Singh,+Yatesh

Updated on April 22nd, 2015

Background: I competed for four years at Brookings High School in Brookings, SD in Policy Debate. I coached Policy at Henry Sibley High School in West St. Paul for three years. I coached LD at Lakeville North High School in Lakeville, MN previously, but my focus for the past four years has primarily been Extemp Speaking, Original Oratory, and a little Congressional Debate. I still tab a few debate tournaments each year, but it's been a few years since I've judged a round of debate. Still, if you have me in the back of the room, my paradigm as listed below from August 2010 is still applicable.

First and foremost, please provide a decision calculus outlining the order in which arguments are evaluated and weighed. This provides me better insight to how your arguments compete with your opponent’s and ensures my decision will be far more predictable to you.

If I have the choice between one well-developed and -executed strategy to several generic, under-developed positions, I strongly prefer the former regardless of its format (e.g. straight-turning the AC, a critique, etc). A single focused strategy typically involves far more substantive analysis and impacted arguments. The more impacted, responsive, and specific your arguments are in comparison to your opponent’s, the more likely I am to vote for you.

 Generally, I consider theory important to limit the scope of arguments that can be presented. It makes more sense in Policy by excluding some types of CounterPlans, interpretations of a resolution, etc, but I'll evaluate it in LD if there's a ground inequity that can not be overcome by better preparation and/or execution. If it's a cheap shot, I'll nuke your speaks. I'm also open to RVI's if a theory position appears to be nothing more than a time-suck.

 Although disclosure still appears to be a unique feature of Policy debate, and I don’t expect it in LD, I expect competitors to allow their opponents to read and review any arguments presented in the round. If this time is utilized effectively, the round will feature more responsive arguments and better clash.

I prefer faster paced debates to slower ones, but like other judges, clarity remains critical to me keeping an accurate flow. I’ll likely give one or two verbal warnings, but you should keep an eye on me to ensure I’m keeping up with you and adjust accordingly if I’m not.

 Last but certainly not least, be respectful to me and to your opponents. If I feel either your actions or arguments are offensive or unethical, I will nuke your speaks and provide the reason(s) on the ballot. If you have any additional questions, please find me at the tournament.