TLDR - debate however you want .

Email:bharadwaj.duggaraju@outlook.com

Hey, I'm Bharadwaj, I'm a Junior at Interlake HS, I do LD. Competitive success doesn't mean everything in debate, but if you want to know: I championed Seattle U, had two other TOC Bid Rounds (TOC 3 & Puget), broke a good amount, qualified to state, top-4 & alt nat qualed, and got 1st Speaker at University of Kentucky DSD 3.

Top Level:

I am a tech judge, and can be convinced of almost every argument. Whether it be shoe theory or indexicals, if it has a warrant and an implication, I will evaluate it. If the argument isnt violent or exclusionary, read it.

For Prefs:

1. Larp, Generic K
2. Theory, Generic Phil
3. Tricks
4. Dense Ks, Dense Phil
5. Trad

Argument Specific

LARP: I know this style of debate best. I like new and unique plan texts, along with creative advantage counterplans that solve the aff. PIC's are boring, especially those that are not textually competitive (this is lazy, perms are very convincing). Plan specific disads interest me, generic ones that have been read thousands of time aren't.

K: I love the simple/generic K. The two K's I know the best are: Cap (Escalante) and Setcol (Tuck & Yang, Barker). Read these K's as an impact turn, or with different framing, that doesn't matter. K's should have a clear and understandable alternative that has interactions with the case page. More complex K's I'm still in the process of understanding the lit, so its a risk, but if you do read something like POMO, please err on the side of overexplaining.

Theory: My favorite type of theory is funny 1AR theory or smart 1AR restarts. My three favorite 1AR shells in order are: Spec Status, Condo, Pics. Preemptive 1AC theory like converse theory can also be interesting, please don't ready some boring ass shell. Nebel/Semantics based theory is boring, but go for it if its what you want to. Disclosure theory is fine. Just make theory not your entire strategy, but a part of it.

Phil: This is a style of debate I'm style getting into as a sophomore. I really like generic and simple philosophy, aka just Kant for me. Complex phil makes no sense to me, don't read it, extinction first is really convincing vs some phil I don't get.

Tricks: Tricks are so funny when done correctly. I've never understood the serious aspect of this style of debate, but stupid tricks that if conceded win you the round are the kind of stuff I think are funny and cool to read in front of me. Read IceSpikes in front of me for an instant 30. Evaluate after 1AC, or certain speech are cool, but make it creative. I dont really know what else to say, I'm open to anything. Speaks tricks are fine.

Trad: Please don't. Speaks will reflect if you have a boring trad round (unless I'm judging novice, then sure).

Speaks:

Speaks are stupid and arbitrary, and this is coming from someone whose gotten really good speaks on the circuit. You will most likely get something from 29.5 - 30 based on how easy and clean the round was, and how much fun I had. Being violent is an instant L + 20.

tl;dr standard fyo flow, i will evaluate the round based on offense that is extended and warranted fully, and ideally comparatively weighed so i don’t have to intervene

about me

hi, i’m daniel! i use any pronouns. please add me to the email chain at dgarepis@uw.edu and if you’d like, check out my youtube channel at youtube.com/@danielgarepisholland. if you are a novice debater, please skip down to the novice section at the bottom.

pf for two years in middle school, two years of trad debate as palo alto gc. one year on the national circuit as palo alto gs. i got a couple bids and went to gold toc my senior year with my partner yash shetty, we also finaled ca states.

basics

speak as fast as you want (if you send a speech doc)

wear whatever you want

i will always give a verbal rfd and feedback/q and a if i can/have time

good analytics = good cards (and analytics >>>>> miscut cards)
extend clearly and collapse strategically on a few pieces of offense

do good weighing in the back half
gon't misgender people or be discriminatory, reserve the right to drop you for it
ideally disclose on the wiki or at the very least send cut cards in the email chain (not share a google doc!)
i will probably blisten to cross but extend in speech. if we skip grand both teams get 1m of prep

evidence

- paraphrase if you’d like, but don’t misconstrue. have cut cards and ideally send them in the doc.

- don’t steal prep when calling for cards, and give cards promptly when they’re called for

- ideally send a doc for constructive and rebuttal if possible. +0.2 if you do (doesn’t apply to novices)

back half

- first summary MUST extend offense (re-explain uniqueness, link chain and impact as well as frontlining) and respond to turns and terminal defense, ideally mitigatory defense as well if you’re going for that argument. ideally you should be collapsing to make this easier for you, you still need to respond to turns if you want to kick out

- i’m not the harshest stickler on extensions, it can be short — spend more time frontlining and weighing than extending. don’t spend all of summary repeating your case!!

- weighing should be done as early as possible. this can be changed with warranting, but sv > extinction > short-circuit > link-in > magnitude > timeframe (unless you give a good reason why) > probability. as annie chen said, "'nuke war is improbable' is not weighing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it's a response w no warrant." don't give made up jargon and be comparative.

