Monish Thawani -- Lincoln Park High School

Use the back button on your browser to return to the pref entry page or tournament entry list. The judge philosophy appears in a different format at the bottom of the page.

Judging philosophy:

I debated for 4 years competitively at Chattahoochee HS. I then started a team at Georgia Tech and debated for 1.5 years on the college circuit. I now coach at Lincoln Park HS in Chicago.

I believe that the team that does the best explanation and better analysis of their arguments in the 2NR and 2AR will usually end up winning the debate. I am very particular that any piece of evidence that should have value in the debate needs to be explained clearly with good warrants. I also think that it is important for each side to explain to me the reason that I should vote for them in the debate. For example, some of the analysis that I would be looking for is:

- Topicality: Each team should explain why their interpretation is superior to the other team's interpretation. I want to know which is better for debate and why.
- DA/CP/Case: Each team should do a comparative analysis of their impacts. What does a solvency deficit on the plan or CP mean in terms of the overall picture? Why does the neg dropping a link turn mean that I should vote for you?
- Kritiks: I want to understand the how the kritik should be evaluated in the debate and why me voting aff or neg is important.

I try to evaluate the debate in the fairest way possible. I prefer to not make any assumptions about what a team means when they make certain arguments. I also prefer not to sit and read cards at the end of the debate to decide who did the better debating; I will only read evidence when both teams explain their cards fairly well and it is the only way in which I can evaluate the debate fairly.

Additionally, sticking to the line by line makes my job to judge the debate fairly a lot easier. It is very helpful if arguments are referred to by their number if possible.

How I feel about various arguments:

- Topicality: Totally fine with it. I will evaluate the debate on based on competing interpretations. Always make sure you impact topicality on how your interpretation is better for competitive equity or educational value of the activity.
- DA/Case/CP: This is my bread and butter. Just make sure you do the comparative analysis of both the worlds (Case vs. CP or Case vs. Status Quo) -- see above
- CP Theory: I am generally okay with this. I tend to evaluate these arguments based on fairness+education. I will vote on theory if I believe that one team has an unfair advantage or if the way that a team is running arguments is bad for the educational value of debate. Team's would need to explain to me why the other team kills fairness or detroys education.
- Kritiks: I need a lot more explanation on these arguments. I am not AS up on all the K's as some other judges. However, if you run them I will evaluate it the best I can.

Seasonal voting record:

TourneyDivRdAFF    NEG    Decision

Judge Philosophy Alternate Format: