a big back

if you have any specific questions feel free to ask

Isaiah Lartey Hire

Caren Lee Hire

Hughes Liu Hire

Madhav Sai Mallipeddi Hire

Jihyo Park Hire None

Sofia Parker Hire None

Akshat Prasanna Hire None

Anvika Pulipaka Hire None

Kanav Puri Hire

Last changed on Sat May 11, 2024 at 11:43 AM EDT

add me to the email chain - purikanav21@gmail.com

tech > truth

I am ok with going fast but if you think it'll be a problem jus read everyone in the room something random at your normal pace before the round starts to make sure we can understand you

general info blah blah:

1 - I will evaluate anything

3 - i'm fine with tag team CX, I don't really care about cross anyways

4 - CROSS IS NOT A SPEECH. You must extend something said in cross or I will not evaluate it

5 - YOU MUST EXTEND WARRANT AND CARD FOR EVERY CARDED ARGUMENT YOU MAKE THROUGH THE ENTIRE BACK HALF OF THE DEBATE FOR ME TO EVALUATE IT

7 - I get that sometimes you have lots of content and it may take a few extra seconds, but I'm 100% not going to evaluate anything that is 10+ seconds over time

8 - K's and theory and stuff like that is cool, just make sure it's believable (don't make it too wild tho im literally in 7th grade chill out)

9 - frontline clearly, especially if you're going to spam blocks in rebuttal

rebuttal: Frontline In second rebuttal

summary

frontline, weigh, extend responses and extend cases

ff:

don't extend through ink - tell me what I should judge the debate on and clearly write the ballot for me.

speaks:

ngl I just copy pasted the speaks stuff from what everyone at IBA writes cuz I was too lazy to actually make my own and I weigh on the same scale anyway

26-26.9- You dropped your entire case, fell short on allocated time, and overall did not present debater skills.

27-28 I couldn't fully understand you (clarity) or your case. You dropped some points and may not have shown synergy with your partner.

28.1-29 You spoke clearly and barely dropped anything.

29.1-30 Had no notable flaws, and I don't have any speaking feedback to give.

+0.5 speaks for asking ur opponents to say wallahi during cross

i am also open to bribing and will give you a high boost in speaks if you buy me food (You wont win the round but get better speaks)

if you have any specific questions feel free to ask

Divya Ramineni Hire

Last changed on Sat May 11, 2024 at 8:13 AM EDT

Hi Everyone,

ADD ME TO EMAIL CHAINS:

I am most definitely not a LAY judge, i have 2 years of experience. i know people with more. Don't underestimate me.

divyaramineni1@gmail.com

I am Divya Ramineni, and I may see you at your next tournament.

That being said, a couple things that you need to know:

1. No hate speech against the opponents

This is pretty much given, but please don't do this. I will give you an automatic L and 26 speaker points to the specific individual.

2. Don't yell at your partner.

Believe it or not, I have seen this happen before. This will also get you 26 speaks, as you should be working with them.

3. Give it your best.

Don't give up halfway, you got this!

Extra Speaks:

K-pop references= +.1(Stray Kids, Aespa, Lapillus, TXT, ZEROBASEONE, Baby Monster, VCHA and Enhypen will earn .2 extra points)
Any Telugu Movie or actor reference=+.2(Allu Arjun and Brahmanandam will earn .3 extra points)
F1 references= +.2(Saying that Lewis should've won the 2021 championship is +.3, saying Yuki is better than Daniel is a +.3, saying that the Spanish GP 2023 penalty between #22 and #24 was not needed is a +.3, saying Yuki is not a pay driver is a +.3, saying that Lando Norris is better than Max Verstappen will give you a +.2)

ALSO, CROSS X/CROSSFIRE IS ONE OF MY FAVORITE THINGS IN A DEBATE.

So...

ask specific questions

speak loudly

don't interrupt each other

give the opponents the chance to answer

provide them cards they ask for

answer clarifying questions

Side note things you might wanna know

My Stray Kids Bias is Bang Chan. No questions asked.
I absolutely love Formula 1(search it up). My top 3 drivers are Tsunoda, Russell, and Zhou. Don't question. If you think Stroll is a really good driver and deserves a seat, rethink your decision.

OTHER IMPORTANT THINGS

I will flow about 5-10 seconds after the speech, so finish up any sentences or cards that you are reading.

I will drop anything you don't extend in the summary and/or final focus.