- in principle, defense is sticky. if someone drops terminal defense but extends the argument, say, into 2nd rebuttal, the argument is done. however, ideally you extend your defense in case i miss it on the flow.

theory

- default to competing interps no rvis. i sorta think rvis are dumb so i have a sorta high threshold to vote off an rvi but it's certainly possible

- i think disclosing and not paraphrasing are good norms so i have a low threshold for them. i have a medium threshold for round reports and other random shells. i have a low threshold for new k affs bad]

- in terms of cws. arguments like poverty or feminism do NOT need a content warning opt out form and there's an argument that doing this is actually bad. non-graphic discussions of sexual violence should have at least a content warning before you begin reading case. graphic descriptions of violence (which i've never actually heard read in round) MUST have an anonymous opt-out form, there's a chance i'll drop you regardless of theory

- another note on content warnings. after events at toc last year, if i find out that you read trafficking or some other possibly triggering argument and only provide an opt out form in front of flows but not lays, i reserve the right to still vote for the shell and tank your speaks

t

- yea ill vote off it

- t shell can be in paragraph form it's fine

k

- i'm by no means an expert at evaluating ks, but please run the argument

- i have a decent amount of experience with k affs, i have a decent understanding of the ideas and lit involved, and i enjoy hearing arguments that challenge normative assumptions

- i'm more comfortable evaluating cap, security, set col, etc. and identity ks than dense postmodernist lit. please warrant and explain rotb well if you want me to vote for the k aff, especially for a non-topical k

Debated PF at Interlake HS, gtoc '22 and '23, t16 nsda nationals

Add me to evidence sharing before round: daniel7.jung@gmail.com

For Washington Debate:

Tech ≥Truth (with limits)

- 2nd rebuttal must frontline

- Be extremely explicit in the back half, especially with ff. Make my job easy

- Defense is not sticky. Extend what you want me to evaluate

- If both teams have arguments standing I look to good weighing. Although it's better than nothing, I'm not a big fan of basic "10 mil > 1 mil" weighing

- I am a fan of prereqs and higher-level link weighing. But they aren't auto-wins if you concede terminal defense or heavy mitigation

- Taking over 40 seconds to find evidence means we're moving on

- Don't do any of the -isms

- Lay appeal goes to speaks! Flay debate is the goat

- I strongly prefer no spreading

- Most importantly have fun! Debate your style!

For National Circuit Debate:

Apply everything above

Tech ≥ Truth (with more limits)

Theory: I evaluate the flow, but here are my general opinions

- indifferent about para, para past constructive is generally fine

- disclo is generally good

K:

- FW: make it very clear to me what the framework is and why I should care about it

- Performance: I will evaluate off the flow entirely

Tech > truth, I flow and did pf for four years

• update: if you call for more than 10 pieces of evidence without sending a doc. I’m dropping ur speaks at that point JUST SEND A DOC
• frontline in second rebuttal, defense is not sticky
• extend EXTEND PLEASE FROM LINK TO IMPACT IN FINAL focus and summary
• answer your opponent’s weighing. The round is never as clean as you think and weighing is the best way to break up any of it is weighing. If there is no weighing imma probably start weighing on my own and u do not want that
• Anything u want me to vote off of has to be in summary and ff (includes weighing)
• speed is fine, send me a doc if u r gonna go fast but I prefer slower rounds if you’re gonna be fast pls be clear ???
• absent offense, I vote on weighing as a risk of offense if there is weighing. Absent weighing and offense I flip a coin to presume
• Cool
• rap/sing/poem part of ur speech for higher speaks
• Creatively diss Daniel GH, Aileen Liang, or Jerry Li for higher speaks in a way relevant to the topic

Have fun!
If you want higher speaks click here and look through speaks section: longer paradigm

Hi!

Email chain: zhiruijerryli1117@outlook.com

Pronouns: he/him

pufo for interlake for 3 years, toc and stuff

tech>truth. debate is a game, play to win. if it comes to presumption, first speaking team gets my ballot.

please signpost and weigh and give warrants in all your speeches. collapse and extend in summary.

extensions aren't just a one sentence thing. extend ur links, internal links, uniqueness, and full impact scenarios.

everything in ff must have been in summary, new args will hurt ur speaks, and i probably won't consider it.

weigh your impacts and resolve clash, I hate intervening.

evidence: every debater must have cut cards available to send, even if you paraphrase. here's a link to how to cut your evidence: https://thedebateguru.weebly.com/finding-and-cutting-evidence.html

if you send the opponents a website link and tell them to ctrl + f something, i'm capping speaks at 27 and treating it as an analytic.

