Chowdhury,+Ryhan

Hello, Ryhan Chowdhury here. Competed for Kempner in high school for 4 years, currently a student at Texas A&M University. Here’s how I judge:


 * Basic Overview**: In terms of just the debate sphere in general, I’ll vote off of whoever has the most weighted offense being extended towards the winning framework. This applies to a policy-esque debate or a traditional debate. Whether or not I’m okay with policy-esque arguments in LD, the answer is yes, BUT please for the love of God, do not use them when you’re debating someone who is clearly a novice or someone who clearly does not understand how that form of debate works. It is so uncomfortable to watch. If you proceed to debate like so, I probably won’t automatically down you, but there is no way in hell you’ll be leaving that round with any speaker points.


 * Speed**: There’s a difference between speaking fast and speaking clear. I won’t give you a 1-10 scale of how fast a person can speak while I can understand it because I never knew what that scale even meant. I’ll just yell clear about 3 times (which would not be good for your speaks if I ever have to yell it 3 times; it shouldn’t be more than once), and if you still don’t fix yourself up, I’ll just flow whatever I can hear. (Also realize that if I even had to yell clear at all, I’ve probably already missed something on the flow which is a big uh-oh for the debater). I’d also greatly appreciate it if you slowed on the tags and authors. It would help you a lot as the debater since as a judge, those are the most important things I flow. **(More so on the tags; as for authors, honestly more likely than not, I won’t even flow them. I’m sorry, I just never catch them. Debaters tend to speed through author names [and if they’re really foreign sounding, there’s no way I’ll be able to catch it anyway] so I’ve been conditioned to completely stop flowing author names. So if you say “Extend John Doe!”, make sure you tell me where on the flow John Doe is and what his significance was in the round because if you don’t, the name will mean nothing to me). If you’re the neg and you’re switching from one off case to another, make sure the transition is EVIDENT. Debaters always just spread through the transition, and I realize that I’m flowing on the same sheet of paper when I should have switched a long time ago. MAKE SURE THE TRANSITION IS CLEAR AND MAKE SURE YOU SIGNPOST. (IT IS DISADVANTAGEOUS FOR YOU AS THE DEBATER TO NOT DO SO, I DON’T KNOW WHY YOU WOULDN’T)**


 * CPs/Plans/Disads**: An argument is an argument. As long as they’re coherent and not morally repugnant (genocide is good; rape is inevitable [yes, this argument is a thing]; etc.), I am open to voting on it. PLEASE slow down when reading the plan/counterplan text.


 * Theory/T**: I’m extremely apathetic towards how theory and t is used in the round. Use it for a check for abuse or as a strategic tool, it really doesn’t matter to me. However, make sure you have standards and everything ready to go, and PLEASE slow down on the interps. I’m not a fan of theory/t being used as a way to whine when one doesn’t understand how to respond to an argument though. And if you’re going to call an opponent out on being abusive, make sure a well elaborated shell with standards and everything is read. Just screaming abuse over and over again will do nothing for me. I don’t really default to anything, but I guess if I had to choose one, it would be competing interpretations. If you’re going for reasonability, take a moment to explain what a reasonable interpretation is. I also err towards granting aff the RVIs and dropping the debater. **If you're going for an RVI, make sure you link it back to a specific counter interp. It'll make things easier for me to flow.**


 * Critical arguments**: I am not an intelligent man, but I don’t have a stigma against critical arguments. They should not be a problem as long as you’re coherent and moral. Slow down on the Role of the Ballot, make sure dense philosophy is being explained well, and don’t just spew a bunch of jargon at me. And as a rule of thumb, I do evaluate Role of the Ballot arguments BEFORE Theory/T.


 * Speaker points**: Default is a 28. The only way you can really work your way down from a 28 is if you’re incoherent or if you’re a jerk. Being a jerk will probably lead to a loss-25. Overall, speaker point distribution is rather arbitrary. Always has been. If you want to work your way up, I’d say coherence is the most important facet of the debate to maintain. A lot of judges say that being strategic is, but frankly, I don’t know what that even means.


 * Final notes**: Make sure you do whatever it takes to make sure I don’t have to intervene to reach my decision. Do all the weighing analysis for me, do all the extensions for me, blah blah blah. Because if you don’t, this’ll lead to unhappy debaters and a judge who really doesn't care about the validity of his/her decision. One more thing: I do not disclose or give oral critiques during prelims (and maybe not even outrounds) of local tournaments. I'm getting sick and tired of debaters crying and telling their coach on me. If debaters don't want my help, I'm not going to give it to you.