Please number and sign post. Off Time Road Maps are recommended.

QUOTE

"Don't trouble the trouble. If you trouble the trouble, the trouble will trouble. I am not the trouble, I am the truth." ~ Balakrishna(Srimannarayana, 2012)

So, that basically sums up everything I expect in a debate.

Sneha Ramineni Hire

Aiza Rasheed Hire None

Aleena Rasheed Hire None

Anaya Riaz Hire None

Charles Sanderson Hire

Last changed on Thu April 11, 2024 at 5:02 PM EDT

Add me to the chain: ctsanderson10@gmail.com

PF blurb

I currently coach PF at Ivy Bridge Academy, where a lot of my work revolves around evidence production. Therefore, I'm fairly familiar in both the topic and the general conventions of public forum debate. That being said, my background in policy debate means that sometimes understand these debates very differently than many lay judges might. Thus:

Tech>Truth
Speed is good, so long as you are clear
Document sharing is good so long as both teams agree to it
Evidence ethics violations are a voter.

1. I flow on multiple sheets of paper, one for each of your contentions. Therefore, I find off-time roadmaps to be incredibly important but often, unfortunately, lacking. Please structure your off-time road map by contention to help me be the best judge that I can.

2. Please make sure that you time your speeches, even if I'm also already timing them. Double-timing is a great competitive norm and helps make debates more fair!

3. I prioritize argumentative nuance over your speaking ability. I believe that debates are ultimately decided by debaters who are able to 'write my ballot' through solid impact calculus (weighing) and in-depth case analysis (explaining your contentions and why I should vote on them).

4. Extend your evidence! Extend their warrants! Compare evidence and don't be afraid of argumentative clash. Debaters are only as good as their evidence and the way that they use it!

T/L -- Policy

Experience --

4 years of policy debate at Chattahoochee high school. Qualled to the TOC on the NATO topic. I genuinely love this activity and (most of) the people in it. I'm currently a 2A/2N, but have debated as every position for a prolonged amount of time.

About Me --

Hey-O! I'm Charles and I love debate.

----Influences: Kevin Bancroft, Astrid Clough, Jordan Keller, Eshkar Kaidar-Heafetz (I sing his praise), and Sarah Lundeen. (UWG debate supremacy)

First and foremost, I want this to be a space for you. I genuinely believe that my job as a judge is twofold. The first is to deliver fair, well-thought, educational decisions and feedback. The second is to ensure that this is a debate that you can participate in. If you, at any time, feel unsafe in a round that I am present in, I will fight tooth and nail for you. In a community that is increasingly divided by and has traditionally been defined by oppression, my tolerance for violence is nonexistent. Don't be an abuser. Don't reproduce the violence that has become intrinsic to so many aspects of this activity and community. Don't be the problem. Don't be the reason the queer kid quits. I ask that you, as a debater, actively work to make this space one that can be genuinely valuable for everyone, not just your Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V, straight, white, MBA policy bro. To the queer kids, the trans kids, the people of color, the disabled kids, the kid who carries unspeakable violence with them every day, I will protect you.

Strike me if you were involved (were the aggressor) in a Title IX violation at camp. Do not ever speak to me.

I am a disabled debater. I have ADHD, PTSD, PNES (seizure disorder), a slew of mental health problems, and some other stuff that I'd rather not get into. I may ask for certain accommodations, this does not mean that I cannot judge your round, just that I need you to help me so that I can help you.

I'll be the first to say it, I'm a hack for the K. There is very little that I spend more of my time thinking about. If you're a novice and want to try out kritikal arguments, I'm your judge. However, if the K isn't your thing, don't sweat it. I'll still vote on your disad about how the plan trades off with the ability of the USFG to sell Ukraine papayas, which could cause Bosnian instability that spills over into intergalactic rubber-duckie warfare. Or your PIC. Or your 5-minute T 2NR (although I'll never forgive you for it if its bad). Tech>Truth. First and foremost, I am a blank slate when casting my ballot. Most of the time...

I will not vote on arguments that I find morally repugnant. That means --

White debaters reading Afro-Pess

Malthus

Genocide good

Racism good

Eugenics good

Obviously racist/sexist/queerphobic arguments

Trigger Warnings Bad

8 OFF or higher

Roko's

Spark/Death Good is the exception here, as I feel that they have genuine value as things to be debated.

