Joshi,+Murali

***** CPS 2013 Update: I haven't done anything debate related since a year-ago. To put that into context, I probably can't flow as fast, and keep up with the new "LD trends". It would be in your favor to understand my general preferences below, and see if your style of argumentation best aligns with that prior to making your prefs.

Since you should have read of this update, keep this in mind during the RFD: "__Most importantly__, I never believed even as a debater in “judge-screws” or anything of that such. The onus is //**always**// on the debater to adapt to the judge. There are always bad decisions, but every great debater should know how to adapt to the circumstance. "

*******

Muralikrishna (Murali) Joshi

University of Southern California 16' Assistant Coach at The Harker School

Conflicts: Harker, Meadows(Voices 2012)

Last Updated: 4/13/13

NDCA Update: I haven't flowed in quite a while. I'm probably better at evaluating the util substance debate, and the theory debate than anything else. Continue reading too!

I was very active as a debater in high school. I debated nationally in LD for 4 years at Harker in San Jose, CA. I consistently broke and reached late outrounds at multiple tournaments, broke at NDCA, and debated several bid rounds as well as beat a fair share of TOC-qualified debaters.
 * Experience: **

At the end of the round, I will disclose my decision, unless otherwise stated by the tournament. __**I will not disclose speaks**__, unless I feel I personally would like to, trust me you have better things to be worrying about. __Most importantly__, I never believed even as a debater in “judge-screws” or anything of that such. The onus is //**always**// on the debater to adapt to the judge. There are always bad decisions, but every great debater should know how to adapt to the circumstance.
 * One thing you should know about my judging philosophy: **

__**"Walking to your round" Version **__

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Establish any framework. Link your offense to it. Compare & Weigh. Make my life easy! I'm good with any argument because I have probably ran it previously myself. Theory, Ks, Plans, CPs, DAs, Paragraph Overview, Misc. "Offs", K Affs, etc. = Good. I like a good CX. Entertain me.

__**<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">"I'm in Flight B" Version **__

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Having debated mainly on the national circuit for most of my high school LD career, I’m pretty comfortable with speed. However, speed should never affect clarity. That being said, I will shout, “clear” or “slow down”, a few times, whichever one seems appropriate. If I say “clear”, I would advise slowing down as well since you should be focusing more on clarity. I will not vote for arguments I don’t have on my flow, so be sure to look up and see my face.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Speed: **

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">***SLOW DOWN/Make it obvious* on Tags and Author Names** rather than reading at the same speed you read evidence.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">**Frameworks**: <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">I default to a competing worlds framework, but that being said I see many merits for truth testing as well. Whoever wins/establishes which one is more important will determine how I judge the round. Frameworks are very important to me because they help me establish a mechanism in order to adjudicate the round. If you are not going for one of the most conventional methods, be sure to establish how I should base my decision calculus.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">I really enjoy reading and rewarding really good evidence. In fact, I don’t see as much __warranted and flushed-out evidence comparison__ between debaters. I feel what separates the good from the great debaters are those that are able to do this with efficiency and quality.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Warrants, Evidence and Extensions: **

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">It’s important to __extend arguments articulately__ with full warrants, especially if that it’s a critical link chain in order to garner offense. Given the time constraints in the 1AR and 2AR, I feel naturally a more lenient to affirmative debaters who are unable to flush out a completely warranted extension. That being said, any argument that is completely conceded doesn’t require much. For example, just the author name & tag is fine for conceded extensions.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Extensions are quite useless without being able to explain the purpose and function of extending an argument in the first place. It’s always a great way to make a convincing and easy ballot story for me to explain the implications of your extensions.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">It's very important to have a critical impact calculus regardless of what sort of framework you are running. Especially while running util, I would strongly advise having some sort of weighing analysis when there are multiple impact scenario in addition to comparing strength of internal link chains. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Also, I feel like most judges, I always prefer to hear a very clear ballot story comparing the offense/defense or arguments hashed out.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Impact Calculus & Ballot Story: **

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">I enjoy GOOD theory debate. But, there is a common trend in LD to run really unnecessary & atrocious theory without any good reason. I prefer theory to be in the classic four-pointed shell with strong internal links. My threshold for responses to theory is contingent upon the quality of the shell that you ran. I default to competing interpretations over reasonability unless otherwise justified. I’m totally cool with RVIs, but think RVI’s should be developed rather than a quick sentence.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Theory/Topicality: **

