Reddy,+Chetan

I graduated from Plano West Senior High School in 2017. I debated competitively for four years, competing primarily in PF, extemp, and LD. **GENERAL:** Tech over truth, but there's a line. Warrant your arguments well. Don't read blatantly false arguments for the purpose of dumping cards on the flow. Don't read arguments that attempt to bring merit to homophobia, racism, sexism, etc. If there any other questions you may have that aren't covered below, please feel free to ask me before the round starts. **Organization:** Organization in your speeches can make a huge difference in how I'm able to judge you. If you can number your responses, refer to evidence by name, and generally signpost well, you are far more likely to exit the round with a win and/or high speaks. **Speed:** As long as you're clear, you should be fine. That being said, I tend to enjoy debates that don't delve into the insane speeds seen in other forms of debate. If I'm unable to write something down, I won't vote off of it, so slow down for anything important that you definitely want me to have on my flow. I will not intervene by saying "clear" or putting my pen down to let you know I can't understand you. Make sure you're regulating your own speed and clarity. **Evidence:** I generally will not intervene in debates based on evidence unless a claim is especially egregious or if the other team questions the validity of the card. I will call for evidence at the end of the round if asked to, so make sure you have a full PDF, or contextually cut card, of all cited evidence on hand. If any evidence is being flashed or emailed, I would love to receive a copy. **Speaks:** I will probably give higher speaker points than most judges, with exceptions being if a debater is rude, unintelligible, or unethical. I take quality of argumentation into account when evaluating speaks, so if you prettily spout nonsense, you probably won't like the outcome. **Framework:** I love framework when it's done well, but I know that PF debates often don't have time to fully flesh these out. At a base level, all I'm looking for is extensive weighing of arguments; if you don't need framework to do that, then more power to you. At an LD level, I want to hear clear reasons to prefer arguments. **Extensions:** I won't vote on an argument that's dropped in the summary or final focus unless I am left with nothing else to vote on. In my book, extensions need to have a clear citation, and short crystallization of the warrant AND impact before I can vote on it. **Kritiks:** These have to be done exceptionally well for me to vote off of them in Public Forum. Through experience, I have found that these are often not done exceptionally well in PF. Take what you will from that. In LD, go for it, I'll evaluate almost anything. **Plans/Counterplans:** Don't pull these out in PF. I'm fine with advocacies if you can show that there is at least a reasonable probability your advocacy would happen. It's chill in LD. **Theory/Topicality:** Only run this if there's substantive abuse. If I don't believe a side is being abusive, even if you win the theory debate, I won't vote on it. I love good topicality debates in LD.

If all else fails, my thinking in debate rounds has been heavily influenced by one of my peers. Here's his paradigm for reference: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=82691