Novice O/V --

If its packet debate, dw about it. Read your args. Have fun. Try to learn. Losing doesn't mean you're stupid and winning doesn't mean you're debate-jesus.

If it isn't packet debate, dw about it. Explore the wider world of argumentation. Read whatever you want. Have fun. Try to learn. Reading my paradigm is probably a bit more important here. Losing doesn't mean you're stupid and winning doesn't mean you're debate-jesus.

General Thoughts --

I think that...

Debate is good as an activity, but is not intrinsically valuable. Debate is as good or bad as those who participate in the activity make it. Make of that what you will.
Tech>Truth is the best "default" position for a judge to take.
Clarity>Speed, any time. I don't care how fast you are. Your ability to do spreading drills for 5 hours every day does not affect your actual ability to debate outside of being able to say more. One good, clear argument is worth an infinite amount of speedy bad ones. I'm fine with speed, but only go as fast as you are clear. If your strat is solely reliant upon out-speeding the other team while being atrociously unclear, then you are bad at debate. Its a skill issue.
Judge instruction is incredibly valuable for teams that want to really win rounds, not to just beat the other team. There's a difference.
Case debate is a lost art.
Fairness is an internal link.
Condo/broader theory debates are really only valuable insofar as both teams get off their blocks. If one of your impacts/reasons you think that I should prefer your model in a theory debate is education, then reading noncontextual blocks straight down is not only silly, but is also a performative doubleturn. My thoughts on whether condo is good or bad don't matter here. Tell me how to think about it in your round.
"Reject the arg, not the team" is not an escape rope that I will give you. Tell me why.
You should tell me what your favorite song is. I'll surprise you with good speaks for reading my paradigm.
Big schools saying "_____ hurts small schools!!!" is absurd and is almost never an argument that will be won in front of me. Lookin' at you, MBA.
Well-thought-out author indicts that are supported by good warranting and actually have a tangible impact will not only make me very happy, but will drastically boost your speaker points. I will not object to them becoming a voter.
Clipping is a L+25. I have a threshold for how this is decided. I will not disclose it unless it becomes an issue.
"Lying 2A" strats will suffer in front of me. If you have to resort to this, it's a skill issue.
Shouting at your partner is ridiculous and, if severe enough, will earn you the worst speaks that I can give you.
CX and rebuttles will set the basis for your speaks.
Reading paradigms is probably a good idea.
Cowardice is bad.

Judging Philosophy --

I'm a blank slate unless told otherwise. My role is whatever you can win it is. The clearer the ROTJ is, the more likely that you are to win it. If not given a specific role of the judge, I will default to serving as an abstract, 4th dimensional entity, observing and weighing all aspects of every argument that makes it into the final 2 speeches to construct my decision.

To quote Jordan Keller, "...I want to see debaters who play with the bounds of the activity, so do what makes you the most satisfied: play your music, I'll dance with you... as long as you can pull it off. I am a depressed, tired, and impatient [high school] student - make me laugh."

Argument Specific --

Aff (Policy)

I'll hear it. High-quality evidence is something policy teams have struggled with SO MUCH recently. Same thing with powertagging. You should consider the fact that your solvency advocate and solvency evidence are literally the lifeblood of your affirmative. If you can convince me that you can solve for the harms that you present, you will be in a very strong position in these debates. Judge instruction is a powerful, often underutilized tool in these debates. Policy hacks, take a page out of your K debater friends' playbooks and start telling me how to think. God knows, I've barely figured it out on my own in the first place.

Aff (Kritikal)

I LOVE YOUR (good.) IDENTITY KAFF. These are the debates that I am the most familiar with. Don't get it twisted though, my standard for kritikal affirmatives is high. I am familiar with a wide range of lit bases and there's a good chance that I've read yours. If I haven't, I've probably read the literature that your authors based their works on. If I'm not familiar with it at all, GREAT!! I LOVE learning about new forms of critical literature. I feel that there is real, genuine ground for these affirmatives in debate and I think that they can provide real, genuine change for those both in and outside of the activity.

However...

Reading a Kaff, identity-based or not, is not an auto-aff ballot. Framework is a metric that you are required to beat. A good kaff is a kaff that pushes this activity and the people in it to change for the better. If you can't convince me that your kaff can do that, good luck.

