Muppaneni,+Venkatesh


 * Georgia Tech 2020**
 * The Woodlands College Park 2016**
 * Conflicts: Knox Junior High (TX), The Woodlands College Park (TX)**
 * Last Updated: 12/15/17**


 * For Strake Jesuit (2017):**

I haven't judged a round since Barkley Forum (2017) so especially if it's early on in the tournament, SLOW DOWN. That also means my understanding of the topic may not be as deep as yours, so adjust accordingly.

If you're reading theory or really any argument with tons of analytics, SLOW DOWN. My flowing probably has gotten significantly worse in the past seven months.

If you're flashing and/or starting an email chain, I'd prefer to be a part of that information exchange (venkmupp@gmail.com).

Good luck and have fun!


 * Paradigm (updated 12/15/17):**

I view debate as a game, but one with meaning to so many people, so while I won't impose my conception of debate onto the rounds I judge, I don't appreciate strategies that trivialize the activity.

That being said, here are some things that might help you when you're deciding how to pref me. Nothing below is set in stone (they're just statements of my views on debate as of right now); I'll try to decide based solely on the arguments presented in a round. I'll say upfront that some degree of intervention is inevitable. For example, I won't hesitate to drop debaters that make clearly offensive arguments (if you even have to ask yourself if your argument would be okay, don't read it). Other than that, here are some of my thoughts:

Debate is best when debaters read what they're best at. Don't be afraid to read arguments you think I won't like - I'm only there decide who won a round.

I won't pretend that I'm good at flowing, so you'll probably have to go a bit slower than you want. I won't hesitate to say clear or slow, but after a couple of times, it will start to affect speaker points. Please slow down for tags/texts/theory/T.

Speaker points are a combination of your argumentative clarity, persuasiveness, and strategic choices. I don't have an established metric yet, but I don't give out 30s easily. At the same time, I understand how important speaker points can be, so I'll try to adjust my average to tournament standards.

I enjoy great evidence (comparison), weighing, powerful cross-examination, and direct argument interaction.

I don't enjoy unnecessary theory, strategies rooted in argument avoidance, skepticism triggers, permissibility, presumption, etc.

While the above two statements are generally true, that doesn't mean I'll never vote on arguments I don't enjoy. I just probably have a higher threshold for voting on them than some.

I tend to err with the negative on framework against non-topical K affirmatives more often than not. That doesn't mean the affirmative can't win that debate, but it does mean you need a specific counter-interpretation with clear net benefits that outweigh the negative impacts.

In LARP rounds, I will presume negative if I have to unless a counterplan is read (in which case I presume towards the option with least change from the status quo). That being said, don't count on presumption as your way of getting out of poor strategic choices.

Both debaters should have access to each other's cases during a round. Whether that's through flashing, email chains, or paper copies is irrelevant to me.

Disclosure is important. That being said, any theory arguments (like disclosure theory) that rely on out-of-round violations require verifiable evidence.

Evidence ethics is important. If an accusation (i.e. clipping cards) occurs, the round stops to verify the claim, but unless the accuser has definitive evidence (i.e. an audio recording), I'll likely side with the accused unless the violation is obvious.

If you have any more questions, please ask me before the round.

Good luck!