Reddy,+Samir

Debated for 4 years at Brophy College Prep. 3 on the national circuit.

If you read the rules and the bold, you shouldn't get surprised by anything.If you don't read the bold, you might be surprised when your strategy fails or you get low speaks.

Rule #1. When you are done winning then stop. They conceded topicality, reject the debater, and have no theory offense? Stop talking.

Rule #2. Pre-flow before the round or during your opponents prep. If you make me wait you will lose speaks. Quantity depending on my mood.

Generally speaking I judge like most other people. Non-interventionism is the objective of judging at the end of the day, so I try to do that.

That's usually all that everyone says, but I realize that I have certain bias, and it's better that you know it now so below are random notes that I will add to as I go about how I judge.

Computerized debate-my mandate is that you have to give a copy of your case to your opponent during cx and during prep. You don't HAVE to flash it to them during your speech, but if both debaters want to flash they can. Why do we even show up to the tournament location if flowing is just reading?

Speed-Go as fast as you want, but be more clear in front of me than you would be for other judges. I was always terrible at flowing (I am of the opinion that everyone overstates their flowing abilities), and I will only become worse when I have no competitive incentive to keep a good flow. I can probably get everything if you're going **80% of your top speed.** I won't be offended if you go 100%, but I view it as a poor strategy choice. Also, on panels you should go as slow as the slowest judge on the panel wants to hear.


 * Framework debate-it's comparative ** . ** You can't trigger presumption because there is defense on both frameworks ** . If there is conceded uncompared defense I will 1) try to see who has more offense to one framework or 2) just use the aff framework. Make good framework arguments!

Risk of offense vs presumption-Being from the west, I usually preferred to debate with the assumption that there is always risk of offense to the framework being won. As I've judged camp rounds I realized that I only believe this to an extent. First, **t****wo pieces of offense to the same framework that are not compared result in presumption**. Second, defensive responses to arguments can be either mitigatory or terminal. Unless you specify with a warrant why an argument is one or the other, I will interject my own opinion. I will usually err on the side of risk of offense in these situations, but my opinion usually depends on the framework that I am using. Deontology is more prone to terminal defense than utilitarian arguments.

Presumption-**I presume flip a coin. You are not allowed to argue who gets presumption**. This is your incentive to not try to trigger presumption.

Theory/topicality-I default competing interps and reject the arg. I meets are almost always terminal defense. You should argue spirit vs. text of the interp if it comes up. I'm not sure what I believe about that. **Fairness and Education are important**. **I will dock your speaks heavily if I have to waste time listening to a fairness or education voter.** Reject the arg vs reject the debater is debatable. I would really like for debaters to take ownership of their views on theory and not do things like read must read a plan and cant read a plan in different rounds at the same tournament. ** I WANT theory to be an issue of norm setting. ** Good evidence in T debates is cool. Soft guarantee that you will get 30 speaks if you win the meta-theory interp that your opponent has violated their own interp at the same tournament. You will likely need evidence of the violation. If you're clearly fishing for bullshit you won't get the 30.

Brief (actually somewhat long) rant about theory.

I have no idea how this activity sustains itself. Like unreasonable DA scenarios and speaking at 400 words per minute aside, I have no idea how I have convinced myself as a human being that the most valuable thing I can be doing with my time is listening to debaters talk about the intricate technical aspects of high-school debate using literally made up terms like NIBs and dispositionality. **If you are reading theory, you better be willing to marry your theory shell if I asked you to do so. You should impact your arguments on the theory level to a model of debate**. I literally don't care if theory doesn't actually change norms, or if reading theory for strategic purposes is good for critical thinking. If the best argument you have for why utilitarianism should be the ethical framework is that in the real world policymakers use util-please consider your life choices up to this point. Also, I think there is diminishing marginal utility in arguing about what is the most fair and most educational way to debate. Like if your interpretation is 5 units more educational, but we just spent 45 minutes talking about ground, I can safely say that those 5 units of education are long gone. If the thought that is in your head right now is that lawyers argue about the rules all the time I hate you. I know it's fun to think about theory; I know it's strategic, but I just can't.

Also, I suck at flowing theory. Here is a secret: When you are reading internal links from ground to fairness I sometimes just type random letters into my flow.

end rant
 * My new rule is-if you read theory when it is not necessary as deemed by me you cap yourself at 28.7 speaks, and if the tournament doesn't allow tenths I will round down to 28.5. **

I will not interject these opinions, but if you believe that some judges vote based on their subconscious beliefs here are my leanings on common theoretical issues.

disclosed plans o.k. (undisclosed ones bad) neg gets reciprocal fiat power multiple nibs and aprioris bad (There is a difference between a nib and a smart argument. For example, moral skepticism is not a nib under an offense/defense paradigm. it is terminal defense on the value. Under a truth testing paradigm it is a nib). Condo bad Cross x checks implementation depends on the topic (ask me) rvis bad (and bad strategy) triggers bad (although sometimes hilarious) ought=moral obligation miscutting ev./cheating bad (if you prove a severe violation of this you win) k alts must be implementable I am neutral on speed and can be convinced by a speed bad theory shell.

Tricks-I also thought I would be anti-trick, but Idk. Go for tricks at your own risk in front of me. It really depends on my mood. (Strategy advice: If your strat's effectiveness changes based on your judges mood then you shouldn't go for it).

Pre-fiat/micro-political/language ks-I'll vote for them, but I have to personally convinced that I should vote for you. You have to do more than win on the line by line. You don't need to spend a lot of time convincing me that racism/harassment/sexism/general bad things are bad. I need to be personally convinced of your role of the ballot story. I have heard only a few good arguments for the role of the ballot in these kinds of debates, and they have only happened in policy rounds, and the arguments were specific to the issue at hand ie: the judge should view the ballot as a tool that has historically been used to police black thought and refuse that is a more persuasive argument than "we are humans before we are debaters" or "vote for me so I can spread a message".

"morally reprehensible arguments"- I think things like moral skepticism and extinction good are just debate arguments and nothing more. Role of the ballot arguments can change my view of those things, but it will likely be very hard for me to view them as anything other than fictional discourse. I reserve the right to vote against people for any reason including the things they say, but I wouldn't count on this happening ever unless they make the room uncomfortable.

Regular ks-Make sure there is a framework or some measurement to decide why your impacts matter. People often say that post-modern philosophers uncover our intuitions and assumptions, but I quite often find that they make assumptions of their own.

Crossex-**I check out during crossex**. I try to pay attention, but it's just so hard. If you need me to pay attention to a concession snap at me and tell me you need me to pay attention and I'll perk up. You could also just be damn good at crossex, and I'll pay attention.

speaks-you get more if: You debate well; you do good weighing on parts of the debate that don't usually have good weighing (framework, non-utilitarian offens arguments, theory; you are funny; your strategy involves playing a rap song that I really like; __** You read original poetry with a background of soft jazz (This hasn't happned yet and I don't know why); **__ You say the word jabroni in a funny context. If it's not funny you lose speaks. If you anger me for any reason you get single digit speaker points. Specific number depends on my mood.

personal stuff

I don't really care if you argue with me, but if your coach does then it will probably alter my perception of you as a debater in the future.