T (Policy)

Objectively speaking, T is a spectacular argument with more utility than most other off-case positions in debate. However, T is often horrifically underutilized by negative teams when debating against policy affirmatives to the extent that I often find myself questioning why its even in the 1NC. This has led me to have an icky taste in my mouth when it comes to topicality. Affs, believe it or not, are bad. Affs, believe it or not, are very frequently not topical. When debating as the negative, understand that my opinions about this argument are situated on the very furthest ends of the spectrum from each other. Either you will debate T beautifully and meaningfully and I will reward you, or you will text-to-speech bot straight down the same recycled topicality blocks from 3 years ago, then kick it in the block, and I will be very sad. Do not put T in the 1NC unless you are prepared for 5 minutes of T in the 2NR. I am tired of wasting flow paper on T arguments that get conceded in the 1NR. If this is your current strategy, its a skill issue. Be better.

T - USFG

FW walks a fine line between two extremes. T - USFG has its roots in exclusion. It is important to recognize this for both the kritikal teams that are responding to it and the negative teams who are reading it. However, by no means do I think that T - USFG is evil. I think that it can be used in evil, exclusionary ways, and when it is, then affirmatives should utterly crush it in front of me. I also think that T - USFG is one of the best arguments which exists within debate for testing things like the ability of the aff to shape subjectivities, to alter the state of the academy, and to ensure that relevant, transformative kaffs are able to succeed in shaping the debate space. In contrast, ridiculous, abusive, or otherwise non-transformative kaffs will be filtered out by consistently losing to FW. How this argument is used in your round will decide how I view it. Better yet, don't make me decide at all, just tell me! Judge instruction, people!

DA -

I have literally no opinion on these and literally have only seen 2 good ones all year. mfw no disad ground outside of IPol.

CP -

Oh god. Ok, well lets start with this one. The CP and I have a love-hate relationship. As in, I love to debate the PIC but hate how massively abusive they often are. But who knows, maybe that's why I love it in the first place? Anyways, my unhealthy love-life aside, I feel like aff teams let the neg get away with way too much here. Vice versa, I think that neg teams lack so much ground on this topic, that there's maybe some room here for abuse as a form of counterbalancing. I lean aff on theory and neg on content. Thus, I feel that I'm fairly neutral here due to that fact. Reading 4 conditional counterplans is probably a bad idea in front of me.

K -

(Much of this can be C/A'ed to the KAFF section)

At this point, this is my life. For better or for worse, practically every thought or action that I engage in anymore draws some connection back to K debate. (Yes, believe me, it's just as depressing as it sounds.) I WILL know what you're talking about. I WILL read all of the cards read on this flow. If "judge adaption" is something that your coaches tell you that you need to get better at, you will read a kritik in front of me, and it will make me smile when you do. Because this is the kind of debate that I enjoy the most, (KvK, Policy v K), I plan to invest a bit more time getting into the meat and substance of what a good K debate should look like.

Links

Benefit from being specific to the aff, not just the res (we have kaffs for that, silly)
Are disads unless proven otherwise
Should occupy a large section of the block if you plan to go for the K in the 2NR
Should have good warrants
Should tell me a story about what you think the world looks like
Should probably not be cut from the anarchist library
Are offense against FW

Impacts

Should be resolvable by the alternative
Don't have to be existential to outweigh the impacts of the plan, you just have to be good with the K
Should not have a mile-long K tag

Alternatives

SHOULD NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES BE KICKED IN FRONT OF ME OR SO HELP YOU GOD
Probably shouldn't be fiated

Outside of subpoint 1., my opinions here are much more elaborate.

What does your alt advocate for? If you can't tell me in clear terms, good luck.

If you advocate for some form of anarchism, you will need to overcome a very high threshold for victory. Do this by giving me a clear line of material praxis for overcoming the state, a coherent theory of power, as well as specific indicts to the state itself. Anarchist theories of power are extremely weak, immature, and genuinely just silly 99% of the time. Ultimately, if your K relies on reverting to anarchism to solve for your impacts, then it's definitely utopian and also most certainly could not solve for your impacts in the real world.

Speaker Points --

Guide Scale

0-27.4 -- You messed up big-time. Never do whatever I told you not to do again.

27.5-27.8 -- You had a rough round. If this is you, I would seriously think about the feedback that I gave. Ask questions. It doesn't mean you should quit the activity, but it does mean that you need to go back and do some work with your coaches.

27.9 -- You had a just-below-bare-minimum round. You're getting there though. Numbers like these are ones that will come up with practice. Believe me, mine did.

