Choudhury,+Anjan


 * Anjan Choudhury** has judged for more than 5 years now, and judges around or more 100 LD rounds a year.

=Lincoln-Douglas Debate Paradigm=

I debated on the Texas and national circuit, graduating in 1997. I have coached at Walt Whitman High School, Hockaday, and W.T. Woodson.

Ultimately, I have found that these things are somewhat trite in that most judges just want you to be "good" and then dress up "good" with words like "communicate effectively," "develop your argumentation," "impact your arguments in an understandable fashion," etc. I am no different. Do those things. Be good. Don't be bad.

So, that said - that I tend to prefer good debate over bad debate (how profound). Let me try to add some more specific contours to that statement: I have two very significant dispreferences (i.e. things that annoy me greatly):

(1) Do not be blippy, i.e. avoid "undeveloped, unwarranted, or assertive statements that are (1) non-responsive, (2) not developed, or (3) not impacted well in the context of the round."

(2) Do not be mean. I hate when people are rude. It is not exciting to me. It does not thrill me. It makes me uncomfortable. It makes me sad. And it makes me like you less. Do not be mean. Do not make personal attacks on students or coaches in your round.


 * The most important thing you need to know about debating in front of me is DECISION CALCULUS. I want debaters to outline and win the decision calculus in the round and then explain how that implicates the underlying arguments won in the round. I want to know which layer of argumentation I am looking to first and why. I want to know why the elevation of one layer means that I do not need to look at other layers and why. In other words, I want significant impact analyis. I want you to do the ballot work for me to the greatest extent possible.**

Within the constraint that I care about the decision calculus, I have been willing to and have voted on every structure of argument (stock, K, DA, CP, theory, etc.). I care most about why an argument matters to my ballot.

I do not have a speed preference besides the general (1) it would be helpful for you to slow down on author names and tags; (2) clarity is crucially important whether you are fast or slow; and (3) if you are slow (and clear), it is more likely I will have a greater understanding of what you are saying.

In sum, just be good. Be brilliant. Be fun. Be nice. This is your experience. Feel free to ask specific questions before the round.


 * FOR TOC 2010. UPDATED 4/2010:**

Since this is my paradigm, I am just throwing it out there that I would really prefer not to hear disclosure theory arguments. While I am hesitant to blatantly refuse to vote on them, it is not something I have any particular interest in hearing in a round and I find myself uncomfortable with the position that such arguments put opponents in. I don't think that anyone should have to defend themselves against personal attacks on their coaches. If you run them, expect low speaks at a minimum and you should expect a very high threshold to get my ballot on this argument.