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Topicality is different from theory. I think its quite silly how they are often misconstrued and confused. I will be pretty impressed to see you bust out a really sick T Shell that is well-warranted, logically coherent, and is appropriate for the AC.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">I'm cool with any voters: fairness, education, jurisdiction...or whatever the new trend is nowadays. Just be sure to actually warrant it and not just say "Fairness is a voter", and expect me to be satisfied with that.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">"Meta-Theory": I strongly would discourage debaters to run separate meta-theory shells as independent voters over other theory shells. I default all impacts to meta-theory shells to be just a metric/rule for which I evaluate theory. The reason I discourage meta-theory as independent voters is because I think it already makes a very confusing and muddled theory debaters hell of a lot harder to judge. If you do chose to run it as an independent voter, that is fine, but I won't be super pleased by any means.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Warning: If you read 100 mph theory blips in the 1AC, I will most likely not be able to flow them especially if they don't have a warrant. You're not doing yourself any favors by trying to be sketchy to another debater if its so well hidden that even I can't see it. Unlike other judges, I am comfortable with admitting I didn't have something on my flow. If it is something that important, maybe you shouldn't read it insanely fast in the first place or develop it better.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Defaults: Competing interpretations. Not a Reverse Voting Issues. Reject the Argument, not the debater. When nothing is said...like nothing; easily changed based on in-round arguments.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">__Kritiks & Dense Philosophy:__ To my knowledge, I think I have ran every single style of case possible throughout high school. That being said I am not 100% familiar with all dense critical literature. I am not completely foriegn to the idea of Language Ks, Racism K, CLKs K, Cap Ks, etc. Therefore, if you're going to be reading really dense philosophy/critical literature, you should probably be extremely clear, slow tags and go at a slightly toned down rate of speaking. If I don't understand it, it’s pretty simple that I won’t vote for it since the job is for you to explain the case. So....I am very open to Kritiks that I haven't heard of. I am also totally cool with pre/post fiat debates, and other nuances of the K debate. The more work you do for me when debating the K, ex. explaining perm double bind well, would make me very happy. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">I have seen that LDers generally are not doing a great job responding to Kritiks, or I have a higher threshold for a "good" response for K debaters who actually know what they are doing. For example, as I have seen multiple times, I feel just reading multiple "no link"/link defense arguments to a Kritik would not sufficiently respond to the fact that there is always a risk of a link; however, there are many scenarios where the link story is very obviously contestable. I would strongly advise perming, responding to framework/role of ballot, and turning the K to impress me/increases your chances of actually beating really good K debaters. This by no means invites everyone to automatically assume that I will vote for you if you run a K.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Case Positions: **

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">__Policy-Style Cases:__ I ran TONS of Plans, CPs, DAs, K Affs. I don't think TONS justifies it either. I do feel more comfortable and better suited to judge these debates then a framework heavy throw-down comparatively. I am a really big fan of policy style arguments in LD in fact mainly ran plans on the affirmative throughout my junior and senior year. Even though I ran these positions, I will still be open to arguments that contest its theoretical legitimacy and by no means extremely biased to them. In fact, those who don't run Plans, CPs, DAs, K Affs properly will probably do you a greater disservice.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">__Unconventional Positions:__ I’m totally cool with anything that is run given that there is a clearly developed ballot story, claim, warrant, and impact. If you are going through this route through unconventional methods, reading blazing fast and not flushing out warrants will make me very mad and sad.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">I give speaker points that are merited not just for good speakers but debaters who exhibit a quality performance in the round through the use of weighing, impact calculus, extensions, clear ballot stories, refutation, strategic decisions, and being funny. Speaker points are also critical for pairing, seeding, and sometimes breaking at tournaments; hence I have based my scale on the tournament competitiveness and my perception on whether or not you deserve to break. If I give you 28 and above, I think you deserve to clear. The following arguments will get you 25 OR reduced speaks:
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Speaks: **

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">-Fairness is not important. If it wasn't, I don't think you would mind if I vote you down for no reason, right? <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">-Spike-heavy/blippy framework <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">-Super Sketchy Aprioris <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">-Asking my preference, and completely disregarding it <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">-Being super shady in Cross Ex and avoiding the question <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">-Lying in anyway, shape, or form. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">-Being a complete "meanie" in CX <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">-Using highly advanced strategies against someone who clearly isn't as experience as you. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">-8 off NC's. Come on, make at least a minutes worth of arguments on the AC instead of reading 8 theory shells. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">-Atrocious and terrible signposting where I literally have to throw my hands up, and sing "Kumbaya".

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">__**Please ask any specific questions before the round, and don't feel afraid of asking about specific case positions even in front of your opponent. It's only going to help you more than your opponent.**__