28.0-28.2 -- You did decently, perhaps not to my standard, but its not something to cry in the back seat of the car about. You showed up, read blocks straight down, had a probably sub-par cross, and probably just had an average debate.

28.3-28.4 -- You had a debate. This is true neutral for me. 60% of debaters that I see will fall in this range. You probably aren't going to get a speaker award at this tournament, but you've got potential, and I definitely think you should stick to it. I look forward to seeing you progress.

28.5-28.7 -- You did pretty good. I see a world where you could possibly get a middle-range speaker ranking at this tournament. I think you could probably move on to break-rounds. All in all, good job. Ask questions. The answers that you'll get will determine between a 28.7 or a 29 in your next round. Save my email, hit me up, keep in contact with me after the tournament. Go eat some chocolate or something. I assume that all debaters who read my paradigm will be in this section or above.

28.8 -- You had a solid round. I'm impressed. I think you'll probably be in the top 12 speakers at this tournament. You should definitely be proud of yourself. Shoot for that 29 next round though, there's probably one or two mistakes that you made that locked you out of that upper tier.

28.9-29 -- You did GREAT. If you got a 28.9, its probably because your partner got the 29 and the tournament didn't let me give you both the same speaks. Very very solid job here. I think that you probably know your stuff. I think that you've probably got really solid skills as a young debater. I think that if you were to quit, the community would genuinely lose someone who could advance or shape it. I think you'll probably be in the top 7-10 speakers at this tournament. Good stuff!

29.1-29.3 -- You knocked my socks off. You have changed my standards for novice debate forever and I will never forget your round. Spectacular. I think that you'll probably be in the top 6 speakers at this tournament.

29.4 or higher -- You have probably done something amazing. I've never seen it in action. If you do it, I'll update my paradigm and just, like, write a description of you and your round or something. If you get a 29.4 or higher from me, I genuinely think that you should be winning both top speaker as well as the tournament.

Boosters

+0.1 for any of the following

Beating me to the round room
Bringing me caffeine
Kindness to your fellow debaters
Good post/pre-round banter
Asking for each other's pronouns

Abhay Prasad Shetty Hire

Patrick Smith Hire

Last changed on Sat February 3, 2024 at 12:49 PM EDT

I have been a PF debate coach at Ivy Bridge Academy for the past 7 years and I also did policy debate at Chattahoochee High School and UGA. Here are things that are important to me in debates and will influence my decision:

1. Debate is fundamentally about winning arguments, so make good arguments. I will do my best to evaluate your argument as objectively as possible but make sure contentions are well-developed with clear warrants, evidence, and impacts. The more unrealistic the argument, the less likely I’ll vote for it, but I do also believe it is the burden of your opponent to clearly articulate why the argument is wrong.

2. Frontlining - while not doing this isn’t technically against the rules, I highly encourage it and will reward teams that do it effectively with better speaker points. I don’t consider something dropped in the 2nd rebuttal, but I do expect teams to cover everything you plan on extending. I also like teams condensing to one contention in the second rebuttal if it makes strategic sense.

3. Summary - condensing down to a few key voting issues is important to me. If you don’t do weighing in rebuttal, then it should start here. Anything, including defense, must be in the summary if you want me to evaluate it. Don’t drop responses or contentions in these speeches. I will reward summary speakers who make good strategic decisions and manage their time well.

4. Final Focus - Clear voting issues and weighing are important to me. I will only evaluate arguments extended in the summary here. Having a clear narrative and focusing on the big picture is important, as well as answering extended responses. This is also your last chance to win key responses against your opponent's case. Make sure to not just extend them, but explain them, answer the summary, and what the implications are if you win x response.

5. Paraphrasing - I’m fine with it, but you need to be able to produce either a card or the website if asked. If you can’t produce it in time or deliberately misrepresent the evidence, then I will ignore the argument, and in extreme cases, vote the guilty team down.

6. Weighing - this is important to me, but I think debaters overvalue it a bit. The link debate is more important in my opinion and realistic impacts are as well. Try and start the weighing in the rebuttal or summary speeches. Comparison is key to good weighing in front of me.

7. Crossfire - any argument established in crossfire must be brought up in the subsequent speech for me to evaluate it. I will reward creative and well thought out questions. Please don’t be rude or aggressive in the crossfire. That will definitely hurt your speaker points. Civility is very important to proper debate in my humble opinion. You can sit or stand for the grand cross.

