General: Send cases to agbasinger@gmail.com. Trained through NSDA and NFHS. Will disclose through writing immediately after the round.

LD/CX/PF:

Generally speaking, things I like to see:

-Signposting is so important.

-VCV or framework explicitly stated and aligned to arguments and evidence throughout the case.

-a classical approach to debate that values depth of argument over speed and spread. Technical language is okay but should be defined.

-Negative has the burden of rejoinder. No rejoinder, no win.

-CX that challenges to the links between definition and framework, evidence and impact, and VCV and framework.

-Clearly stated impact calculus (probability/substantiality, magnitude, severity, timeframe).

-direct and sustained clash that leads to clarification of positions.

-Voters being mentioned early and often.

Things that I think weaken or sink a case:

-Poor definition work from generalized sources or definitions that play little role in case development.

-Citing specific data as 'common knowledge'.

-Hodgepodge cases: your definitions come from Blackwell's Law, your C1 cards come from 1980's Russian Nuclear scientist, your C2 cards come from The New Yorker, your c3 cards come from an experimental geological research journal and your framework is util and justice. Stick to a lane and work from that lane- legal, scientific, popular theory, something consistent holds more weight that trying to link disciplines that require multiple degrees before you can read the industry material with any level of comprehension. In other words, good cases require continuity of understanding and depth of knowledge.

Kritiks:

-Jargon-heavy kritiks that lack definition work and teams that don't challenge these kritiks.

-Deconstructive kritiks, particularly in their anti-colonialist form, have their place in debate as red flags in our collective conscience, but they do not constitute a counterplan. You must provide an alternative.

-Kritiks are inherently philosophically loaded positions. If your K shifts the debate from policy to values you must define and defend your values. Kritiks require strong linking and framework not just a cut card of implications.

Case sharing and good sportsmanship:

-If your team asks to see a case, you provide the case first.

-You provide the case you are running, not cards that 'you might run'. Unethical.

-There is no rule that says you MUST provide a case to an opposing team. You can provide a framework if you wish, either on-clock or off-clock.

-Agreeing to share cases then sharing your case moments before you compete? Bad taste.

-Frustration and anger are expected but don't let it turn to sarcasm or passive aggressive remarks. How you react to a poor competitor reflects your confidence in your case and abilities.

SPEECH EVENTS

DX/IX

Generally I prefer analysis and sourcing to style and delivery. Clearly structured is more important than having exactly three points. State your question and take a side. Bonus points for setting context and complexity through historical references and present/future impacts

POI/OO/DX/PO

I favor clear characterization and the elements of plot. Creating building tension, owning the stage, and balancing verbal/nonverbal elements of drama is important to me. Filling the entire clock is less important than the art of storytelling, but generally I don't rank sub 5 minute piece well.

1. I am a Current DC speech teacher and coach. Background in communications, though I've been within the realm of speech and debate for close to 6 years.

Higher preference in traditional LD rounds, with min spreading. Need to be able to clearly understand and hear contentions and significant points, however won't completely judge against competitors.

2. a. With a preference in traditional LD cases, value and criterions are significant in the round.

b. If using K's, should be clear to follow and refute throughout round.

c. Voting issues should be given, throughout the flow or final rebuttal.

d. Winner decided by key arguments and sense of persuasion.

e. Notes/flow is taken based off off significant arguments throughout round. If I cannot follow, I cannot judge.

Skandha Gopinath (he/him)

Flower Mound High School '23, UT Dallas '27

skandha.gopinath@gmail.com

If you have any questions before or after round, feel free to email me.

Background

I am currently a sophomore at the University of Texas at Dallas pursuing a double degree in Cognitive Science and Philosophy. I competed for Flower Mound High School for two years. I mainly competed in Congress, and qualified for TFA State and NSDA Nationals in my senior year. I also have experience with extemp and occasionally competed in PF and WSD.

