Chippada,+Preetham

I debated LD for Lexington High School for four years and graduated in 2015. I qualified to the TOC twice and now coach Walt Whitman (MD).

I believe tab judges are an urban legend. I certainly have preferences that make me more susceptible to vote for specific arguments but I will be as upfront about them as possible.

General Preferences: Speed is fine as long as you are clear. I will say clear as many times as necessary but I will get frustrated if you don’t slow down and make an actual effort to be clear. Don’t start your speech at full speed because it takes me a solid 15 seconds to get used to your voice and be able to understand your spreading.

I am very comfortable not voting for an argument because I could not understand it in the first speech even if it is crystal clear in your final speech.


 * If you are going to flash a document, prep time stops when you take the flash drive out of your computer. If you want to email a document, prep time stops when you save the document. Flash/email only one document. Don't save documents onto the flash drive, compile speech docs, or pull up files outside of prep time.**

I went mostly for policy-type arguments in high school so I believe they are the debates that I am best at evaluating. I enjoy in-depth plan debates. Impact calculus is essential if you want to win my ballot in a debate like this.

I am not the most well-read judge for a lot of philosophical debates. That said, I think that I can understand most frameworks as long as you present them clearly. Framework debates have to be comparative so don't just make arguments in a vacuum - weigh warrants for your standards against theirs.

I enjoy good theory debates, but I think most of the theory debates I have ever seen are a form of argument avoidance. A lot of generic shells frustrate and bore me. I really like T, especially when you actually read evidence to support the standards. I don’t think textuality makes any sense as a voter on topicality because as long as both debaters have a definition, they both are textual. From there, topicality is a question of whose interpretation is best for fairness, education, or advocacy skills. I won’t vote off of an offensive counterinterpretation unless you provide an RVI or have standards that justify the offensive plank of the interpretation.

I like kritikal debates and encourage you to read Ks in front of me. I don’t care if your aff isn’t topical.

Defaults: In the absence of any arguments otherwise, this is how I will evaluate debates. This, however, is not an indication of preferences. -Theory is an issue of reasonability. -Aff does not get an RVI on theory. -Theory is a reason to drop the argument. -I will evaluate debates through comparative worlds.

of arguments that I am not a fan of: Debate is centered on open discourse, so I am open to voting on arguments below. That said, I -Presumption -Skepticism -Meta-theory -AFC -Theory about case order (ethical frameworks first, role of the ballot first, etc.) -All neg theory arguments are counterinterps -Spikes that deny the neg CPs or Ks -Spikes that claim neg may only have one route to the ballot -Spikes that claim all aff theory should be evaluated before neg theory -Spikes that claim the neg must concede the aff role of the ballot -Spikes that claim the neg must have a countersolvency advocate or a link chain advocate -Spikes that claim debaters must weigh abuse against side bias -Most spikes tbh -Resumption -Wrong forum arguments -Polls affs -A prioris

Speaker points: Here are the things you can do to get higher speaks: -Provide a clear ballot story -Be respectful -Use all 3 minutes of CX asking questions. I’m okay with using prep time to continue CX, but I prefer that you don’t use CX time to prep. -2NR and 2AR overviews -Word economy -Proper prioritization of flows -Don’t read obviously frivolous theory.

Evidence ethics: The round stops when an accusation of evidence ethics is made. This includes card clipping and misrepresenting evidence. I will evaluate the accusation to the best of my ability. If I find that a debater has cheated they will be given a loss and zero speaker points. If a debater makes a false accusation, they will lose. I have not yet figured out what to do for speaks in that scenario.

Contact Info: If you have further questions, feel free to message me on Facebook or at preetham. chippada @ gmail. com (spaces removed)