Malladi,+Chaitanya(Chatt)

Chaitanya (Chat) Malladi California Institute of Technology, Class of 2016

Assistant Coach at the Harker School Conflicts: Harker Last Update: January 3, 2013

=**SHORT VERSION: **=

I listen to any and every argument so long as it is impacted so some sort of framework. I like weighing. I am more comfortable adjudicating util (plan, CP, disads, kritiks) and theory/topicality debates than blippy framework debates.

=LONG VERSION: =

Experience:
I was quite active in high school debate, especially in my last two years. I received a bid to the TOC my junior year and debated in several bid rounds my senior year. I debated for Harker.

Basic Idea:
I don’t have any biases against any arguments. Just have a clear framework (clear is important; I’m not a fan of frameworks that tend to sketchily exclude strategic pieces of offense in the next speech) and link offense to that framework. The same applies for Kritiks, weird off-cases, etc… I am willing to listen to anything as long as it has a framework or some way to leverage the offense against your opponent’s offense. Side note: I ran plans, counterplans, disads, kritiks mostly when I debated, so I will be very comfortable judging such debates. However, this doesn’t mean you shouldn’t run philosophical arguments in front of me because I enjoy those debates as well; I will just require a good level of explanation when explaining argument interaction because often times this clash is hard to understand. Cross-ex is an important time of the debate. Use it to your advantage.

Speed:
I’m fine with any speed. I will say clear if you need to be clearer. Of course, try to slow down for author names.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande',tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif;">Frameworks:
<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande',tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif;">I default to competing worlds because this paradigm provides for the best debates with the most argument interaction as opposed to preclusion and running away from debates. That being said, if a debater justifies and wins a truth-testing paradigm, I will evaluate the round accordingly.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande',tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif;">Warrants:
<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande',tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif;">My standard for warrant extension is pretty low. I think you should just have to extend enough for the argument and some sort of justification to be clear to me (especially if the argument was conceded). I’d rather see a good debate with lots of argument comparison than a 1AR filled with 2 minutes of extensions.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande',tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif;">Weighing:
<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande',tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif;">Do it. Regardless of what framework you run, there should be some sort of weighing analysis. Absent this, I will have to intervene and weigh myself, which may make you unhappy about the decision.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande',tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif;">Theory/Topicality:
<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande',tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif;">I’m more comfortable resolving theory or topicality debates than in-depth philosophical debates with poor explanations of arguments (this tends to happen a lot). <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande',tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif;">I ran a lot of theory when I debated, so I can adjudicate these debates pretty well. Don’t hesitate to run theory in front of me as a strategic tool (debate’s a game, right?) <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande',tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif;">If you don’t read an implication for theory (Reject arg or reject debater), I will assume that the argument basically has no impact. It’s just like not weighing/not reading a framework but having a whole bunch of offense. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande',tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif;">I default to competing interps, but if you want to argue reasonability, go for it. If you win it, I will adjudicate accordingly.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande',tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif;">Speaker Points:
<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande',tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif;">I’ll give speaks depending on your execution of strategy, CX, and collapsing in the last speech. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande',tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif;">Here are things you will lose speaks for:

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande',tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif;">Blippy responses/arguments

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande',tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif;">1AC with A LOT of spikes

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande',tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif;">Changing arguments from the constructive to later speeches

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande',tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif;">Lying

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande',tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif;">No signposting <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande',tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif;">Other than that, it’s your debate. Have fun.