Hello friends! I'm Kiran, I do policy debate at the University of Houston and help out Kinkaid in policy and PF when I can :)
I have a lot of sympathy for online debaters, tech issues happen, so don't worry about it, but please don't steal prep.
Also, please be nice and a good human being during rounds (and outside of them!) Asking for the bare minimum here.
Yes, I want to be on the email chain: kirankhan0405@gmail.com
General things:
Do whatever, but do it well. I judge based on what's on my flow, follow along in docs during the round, but I'm not reading for meaning that isn't articulated in the speeches.
I'm good with speed, but slow down to about 85% for online debate- at least at the beginning until I get used to your voice. It would also help if you used a headset
I remember arguments by name, not author
Tech>truth, and use smart cross-applications to your benefit
More judge instruction and comparison = more likely wins
More specific thoughts:
CP/DA/Case Debate: Great, I love it! These are the debates I understand the best. For the neg, explain to me how the cp sufficiently solves for the aff and why the DA ow and (preferably) turns case. For aff, I can be persuaded that there's no link to the DA, or that the risk of the impact is significantly mitigated by weak internal links. Explain solvency deficits in relation to the DA, so I know which one outweighs.
Topicality: One of my new favorite arguments. I'll default to competing interpretations, and winning reasonability requires a counter interpretation with some net benefits. Having a TVA and a case-list under your interp helps a lot. Definitions grounded in the literature>any other definition, (unless ofc there are several downsides to debating with a certain interp).
Policy v Ks: For aff, focus on and clearly explain education impacts under framework, and I'll probably let you weigh the aff. I need a clear explanation of the alt throughout the entirety of the debate, and having specific case links is a good strat. Aff tell me why case ow or the perm solves, neg tell me the opposite and why your alt is the right way to go. I'll vote on the "you link, you lose" strat, but 1)make sure links are specific to case and 2)extinction ow is a threat to your argument, so you need to close that door in the 2nr
K Affs v Framework: Whoever does more/better impact debating will most likely win. Affs need a counterinterp that explains why your model of debate is good, please no super long overviews, and if I don't know what the aff does, I will not be voting on it. Negs, explain why your impacts outweigh, TVAs help, and explain how your interp resolves aff's impact turns
K v K: This is probably where my debate knowledge starts to fall apart. These rounds require a lot more explanation on both sides for me, especially with the alt. Organization, clear examples, and good impact debating will help a lot.
Speaks: A smart cross-ex, clear sign posting, and clean technical debating will increase your speaks
PF:
I started judging PF this year, and I evaluate PF rounds in the same exact way I think about policy rounds ie care a lot about the flow, only evaluating args with warrants attached to them, and looking for good ev/arg comparison. The speeches are way too short for you to say buzzwords from every argument you had earlier, so please please please pick the args you think you are winning and go in depth on explanation/warrant comparison.
Feel free to send me questions, and have fun y'all! :)