(if you didn't come to round with cut cards, i'll give you like a minute or so to cut the evidence you need without taking away prep time)

anything above 250 wpm - send a speech doc, altho u should just do that in general.

topic>theory>Ks>non-topical Ks>friv>tricks :(. if ur running smth wonky, tell me.

every single debater should check this site out to learn the basics of progressive debate. for better or worse, it has entered pf and it looks like its going to stay. https://pfforward.weebly.com/.

(For those who want to run it, this is a good read. https://www.vbriefly.com/2021/04/15/equity-in-public-forum-debate-a-critique-of-theory/)

i will try to evaluate most theory (i think disclo good and paraphrase meh) but i won't hack for anything. the more frivolous the theory, the lower i set the standard for responses.

if ur initiating theory/Ks on novices who clearly have no idea how to respond, i'll give u the lowest speaks I can even if u get the W. kinda ironic when debaters talk about setting good norms + reducing structural inequality when they're literally perpetuating it.

don't be any kind of -ist.

be nice. even if you aren't having a good time, doesn't mean you have to make it suck for everyone

even tho my debate partner tells me not to, i give off heavy visual cues. nods -> good point; scrunchy face -> what r u doing...

i'll prolly give everyone high speaks unless u give me a reason not to. i'll tell u in my rfd.

please ask questions. i'd be happy to clarify.

will disclose.

hi :)

i'm a high school senior, "toc and stuff"

email for ev sharing: moxibustion194@gmail.com

pronouns: she/her

i'll vote on the flow, anything goes (tech > truth) but have links and warrants please

Ask me about anything on this paradigm,

Basic Stuff

Please collapse and extend in summary--- if offense is not fully extended (links, warrants and impacts) i will not evaluate it.

Frontline everything you're going for in second rebuttal/first summary, and respond to turns (a dropped turn is js clean offense for them).

Defense is not sticky

Weigh please!! it makes it so so so much easier to evaluate a round. Prereqs and short-circuits are terminal and must be addressed, if u have two short-circuits u also have to resolve that (like timeframe weighing or smthn). & don't just throw out buzzwords like scope and magnitude, explain why it actually matters more.

In general resolve clash. Weigh ur defense against their link & vice versa, don't just go back and forth!!

For speed anything 250 wpm or below is fine as long as you're clear. But good strategy > dumping responses, and make sure everything is warranted

Prog

Theory: default to competing interps & no rvis, i think paraphrasing is fine and disclosure is good but ill vote on whatever if u win it. I dont really like theory tbh, i think it gets kinda messy. Especially if we are on the WA circuit like.. whats the point.. that said run whatever u want

Ks: ill vote on it but pls explain rotb very clearly since i dont hv that much experience (hit Ks like 3 times & never ran a K), remember u cant fiat the alt.

DON'T run prog on a team that clearly doesn't know what's going on (especially in WA circuit) thats rly mean. ill drop ur speaks and think ur super annoying

Other Stuff

don't be anything-ist!!

be nice in cross, if ur a guy in cross with not a guy check yourself

feel free to ask me about anything on this paradigm!! especially if ur a novice. and seriously if this is your first time debating, just do your best and have fun. ur gonna do great

I am a lay judge, and have judged once before at a district tournament. My kid does debate so I have a little knowledge, but I am still not very experienced when it comes to technical debate terms. Please explain things clearly and speak slowly. I prefer logical arguments over ones that sound unrealistic or fake.

jaydenpark1122@gmail.com

Saints Showdown II:I will literally just vote on any argument no matter how much the community dislikes them, including but not limited to: dedev, the cap k, tricks, process cps, phil ncs, wipeout, RVIs, disclosure theory, etc, so read whatever you're comfortable with, only exception being callouts, which makes me uncomfortable in a setting where we all personally know each other. Otherwise, do whatever you need to win. Speaks reflect how well you debate in the round, only exceptions are if you get me boba or do 50 push ups, where you will get auto 30 speaks. Cleaner rounds are rewarded with higher speaks. I will not do any work for you on the flow and will try my best to minimize intervention. If someone commits an -ism, you should say that, or otherwise the only thing I can do is tank their speaks.

NEW: If you buy me dinner auto 30

NEW (2): You can decide to resolve the debate in a 1v1or 2v2 brawl stars match — winners get W30s each and losers get L29.9

Shortcut:

1 - Policy

1 - T/Theory

2 - K

3 - Tricks/Phil

Strike - Lay

"Tech over truth. I do not share the sensibilities of judges who proclaim to be technical and then carve out an exception for death good, wipeout, or planless affirmatives. The only situation in which I will not vote on an argument is when forced to by the Tabroom.

This applies to everything. You do not get a blank check because your opponents’ arguments are “trolls” or “science fiction.” Whether something could be “read identically on a previous topic” has no bearing on whether it rejoins the affirmative. It is my experience and firm belief that the vast majority of judges who describe arguments in such a fashion are dangerously incapable of answering them.

With that in mind, I will decide the debate based on the flow and nothing else."