8. Speaking - I will give higher speaks to passionate speakers who are good public speakers. I did policy, so I’m fine with speed, but I don’t like spreading unless you absolutely have to cover. Please clearly signpost which argument you are responding to and when you are moving to the other side of the flow or weighing.

9. Prep - I will do my best to keep track of it, but please, both teams should also be tracking the time.

10. References - any well-executed Biggy, Kendrick, J. Cole, Drake, or Childish Gambino reference will be rewarded. Don’t overdo it though and I reserve the right to decrease points if it’s way off point.

11. Speech docs - if you share your case with me, then it will help me flow, understand your arguments, and I won't have to call for ev, so I will give both speakers 2 extra points if they do so.

Vishesh Sood Hire

Joshua St. Peter Hire

Last changed on Sat May 11, 2024 at 6:01 AM EDT

Call me "jsp" or "Josh"

joshuasp.debate@gmail.com - yes put me on the chain, I want an email chain set up before each rounds start time

Recent Coaching/Debating Affiliations:

Coaching:Ivy Bridge Academy, Thomas Kelly College Prep

Debating: Western Kentucky University (2024-present), Georgia State University (2021-2024), Sequoyah High School (2017-2021)

Bottom line: I am a 3rd year out debater doing policy, I did 4 years of LD in high school and I have been coaching PF at Ivy Bridge Academy. I can follow technical debating and jargon from across those 3 events so just you do you - I have coached/debated/judged/voted on tricks, theory, kritiks, plan, phil, trad and lay (insert whatever non-descriptive 1 word shorthand you like). Whatever you are doing will likely not be new to me in all honesty. Some people call me a tabula rasa judge even though I think the phrase tabula rasa is a conservative debate dogwhistle (I spend a lot of my time thinking about why we do what we do in debate, I think this makes me decent at judging method debates).

---

Quick Prefs:

1 - K, Plans, Case Debate, Lay, T/T-FW

2 - DA's/CP's, Theory, Narratives

3 - Phil

4 - Tricks

Strike - Out of round violations, frivolous arguments

---

Translation for PF Debaters: this means I am a "tech judge". Speed is fine and prog is cool. Just don't be a jerk, be a sensible person.

---

I have given myself 5 things to say about how I evaluate debates, no more, no less:

1. I need pen time, i flow on paper and by ear

2. I will not vote for arguments that had no warrant/signaling. Such as ur fiat K's that ngl was not even in the block

3. It must have been in your final speech for me to vote for you on it (including extending case vs T)

4. I evaluate impact level first usually unless told otherwise (whether its education or nuke war, etc)

5. My ballot will likely be determined off who i have to do the least work for, i do not usually vote on presumption

---

Evidence shenanigans:

this is the only stuff that will change how I vote directly, everything else is flexible.

Put me on the email chain, i do like to read evidence because no one compares the evidence themselves. I prefer ev to be send before speeches and in cut cards. Your speaks are capped below 29.5 if there is no doc and below 28 if when you send evidence there is not evidence in cut card format. Paraphrasing is fine if you have cut cards to go along with it AND you send them out BEFORE. I make exceptions to this if you are part of a small program which has no way knowing how to cut cards and this is in novice.

If you send your case as a google doc, copying perms needs to be on. This is because I need to create a stable copy of your evidence, anything that you can edit without sending a new doc risks being problematic (ie changing highlighting mid round or adding ev and claiming to have read it). Strike me if how I deal with ev ethics is a problem.

---

How I vote

I will only vote on what was in the final speech and what is implicated to be in the final speech as the reason to vote for you. That is the only hard line I draw. (this includes you must extend case against a 2nr on T). Every form of debate is full of brain rot and I genuinely care about voting for people who are capable of thinking of why they do the norms they partake, not only does it make you a better debater but also a better person. Idc what it is or how it got there, just get to the finish line. Any arg is a voting issue if made to be that way. I only vote on complete arguments. Stock args are very strategic in front of me because I am not better for random arguments but for good arguments you can defend well. The frontlines and weighing wins you the round, not the constructive.

---

Speaker Points

Be clear, pen time gets speaker points.

Strategic collapses that make my life easier are appreciated

Clear signalling/signposting helps

+.2 speaker points for gender minorities

Rithwik Tamilselvan Hire

Last changed on Sat May 11, 2024 at 6:15 AM EDT

Varsity Debater of 3 years

Novice:

Try your best, just make your opponents cases sound ridiculous.