========================================================================================================

All Events

Being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. is an auto L/low rank

Tech > truth

If it's before 10:00 am on a Saturday treat me like a lay

Email me after round if you have questions about your ballot, and I'll get back to you as soon as possible

========================================================================================================

Congress

"Congress is a debate event you silly goose (x65)"

-Grant Davis

For speeches

• Good sources with high quality analysis are the most important part of any speech
• Later speeches should have clash
• Rhetoric/style is important, but isn't a substitute for content
• DO NOT BREAK CYCLE. If you get to the point where one side has nothing to say there's no reason to keep the debate going on that bill
• Be prepared to give sponsorships, there's nothing worse than having to take a 5 minute recess before the first speech
• Questioning is important, but don't ask softball/filler questions
• Quality of speeches >>>>>>>>>>> quantity of speeches. Base 2/3 is not a rule, and precedence exists for a reason
• Jokes are good but only if you're funny

For PO's

• Don't be afraid to PO if you don't have a lot of experience, I'll be pretty lenient in prelim rounds with the occasional mistake as long as it doesn't seriously impact the flow of the round
• That being said, you aren't guaranteed to break if you preside; you are still being ranked in comparison with everyone else in the room
• Break round PO's should be nearly perfect to be ranked highly
• Making a joke about being more/less efficient than the actual congress = auto 9

========================================================================================================

Public Forum

While I did some PF as a debater, my experience with it has mostly been as a judge. Some general things:

• You can go fast as long as you send a doc, but please no spreading. I don't have a hard limit for speed but if I look really sad and I'm not typing you should probably slow down
• I won't vote off anything only said in cross, if it's important it should be brought up in a speech. I will be paying attention, however, and it can still affect speaks
• signposting and organization are crucial
• weighing is incredibly important and should start as early in the round as possible
• speaks are mainly based on strategy and clarity
• Read Amogh Mahambre's paradigm for more info on technical stuff

LARP (1)

This is the type of round I'm the most comfortable judging. In general I don't like seeing generic impacts so the more topic-specific the better, it gets boring judging a topic where every debate ends up being over the same nuke war scenario. I think probability*magnitude weighing is kinda dumb and gives too much credence to outlandish scenarios. Not to say I won't vote for extinction impacts but there needs to be a lot of work done on the framework side. Also, don't be afraid to kick case and just go for turns, these are probably my favorite debates to judge.

Tricks (1)

Very fun, please run these

Theory (2)

I think theory is a valuable way to check abuse. I don't love frivolous theory, but I'll still vote on it if not responded to. I default to reasonability, no RVIs, and DTA.

K/Phil (3)

I'm lumping these together since I have very little firsthand experience with judging these debates. I think they're interesting and am very open to hearing them in round, but be aware that you should probably err on the side of overexplanation and assume I haven't read your lit.

========================================================================================================

World Schools

Some general thoughts:

• Style and content are equally important, neglecting either one won't reflect well on your speaks
• Speakers should be active throughout the round with POIs
• Your most important arguments need to be introduced and implicated early
• This is a team event, all four speeches should feel cohesive
• In general, I don't think the distinction between principle and practical is particularly useful; practical arguments should be grounded in some kind of moral/ethical principle
• On that note, framework debates are fun
• I've never seen someone run any progressive args in WSD, but if you think an argument is well-warranted please feel free to run it

Some speech specific things:

1st Speaker

• Since 1st speech is mainly just reading case it's super important that you remain active with POI's. If you give the reply, even better
• Reading off a script is fine, but using notecards/an outline instead will probably lead to better speaks if done well

2nd Speaker

• Organization is super important. I should know exactly where I should be flowing at all times, so signpost clearly and don't jump around
• You should introduce at most one new substantive here, most of your time needs to be spent on refutation
• Usually a good idea to start weighing here

3rd Speaker

• COLLAPSE, COLLAPSE, COLLAPSE. If both sides try to go for every single argument the debate gets super messy
• Weighing (especially meta-weighing) is also super important, if you don't give me a clear metric for why you're winning, I have zero reason to vote for you
• Seriously, collapse

Reply Speaker

• This speech should essentially just be writing my ballot for me
• New responses/weighing in the reply = lowered speaks
• Any variation on comparing the debate to a chess match and ending the speech with "checkmate" is an auto L and 60 speaks for everyone on the team

========================================================================================================

Extemp

I don't have too much to say here, just make sure you have good sources and you manage your time well. Creative agd's that you call back to throughout the speech are also good. Having a sense of humor is great as long as it's used appropriately.

