Chipalkatti,+Adit

I debated at Lexington High for 4 years, and am very familiar with the various arguments read in debate. However, I have not done much judging on this specific topic. As a judge, I try my best to be as unbiased as possible. I will vote on any argument if it is persuasively debated. I think its important for teams to go for the arguments they understand, enjoy and know the best, as this will be reflected in the quality of the debate.

Topicality/Theory-As a high school debater, I did not go for T very much. This doesn’t mean I will not vote on it. However, it is important for the negative to prove why an aff is un-topical, why that is bad for debate, and why that means they should lose. This is the same for theory. A team must prove why the other team has done something bad for debate, and why that means they should lose. It is important to prove that the other team would somehow ruin debate through their actions, or substantially devalue the activity.

K’s-I evaluate thes based on the alternative vs. the plan, what would be worse. This includes evaluating framework, and determining which impacts should be granted more weight. For a negative to win the K, it is important to focus on the specifics of the affirmative. The more the K is tailored to the specific aff, the more credible I find it and the more likely I am to vote on it. I generally believe that most common sense based arguments, with appropriate explanation, are pretty valid. It’s up to the negative to explain why these are not true.

DA’s-I evaluate these based on impact calculus: magnitude, probability and timeframe. All the various parts of the DA debate, in the end affect this. I think it is important to explain how different impacts interact etc. The more specific, and comparative your impact calculus is, the better. I used to read a lot of DA’s, and go for DA+CP a lot. That doesn’t mean I lean more towards this strategy, it means if read well, I may be happier at the end of the round. I try to be as fair during the round as possible. I will evaluate analysis etc. provided in the round over, me having to read evidence after the round. I wont vote on new arguments in the 2AR/2NR. When debating you should think about the round as a whole, and try and explain things very holistically. I do not want to have to connect the dots for a team because that can be unfair.

Speaker points are awarded to debaters who are clear, organized, prepared, respectful, confident, and intelligent. Speed is absolutely fine, however speakers should try their best to be as clear as possible. It is important to speak clearly, so I understand what you are saying, and organize your arguments well, so I can flow them. This will not only help you get better speaker points, but also it will increase the likelihood that all your superbly intelligent arguments will be evaluated properly. In my mind, a 27 is average; anything below that is below average, and anything above that is above average. A 30 is perfect, so getting one means you have to be, in my mind perfect, in all of the aforementioned categories.

If you have any questions I would be more than happy to answer them.