Vakkalagadda,+Chetan

I debated for four years at The Harker School and graduated in 2009. I spent most of my debate career on the national circuit, and I currently attend Washington University in St. Louis.

Generally, I’ll listen to any argument you give me; however, they need to be full arguments, with a very distinct claim, warrant, and impact. Each of these needs to be made fully clear the first time you make the argument (except for the impact, where the argument can be extrapolated upon in later speeches).

SPEED/PRESENTATION: Speed’s fine; lack of clarity is not. I will yell “clear” if I don’t understand you. Also, please slow down when reading author names or tags and at key points in your case, such as when stating your value criterion. On a presentation level, please be polite and respectful. Even if your argumentation is amazing and you don’t do any of the bad things I caution against below, you are not going to get above a 25 if you are a jerk to me or to your opponent.

FRAMEWORK: I am most familiar with the value-criterion model, since it is what I typically used when debating in high school. If this is what you’d like to use, then please weigh your arguments in terms of both standards. Debaters who do that will probably get good speaker points from me.

If you would like to use some other form of framework, go ahead. At the end of the day, I just need a clear decision calculus through which I can weigh arguments; messy framework debates mean unclear rounds, resulting in low speaks for both debaters.

ROUND VIEW: I default to a comparative model of evaluating the round, mostly because I feel that many arguments made under the truth-testing paradigm overwhelmingly skew the debate towards the neg. That doesn’t mean I won’t listen to arguments that utilize a truth-testing model; however, you will need to spend some good time justifying why I should use it over merely comparing the aff and neg.

A PRIORIS: Except for theory, if you want an argument to come before the agreed standards for the round, then just calling it “pre-standards” isn’t going to cut it for me. You need to do good work explaining why the argument is pre-standards. I’ll do my best to intervene as little as possible throughout the round, but if you don’t explain why the argument actually comes before the substantive aspects of the round, then even if your opponent drops the argument entirely, I’ll still evaluate it through the standard. That includes vacuous arguments about grammatical terms in the resolution. Also, I’m not a fan of generic, non topic-specific a priori arguments; I’ll vote for one if its dropped, but a mediocre answer will probably be enough to render it irrelevant, and I won’t give you good speaks for running it.

THEORY: I probably have a much lower threshold for theory than most LD judges. If you feel like there’s an argument in your opponent’s case where a theory argument could conceivably be made, please do so in front of me; I like theory debates. I believe that theory comes before all other issues in the round, even arguments that are labeled as “pre-standard.” Accordingly, if you are faced with a theory argument, it is in your best interest to generate some offense on the theory flow, in addition to whatever defensive answers you employ.

In general, I will probably vote on theory if all four parts are extended cleanly or if there is very clear abuse. In either case, the violation has to at least tangentially link to your opponent’s argumentation. If you are running a generic theory shell as a time-suck and it’s dropped, then as long as you extend it, I’m obligated to vote for you, but don’t expect good speaks. In a similar vein, if you respond with theory to a blatantly abusive argument, my threshold for their responses to the shell is much higher than my threshold for your theory shell itself; I'm more likely to vote for you in that situation.

CRITICAL ARGUMENTS/Ks: Having done debate for four years, I am familiar with critical argumentation. However, I am not the most well-versed in critical literature. If you’d like to run a K, feel free, but be very clear as to the substance of your argument. If I don’t understand it, I won’t vote on it. Some general things about critical arguments run in front of me: 1) Please explain the framework of the K very clearly. In particular, if you don’t tell me how your opponent links into the K, I won’t vote on it, regardless of whatever impacts it may have. 2) Please provide some sort of alternative so I can compare your position with your opponent’s. An alternative that says to vote aff/neg isn’t an alternative. If you aren’t giving me an alternative to the K, then, as explained above, please spend some good time explaining why I should look at a truth-testing paradigm.

OTHER ARGUMENTS: I don’t really have an opinion on other arguments like discourse, narratives, performance, etc., because I am honestly not very familiar with them. If you’re going to run them, go ahead, but don’t go top-speed while reading, and be very clear on your warrants and impacts. I’ll evaluate your argument based on what I can flow; if it’s unclear, I won’t vote on it.

If you have any further questions, feel free to email me at chetanv09@gmail.com. Have fun and good luck!