========================================================================================================

Policy/LD

If I am judging you in one of these events and you are not a novice, something has gone horribly wrong

See my PF paradigm, most of that stuff applies here. Just PLEASE slow down and err on the side of overexplanation.

Hello, my name is Jack Hasper, and thank you for reading the paradigm.

Grapevine 24’

UNT 28’

Currently associated with- Grapevine HS, Colleyville HS

[Edited for UNT 24']

Pronouns: He/HIM

email - hasper.debate@gmail.com

I recently graduated from Grapevine High School, and now am a freshman IPDA and NFA LD Debater at UNT. So, if you have been debating on the circuit for a few years you might have seen me around. In my high school career, I TFA state qualified in Congress, Public Forum, (somehow also duet acting?) broke to out rounds at the Barkley forum in PF, and UIL State qualifier in Extemporaneous, and Congress. So, I am well versed in every event having competed in every single debate event except for WSD.

that being said here is what I am looking for.

EVERY EVENT-

Debate is a space for people of all backgrounds to learn and grow. if you are being racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or a bigot of any kind you can expect how the ballot and your speaks are going to go.

PFD-

Public Forum was created to be an accessible event, and the more you deteriorate the foundations of it, this event just becomes another version of CX and destroys the accessibility of the debate community.

when it comes to argumentation, I am fine with anything. I am not fan of K's or Theory in PF. But if you want to run really prog arguments feel free. But they better be fully thought out and well done to get a vote from me.

For speaking wise I value the ability to have good eye contact, vocal presence, confidence, and the ability to stand your ground and knowledge in the topic.

If you want to talk a bit faster than normal speaking, I am okay with that, but make sure your opponents are as well. However, do not just blatantly spread. If you want to speak at 400+ WPM join CX. PF was made to be an accessible event.

Tech=Truth

I'm not a fan of disclosure theory in PF. The only time that disclosure theory is really good is if a team is asking for evidence but not sharing theirs when you ask.

I will be keeping time for both speech and prep time, and if I see a team is speaking for far too long, I will verbally stop if they continue.

I value quality, and recent evidence, even if you have the “best evidence ever” if it is from 1996, I do not care.

And with that being said Evidence weighing and evidence indicts are completely viable.

I pay attention to cross. But I will not weigh anything from cross unless it is brought up in your next speech.

Me and my PF partner were honestly kind of aggressive debaters, so in cross it is okay to be a bit cold to the other team but please do not turn it into a yelling match.

I like off-time road maps & signposting

Impact calc!!! Even if you are telling me your impact tell me why it matters or what this actually means.

In summary and especially final focus I want you to show me world weighing and tell me why your world is better than the opposing side. Or give me meta weighing on why you win on magnitude, probability, or anything of that sort.

SPEAKER POINTS LEVEL

30- Essentially Perfect (Rare)

29- Very Solid but could slightly improve

28- My Average

27- Needs improvement

26- Needs Serious Work

25- You said something Bigoted

Below 25- You said something absolutely egregious

CX/LD-

I Love Ks but if you don't know how to run them, don't try to force it. Poorly ran k's are not fun to watch or judge.

Theory is rarely used well in LD, but if you're confident go for it

I'm Good with counterplans

In LD/CX I feel like disclosure is a viable argument,

however small school>disclosure almost every time

I am good with spreading as long as you include me on the speech drop.

Tricks will not work against me, so if you run spikes or abusive interpretations, I will very rarely flow it.

Tech=Truth

I'm fine with you being a tiny bit aggressive during cross but don't be overly rude.

Organization is key, I don't want to have to do a scavenger hunt to be able to understand your lines of argumentation.

Quality of evidence is still highly important.

If you have any further questions, feel free to email me or ask me in round.

No matter what result you get from me, do not let that discourage you from continuing to grow and improve in this wonderful community.

Good luck to all competing and let's get this Shmoney

I competed in Policy Debate and Extemp at the Varsity level in High School where I lettered and was awarded Distinguished in the NFL. I also competed in numerous public speaking events and contests both in an academic and business environment. Hosted a radio program, acted in legitimate theater, commercial stage productions, conducted commercial seminars nationwide, and acted in motion pictures and a member of SAG.

I look for developed, effective, public speaking delivery utilizing your personal style. I do not like spreading in any Debate. I reward logical arguments, persuasive rhetoric, solid evidence based on quality not quantity. You must be able to convince me to win the ballot. I reward those who can adapt their arguments as needed to make their point. Don't rely on reading a manuscript from a computer without fleshing out the information as appropriate. I reward debaters who are well informed on the topic and are able to apply evidence that supports their contention.

Decorum, respect, and courtesy, are required from all contestants. Bullies will not prevail or be tolerated. All students are respected regardless of their culture, background, or individual preferences.

utd 26'

email: rahulpenumetcha10@gmail.com

NDT x2

Top Level -

The debate should be up to the debaters and I will not intervene - any of my opinions discussed below will not affect my decision-making process if any argument in the debate is made over them.

A lot of this philosophy (and my beliefs in debate) will echo austin kiihnl, kevin hirn, and julian habermann's philosophies'.

There is almost always a risk of any argument, its a question of how the debaters do calc as to which risk matters more

I will vote on any argument that I disagree with or is not true if the argument is won at a technical level (doesn't apply to non-negotiables)

"Evidence quality influences technical debating and I value good evidence highly"

"I have a fairly strong preference for organized, technical debating, and not debating in this way will probably make it a lot harder than you'd like for me to adjudicate the debate." (From Austin)

Notes:

-Analytics need to be used more (esp vs less truthful args)

-I won't judge kick unless told to

-I don't lean a certain way on cp theory but 2ac blippiness means the neg block has a low threshold to meet. I'm better than most for theory to make it into the 1AR but still, every cp theory other than condo is probably a reason to reject the arg

-We meet on T is a yes/no question - generally T debates are my favorite when done well.

-“I will weigh the aff unless convinced otherwise. I enjoy alt debating far, far more than FW. Aff-specific link explanation will be rewarded highly. I am most likely to vote for a K if it uses its critical theory and explanatory power to directly diminish aff solvency rather than try to access a larger impact. If debated like a critical CP, DA, and case push, you will be rewarded.” (From Julian)

-I've spent a decent amount of time reading critical literature with the most time spent on Calvin Warren, Frank Wilderson, Christina Shrape, Arthur Kroker, and Douglas Kellner in that order. This means my threshold for your explanation might inevitably be higher, however aff specific contextualization and the explanation of the theory of power on the line by line should overcome any gap in understanding.

-I have a sweet spot for impact turn debates.

-My evaluation of K affs vs FW is best for the aff when there is either a firm impact turn strategy with some metric to evaluate aff case offense or a counter interp that focuses on establishing an inroads to 2nr offense while solving external impacts. I'm better for the negative when the strategy is either hard right fairness and providing a metric to view aff offense through or a strategy that revolves around clash/fairness and establishing ways FW can solve aff offense via a TVA/SSD. If it matters I've been on the neg side of these debates slightly more than the aff.

Non-negotiables

Do not be racist, sexist, homophobic, or misgender.

CX is binding

I will not vote on anything that did not happen in the round because that is not what a judge ought to do.

If the debate can be made safer, accessible etc. Please let me know.

I'm not flowing spread. Give me clear logical links and weigh heavily. I want clash. Don't just weigh your own impacts, but interact with your opponents.