Shreeram Modi (he/him)

Lynbrook, NYU, Break Debate, Poly Prep.

debate@smodi.net, breakdocs@googlegroups.com

You can find my full judging record here. This speaks to my judging proclivities better than a paradigm would.

Tech over truth. What is 'true' for the purposes of the debate is entirely based off what the debaters have said. The nature of the argument, its delivery, or how it relates to real world truth have no bearing on my evaluation of it. The degree to which a claim is warranted is the degree to which a response must rise.

Flowing. I flow straight down on excel, I will not flow based off the speech doc nor attempt to reconstruct my flow based off it. I may refer to evidence after the round to resolve questions my flow is insufficient to answer.

My strongest conviction is that debaters should try their utmost to win, the rest is all malleable. Go for the most strategic arguments, not necessarily the ones that maximize clash or display bravery. I will reward strategies that improve your chances of winning, and not punish you for taking the easy way out.

COUNTERPLANS

---Will judge kick unless told otherwise.

---Equally good for "functional" and "functional and textual"

---Most theoretical objections to specific 'types' of counterplans would be better expressed as competition.

KRITIKS

---Offense needs uniqueness, the 2NR going for the kritik either needs framework to generate uniqueness from the AFF's performance, an alt that functions as a uniqueness counterplan, or needs to go for unique links as DAs to the plan.

---Planless AFFs vs Topicality need DAs to something the NEG's model mandates or offense generated from their performance.

---Not sure how to 'weigh case' vs an in-round microaggression. The 2AR going for this will almost certainly lose.

MISC

Debaters should be flowing. You don't need to flash analytics. Similarly, there is no flow clarification slot in debate; cards should be marked orally but you do not need to specify which cards/arguments you did or did not read.

Speaker Points. They are mine, not yours; I will not evaluate speaker point theory. The logical conclusion of evaluating this genre of arguments is that everyone reads and agrees to speaks theory at which point they serve no purpose.

---Higher speaks: Making good strategical decisions, knowing a lot about debate/the topic/the world, being engaging to watch, being clear will lead to higher speaks.

---Lower speaks: Not having your tech in order, excessive dead time, answering arguments that were in the doc but were not read, making bad strategic decisions, wasting CX, being mean/tactless, and having cards and documents not formatted properly using verbatim styles will lead to worse speaks.

Insult my brother. While I won't award higher speaks for this, I'll probably find it funny. However, if the insult shows an obvious lack of knowledge or is just corny, I may treat you disfavorably.