I prefer logically sound cases over squirrely ones.

Please make sure to speak and signpost clearly (saying when you move on to the next case, response, etc...)

If you know how to impact weigh, do it.

Don't bring up new information past second summary(no new cards).

JV/Varsity:

Add me to the email chain - rt302008@gmail.com

Tech>Truth, but if the cases are super squirrely with super sketchy link chains and have obscure impacts, I probably won't buy them.

Spreading is fine, but speak clearly. I can't flow what I don't understand.

Clear signposting is a necessity

Frontlining in second rebuttal is not necessary, but if you do, spend at most 1:30. Don't undercover your opponents case, you still have second summary to frontline.

Please implicate responses in both rebuttals, don't just read me a card, tell my why this card is important and why it matters, i.e., why it completely takes out the opponents case.

Make sure to collapse on one or two cases in summary, its very unrealistic to go for all your cases.

Frontline your extended case well and efficiently, all turns must be answered or you basically concede your case.

Extend cases in summary

Impact weigh is very important, it basically tells me why I should care about your cases over theirs. Choose one or two good weighing mechanisms and explain them correctly.

Meta weigh (tell me why the weighing mechanism you are using is should be prioritized over theirs): Short Circuit > Prerequisite > Magnitude > Scope> Severity > Timeframe > Probability - These are the main weighing mechanisms I consider, others are fine if properly explained.

If I buy your link to the impact, then your impact is probably, and any no link, delink, or no link response is basically like outweighing on probability.

When extending responses don't just repeat previous responses, but choose the most important and explain why these matter and are important in the round. If you can, in second summary I would prefer you answer the opponents frontlines to that response.

Write the ballot for me, tell me the most important issues of the round and why you win them.

Case extensions, response extensions, and impact weighs must all be in final. Tell me why you win every issue of the round, and why I should care about what you say over them.

Rhea Taneja Hire

Aniket Tank Hire None

Elina Tyagi Hire

Manuel Vega Hire None

Melissa Vega Hire None

Marcela Vega Aranda Hire None

Aarush Venkat Hire

Nethra Venkatesan Hire None

Alex Yizhou Wang Hire

Last changed on Thu May 9, 2024 at 3:59 PM EDT

add me to the email chain - alexwanggoku@gmail.com (dont bully me pls i didnt make up this email my mom did and i dont even like dbz)

used to do pf at iba

tech > truth

I am ok with going fast but if you think it'll be a problem jus read everyone in the room something random at your normal pace before the round starts to make sure we can understand you

general info blah blah:

1 - I will evaluate anything

3 - i'm fine with tag team CX, I don't really care about cross anyways

4 - CROSS IS NOT A SPEECH. You must extend something said in cross or I will not evaluate it

5 - YOU MUST EXTEND WARRANT AND CARD FOR EVERY CARDED ARGUMENT YOU MAKE THROUGH THE ENTIRE BACK HALF OF THE DEBATE FOR ME TO EVALUATE IT

7 - I get that sometimes you have lots of content and it may take a few extra seconds, but I'm 100% not going to evaluate anything that is 10+ seconds over time

8 - K's and theory and stuff like that is cool, just make sure it's believable (don't make it too wild tho im literally in 7th grade chill out)

9 - frontline clearly, especially if you're going to spam blocks in rebuttal

rebuttal:

not much for me to say here

summary

frontline, weigh, extend responses and extend cases

ff:

don't extend through ink - tell me what I should judge the debate on and clearly write the ballot for me.

speaks:

ngl I just copy pasted the speaks stuff from what everyone at IBA writes cuz I was too lazy to actually make my own and I weigh on the same scale anyway

26-26.9- You dropped your entire case, fell short on allocated time, and overall did not present debater skills.

27-28 I couldn't fully understand you (clarity) or your case. You dropped some points and may not have shown synergy with your partner.

28.1-29 You spoke clearly and barely dropped anything.

29.1-30 Had no notable flaws, and I don't have any speaking feedback to give.

+0.5 speaks for asking ur opponents to say wallahi during cross

i am also open to bribing and will give you a high boost in speaks if you buy me food (don't actually do this because someone has tried buying me mcdonalds before)

if you have any specific questions feel free to ask

Olivia Wang Hire

Last changed on Thu May 9, 2024 at 3:49 PM EDT

background info

Olivia Wang.

