Krishnamurthy,+Pavan

Pavan Krishnamurthy Coppell '08 Northwestern '12 20 rounds judged (pre-Glenbrooks)

Before rounds you may not have time to read thoroughly what I have to say, so I included a very brief overview of my judging philosophy and a more specific discussion of my judging paradigm.

Generic: As with all judges I have certain predispositions, thus I find certain arguments to be more persuasive than others. That being said there is __NO__ predisposition you cannot overcome. Many times I will say that I think something is like X, but if those arguments are not made I could easily be persuaded to think something is like Y. I feel that with all debates, regardless of the arguments that are gone for, the specificity and comparative nature of your claims will get you the furthest. This idea applies to everything including theory/topicality, disads, and kritiks. For example generic links on disads and kritiks are painful to listen to and are often not strategic. Impact calculus should not only prove that your impacts are probably, it should prove that their impacts are improbably. Reading a card that says that escalation in the IndoPak region is the most likely cause of nuclear war is very persuasive. Explaining why aff ground loss is more important than neg ground loss is a much better approach than saying aff ground is good. Generally I feel like the specificity of a debate makes it more education and more enjoyable to judge and this can be done with any argument you feel confortable reading. Be nice to your opponents, make jokes, and have fun. I keep a decent flow, but remember if an argument does reach the paper, its like it was never made. Keep in mind a conceded argument becomes true only after it has been impacted. I will warn you I didn't work at an institute over the summer this year and I have very limited knowledge of the resolution and the general consensus of the community on certain interpretations so do not assume I know certain arguments.

Specific: Topicality - The way i judge topicality generally will be in a competing interpretations framework where the negative has to prove that the affirmatives interpretation is unreasonably unlimiting. I judge topicality like a counterplan/plan debate, where the 1NC interpretation is plan of how the resolution should be and the 2AC interpretation is a counterplan. Each interpretations have net benefits and disads, and the interpretations can be permuted. Unlike counterplan/plan debates I do not rely on a offense/defense paradigm. For example, if the affirmative interpretation allows 5 more cases than the negative interpretation, I would have a hard time voting negative on such a small implication. Limits is the standard that should be in the 2NR, because it is the internal link to all other impacts in terms of topicality. Topicality is never genocide, but more nuanced arguments of why fairness is undercut by structural issues seems more persuasive to me.

Theory - The way I judge theory is different than topicality, namely because I do not evaluate them in the same framework. I feel theory should generally never be evaluated in a strict offense defense paradigm. That being said, I have a few strong dispositions that will make some theory arguments hard to overcome. I would encourage teams to go for theory against consult counterplans, but this doesn't mean that you are guaranteed to win. conditionality and dispositionality are the same thing and are both good. Multiple conditional words are good unless they are used to force contradictions and double binds than can be strategically be conceded by the negative to supercharge arguments on other flows (if this is done in a debate round, and you go for theory you have made a good decision in front of me). 2NC counterplans/amendments are fine and they are never bad when answering an add-on. PICs are great and encouraged because they show that a team has done their research. Theory arguements other than conditionality are never a reason to vote a team down, therefore reject the argument not the team is assumed. Generally I find that counterplans are legitimate if they have a specific solvency advocate, however if counterplans do not have a solvency advocate that does not make them illegitimate.

Disads - My ideal debate would be a specific disad with great case arguments. A disad should have a logical chain of causations, the more specific the link the better. Impact calculus is absolutely necessary. The timeframe, probability, and magnitude is not what i really like to hear. Give me reasons to prefer probability over magnitude, or why the disad turns the case __before__ the case turns the disad. I love the politics disad, especially if it is really developed in the block, but at the same time people get away with reading politics (and other disads) that make zero sense and may not even be on the agenda, in this situations a 2AR that spends a few minutes "making fun" of the disad and its evidence can be extremely effective. Disads are to be judged in an offense/defense paradigm, for there is no other way to judge them, but that doesn't mean that defensive arguments are not worth making. Some of the best 2ARs include a few strong defensive arguments against the disad and reasons why the case outweighs the low risk of the disad.

Counterplans - Not much to say about them. If written well they can be your best friends. See theory for details.

Kritiks - I don't spend my free time reading Being and Time, but I do have some understanding of kritiks. The negative team needs a clear story of their link/impact and their alternative. Specific quotes and links from the 1AC will get you very far. Too often am I forced to vote on a kritik, because of a slight concession by the affirmative. Affirmatives should not let negatives slide with vague links and even vaguer alternatives. Honestly, I feel link ethos serves a much larger purpose when going for the kritik than other argument. Affirmatives who win that the alternative does not solve the link to the kritik or the advantages will have a much better position of winning the debate.

Performance - I have only judged a few of these, and I find that the other team has a much better change to win when they engage the performance as opposed to going for framework. Not to say that you cannot win going for framework (I have voted for it a few times), but I think that engaging the affirmative/negative will make for a more educational debate and more enjoyable for me to judge. I don't have much of a predisposed notion for against these arguements, but I do think as an affirmative strategy you will have a much easier time defending against framework if you are tied to the topic, otherwise many of the negative's limits claims seem more persuasive.

Speaker Points - I generally average a 27.5, and I have only given a 29 once and I dont plan to give too many more. Generally you will get higher speaker points, if you ask good questions in cross-x, work well with your partner, make comparative analysis in the later rebuttal, and if you do well against what I think is another good team. If you are caught clipping cards, I will ask you to re-read you speech with someone watching if I feel like you were clipping cards, you will lose and be awarded 20s. I will ask the accusing team if they want this process to happen and if I feel that you were not clipping cards the accusing team will lose and be awarded 20s.