Sadagopal,+Rohan

Name: Rohan Sadagopal Affiliation: Minneapolis South/University of Minnesota Conflicts: Edina High School

TL:DR - I'm fine with most things. Go slower if you're not super clear in card text (you probably aren't clear enough). I'm a questionable judge for framework. If you want to know general thoughts about debate, they're organized under random thoughts in order of recency. If you want to read a philosophy more conventionally organized, it's at the bottom.

I'm a total debate nerd, and am always happy to talk about all sorts of debate theory/history/randomness. You should always feel welcome to email/message me/find me at a tournament if you want to talk about a round or debate. I think this document is entirely irrelevant to my judging, but some people asked to see it - [|Judging Stats]

My old judging philosophy wasn't really useful, because it was a lot of my thoughts on debate and not reflective of how I end up evaluating the debate. Judging is often subjective, and too often, the questions of how I should evaluate certain arguments, or the round as a whole, aren't addressed. I've tried to provide random thoughts below that might help illustrate how I evaluate a debate when these issues aren't questioned.

=Random Thoughts=

2015
- I'm told I look grumpy/mad when I judge a lot. I promise I'm not. Same thing for if I'm yawning, I do it a lot, it's not because I'm bored. I'm probably just tired. - I like to get the speech docs when they're jumped, primarily for the purpose of cross-x. I don't read along/still am fairly unlikely to read many cards in relation to my decision.

2014
- Despite my area of experience, I'm honestly not a great judge for framework based on my track record. In framework debates, I tend to vote Neg when the Aff fails to adequately answer arguments related to limits. I tend to vote Aff when the Neg does not adequately answer arguments about the harms of the Affirmative. I especially find myself voting Aff when I find myself unable to answer the question of what the world of framework does to address the harms or when the Aff wins a question of who particular standards benefit. - slow down. - no really, slow down. in order to incentivize this, I am severely limiting my reading of evidence after the debate, and as much as possible will be replacing this by flowing/listening more closely to evidence text when it is initially read. - I still think of debate as a game (not just a game), though I may understand that statement/how it functions different from many. I think it's an educational game, and the way the game is played matters. How this changes things, I'll leave up to you. It's also definitely not [|practice] - Judge kick things - Unless the 2NR tells me to, I won't revert to the status quo for the negative team. The exception to that is if I reject the counterplan but not the team, I will evaluate the remainder of the debate vs. whatever is left (probably the status quo). I am not likely to be persuaded by new 2AR theory arguments about the 2NR going for multiple worlds unless the Neg at some point - I mostly flow on my laptop. I sometimes flow on paper. How I flow the round varies greatly based on which method I'm using. When flowing on computer, I tend to write down far more, at times basically transcribing the speech. When I flow on paper I am far more selective with what I write down, recording arguments as I understand them and based on what I perceive as key warrants as opposed to the exact words used. As a result, clarity/coherence of argument becomes even more important to my ability to flow when I'm on paper. - This is especially true if I'm on paper, but there are limits to how fast I can write/type. I'm pretty happy with how fast I can type, but your top reading speed is almost certainly faster than how fast I can type. This is especially true with rapid analytical arguments such as theory or arguments arranged via numerical or alphabetical substructure. Frontloading your arguments helps me out - The phrase "Perm do the counterplan/alt" means very little to me without more explanation. In several debates, the 2AC has said these 4 words, the block has dropped it, and I still haven't voted on it because it made no sense/isn't an argument by itself.

2013
- I have judged very few debates on this topic. I have been debating in college and coaching a high school team so I am not completely out of the loop, but on Solvency/T questions, you should be wary of assuming I know what you're talking about.

2012
- I think I judge the K differently from when I first started judging. A lot of this has to do with the lack of specificity. I <3 specificity in any debate. I enjoy a good K debate, one of the best debates I judged on the Military Presence topic was a debate where the Neg just went for Security, read specific links to each advantage, and explained how the Aff impacts just weren't true. If you can't make your K specific to at least some part of the Aff, please don't run/go for it. I love specificity, and it just doesn't happen often enough in these debates. A good K debate where you are explaining why the K means the Aff doesn't get their advantages is awesome, and definitely better than a mediocre disad and CP/Case debate, but I find the mediocre K debates I judge just awful and will likely vote Aff on Aff arguments about specificity and analytic defense vs the alt if the Aff is smart. Extending/using case arguments in the 2NR when going for the K is not done nearly enough. - If the tournament doesn't explicitly prohibit it, I'm cool with you being on the internet during round, mostly because I think it's the least enforceable rule ever. I definitely think you shouldn't be talking to coaches/people outside the round and getting help, but partner communication over email/chat is fine. I also find that emailing speeches instead of jumping is faster and safer virus wise. - I default to reject the argument not the team - the reason something is bad is a reason why that argument is bad, not why I should vote for you. It is possible for me to vote on theory not related to status (conditionality/dispo), but the burden is on you to provide a reason why rejecting just the argument is insufficient, and why rejecting the team is necessary - If you are marking cards, you need to say "marked". I'll probably write down the last word I heard you say before that. Failure to declare during your speech that you marked a card will hurt your points - Just because a team I coach runs an argument doesn't mean I think that argument is __**true**__ - I find that I am reading less evidence lately. I think research is very important and one of the most important skills to take out of the activity, but it also matters how you use it. Even when I end up reading evidence, I find that it ends up often not affecting my decision. I think good evidence greatly helps an argument, but I default to the debating that is done in the round. Sometimes I just find it extremely difficult to resolve a debate without evaluating competing evidence, but I try and avoid this. If you want my reading of evidence to matter, make evidence comparisons/indicts. The evidence many teams read is atrocious, but I don't feel like it is my responsibility to determine that. Make these comparisons and your odds of winning go up, as will your speaker points. - My judging record has been somewhat Aff leaning this year. I'm not entirely positive why this is, but my best guess is that it's partly because the average 1AC scenario is better constructed than the average disadvantage, partly because 2NRs fail to provide a method/basis on which I should evaluate the debate (often times this is a question of impact evaluation, but not always). I think this is lacking in most 1ARs and even in many 2ARs, but the 2NR failure to debate this makes it more likely the 2AR gets leeway on providing this framing - One factor that does help offset this bias is that I tend to hold the 1AR to a higher standard than most judges. Impact calculus and important framing issues should probably be started in the 1AR. The burden for how in depth a 1AR argument needs to be is often going to be determined by the depth/warrants of the corresponding Neg block argument. If the 2NC is going deeper on a given issue, the 1AR probably needs to give more warranted analysis than they might otherwise.

2011
- Saying something is a d-rule without a warrant is not going to make me vote on it just because it's a d-rule. In order to win your "d-rule", you need to actually give me a reason why I should prefer it over the utilitarian calculus I would normally default to when evaluating impacts - From a truth standpoint, I think 1 CP + 1 K (test in/test out) is fair. Obviously I can be convinced otherwise, but this just seems to solve a lot of both sides offense while still giving the Neg some flexibility. I've always felt theory debates are a bit more subjective than other issues, and this might be an argument I am slightly more persuaded by than the average judge.

= = I'm willing to experiment with alt use time if it doesn't contradict other tournament rules and **__both__** teams agree. For national/regional tournaments that don't specify prep time, that will mean 14 minutes of "alt use" time. If a tournament specifies prep time, just add 6 minutes to that. You (both teams) should be sure to tell me before the debate if you want to do this


 * Edit:** The "alt use" section probably should have been clearer. You would receive the 14 minutes, but there would not be the normal cross-x times. Instead, after constructives, you can cross-x someone for as long as you have available out of your 14 minutes. If either team has any reservations about using this, you should feel completely free to veto it.

=Actual Philosophy= I think about debate a lot, and I have been thinking about what I wanted my judge philosophy to say recently. I wrote the part below recently and I think it should give you some insight into how I will evaluate the round. I often end up skipping right to what I consider the nexus point of the debate, so please do ask me questions afterwards if you think I ignored something or are confused. I also put my email on my ballots, so please do email me if you want to discuss the round.

There are a couple things that might be helpful to know before you debate in front of me 1. I am kind of obsessed with debate. And sports. People who know me love to make jokes about how I have packets memorized and how I know peoples debate careers better than they do. I enjoy thinking about things like sports and debate from a strategy perspective (see number 2), and I just have a weird desire to know things. I'm not really sure what that means for you debating in front of me, I might be more likely to get/enjoy obscure debate references, though if I don't get it I'll probably just think you're weird. 2. I still think of debate as a game to some extent, though I may understand that statement different from some. I think it's an educational game, and the way the game is played matters. How this changes things, I'll leave up to you. 3. **October 2014 Edit** Despite my area of experience, I'm honestly not a great judge for framework based on my track record, likely because Neg teams fail to properly engage the arguments made in the 1AC. In framework debates, I tend to vote Neg when the Aff fails to adequately answer arguments related to limits. I tend to vote Aff when the Neg does not adequately answer arguments about the harms of the Affirmative. I especially find myself voting Aff when I find myself unable to answer the question of what the world of framework does to address the harms or when the Aff wins a question of who particular standards benefit. 4. I generally think that framework debates when the Neg reads a K are about the wrong thing. It's very unlikely I'm going to decide that one team doesn't get their impacts on the grounds of fairness or education. I believe the better debate should be about impact framing, and reading evidence about reasons to prioritize certain impacts or not evaluate certain impacts. Now, this doesn't mean reading "method outweighs" means the Aff doesn't get their impacts, It just means I should evaluate their method as a prior question - it's up to you to prove that their method is flawed, and that that implicates whatever solvency/impact claims they make 5. Impact analysis. I'm a hack for it. I often see 2NCs doing it and then it getting lost in the 2NR, and 2ARs going heavy on these questions when there are very little in the 1AR. I think these questions from the Aff side should start as early as the 2AC, but probably need to be in the 1AR. I've given 2ARs impact analysis that was just not in the 1AR before, but that often is a result of the negative not making any comparative impact claims, or the 2NR impact comparisons being new. 6. I flow pretty well, I use my computer and I can type pretty fast, so speed is normally not an issue, though clarity might be. I will yell clear once if needed. I am fine with time-saving measures like saying "9" instead of "09" or "2009", or tagging cards simply as "Extinction" for impacts where it makes sense. I am/was slow and can appreciate measures designed to increase speed and efficiency. That's also all I would probably flow of the tag anyways 7. **October 2011 Edit:** Still enjoy impact turns, but overall strategy outweighs, and this part of my philosophy was resulting in some silly decisions to impact turn in bad ways. It's probably more accurate to say "I like bold strategic decisions" than just "I like impact turns". These kind of things tend to get rewarded in speaker points, assuming they are a good decision. 8. My speaker point scale is fairly average. An average speech is a 27.5, a good speech is a 28. If I think you should be getting a speaker award or something close, you're probably a 28.5. If I think you should be a top 5 speaker, you've got a 29.