Debate experience: about 2.5 years

7th grader at Riverwatch middle school.

I've been to national tournaments like Harvard and TOC and georgetown

Pf debater in varsity at Ivy Bridge Academy.

email: oliviawangq@gmail.com if you are sharing evidence then include my email too please.

Also If you are going to spread send me the speech doc

Whats important to me in debate:

Being neat and not going all over the place in RT, S, and FF so basically signpost and dont go to dif arguments.

If you forget to weigh then u basically lose even if u did a good job on everything else.

I don't like really fast speed or else I won't be able to flow ev.

On your MP, it can be really weird like nuclear apocalypse but make sure it has reasoning.

Be confident and signpost.

I will vote for whoever has better weighing and doesn't just repeat stuff and actually responds to stuff so basically don't spend half of your speech extending it, i care more about the actual offense and defense.

I dont care if you sit down or stand up

I hope you use a paper flow because it shows me that you are a more proficient debater.

most important speech in debate for me is FF and summary.

always do an offtime roadmap especially for summary and final focus, just do like" my case. their case. weighing" and I might stop you if you dont and sometimes people tend to say that after they say"judge start the timer on my first word" which doesnt make sense if its an offtime roadmap.

MAINPOINT

Read at whatever pace but make sure you can understand every single word.

Please dont do like 5 contentions with 4 subpoints.

be creative

REBUTTAL

If you're second then I recommend frontlining because it gives you an advantage and makes the debate easier.

If you're first, just try to read the best responses and dont send out like 10 respones then continue to read 1 for the other contention.

SUMMARY

Please collapse, it makes the debate better and easier for timing.

Give an offtime roadmap before you say"judge start the timer on my first word"

I care more about extending frontlines than cases

If you don't weigh, you lose, but if you weigh w/o acknowledging the other team's weighing, thats almost as bad.

Be confident and loud.

FINAL FOCUS

At the end, give a written ballot dont js finish with a random card about the opps contention.

Dont try to push in all responses and frontlines. dont extend frontlintes that the opps dropped and same for responses

make it a clean ballot and orderly.

Rebecca Wang Hire

Jai Yadav Hire

Alekhya Yadavalli Hire

Akshita Yamee Hire

Grace Yan Hire

Sophie Yang Hire

Janelle Yuan Hire

Allyson Zhang Hire

Last changed on Sat May 11, 2024 at 4:34 AM EDT

I'm a varsity debater at IBA.

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

MP- Speak loud+clearly and don't mumble. I don't really have any speed preferences but if you're too fast I'll ask for speech doc.

1st Rebuttal - Read an off-time road map even if you're just going over your opps cases.

2nd Rebuttal - Read an off-time road map, especially if you plan on frontlining. Collapse if you want if you don't have time for everything.

Summaries - Off-time road map, PLEASE. Make sure you 1. extend and collapse cases 2. frontline 3. weigh 4. extend responses

IF YOU DO NOT EXTEND RESPONSES IN SUMMARY AND THROUGHOUT FF I WILL CONSIDER IT DROPPED

FF - Provide an off-time road map and 1. go over major things in the debate, unanswered responses, WHY YOU WIN, etc 2. WEIGHHHHH 3. extend responses 4. extend cases just keep the important stuff from summary

cross - be assertive with what you are saying, don't yell over each other, ask questions to keep the debate moving forward, and I will sort of pay attention, if something is important bring it up later but don't lie about what happened.

speaks:

I don't necessarily start anywhere, maybe around 27.5 or 28

26 - a. you had no idea what you were saying b. you spoke very quietly and had 0 confidence c. didn't fill up all of your time (30 sec left, etc) OR went WAY too overtime (15 sec at least) d. tons of filler words (uhm, uh, like) or took lots of time to respond e. all of the above

27 - OK speaker, can have more confidence, decent points brought up, might've been rude

28 - pretty good, knew what you were doing, could have put more emphasis on words, 28-28.9 is the average for me

29 - excellent speaker, good points brought up, knew a lot of what you were doing, I will generally give these to really good speakers

30 - superior, extremely confident, I will normally give this to people who really know what they are talking about and clearly delves a lot into the topic

be friendly

have fun!

#allyson29 in chat so I know you read this (or at the end of your speech)

Angela Zhou Hire None

Login to Tabroom

Ivy Cup Championship 2

2024 — Johns Creek, GA/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges