Hey, I'm Darasimi (he/him)

Carroll Senior High School (Southlake, Tx) 21'

UChicago '25

Background

I competed in WSD throughout HS so I'm familiar with the event.

World Schools

Style - Style points are given based on the presentational aspects of each speech, like your speed, tone, fluency, how you ask and respond to POIs (I expect at least 1 to be taken and taking 2 is preferred). I only suggest adding personality or humor to your speeches if you are confident that it will not detract from your speech or

Content - Ill give points based on the substance of your arguments and your ability to explain those arguments. When constructing an argument make sure you make it clear why the impacts/end result happens, explain the steps from A to D instead of saying A happens so D must happen.

Strategy - Points are based on clash, organization, framing, and POIs. Engage with your opponents' arguments and explain why I should prefer your argument or response rather than just reading an argument and expecting me to apply it to the opponents' substantive. POIs are meant to be used strategically, to throw an opponent off or expose a flaw in their arguments. That being said I would like at least 30 seconds between POIs, don't harass your opponents. I pay a lot of attention to the framing that you give me, so make sure that it works in your favor. Since this is WSD, weighing is especially important, and I don't plan on doing the legwork and inferring your impacts. I'll take whatever either side gives me until its clashed with.

I'll explain my RFD after the round and give you individual feedback if you request it, if you want to ask me any questions or want more in depth feedback feel free to email me darasimi@hotmail.com

Hey I'm Aarin. I'm a former worlds debater with limited experience in PF and Congress

WSD

Some general notes:

• I will be evaluating the round based upon which world is comparatively better
• Neither side has to solve for every issue, but you need to tell me why your world is better
• Make sure you are clear on the characterization of your world (i.e. what does your world look like, what policies are implemented, how does this affect the common individual, etc.). This will make it easier for me to evaluate why your side is winning
• Please stray away from definition debates- make sure your framework is not abusive and unrealistic.
• resolve model debates by being comparative and giving me actual argumentation rather than just repeating "tHeIr mOdEl iS aBuSiVe" over and over
• Be abundantly clear about the link chains in your arguments. You cannot jump from a claim to an impact without warrants and links that connect both. It makes your argument stronger and gives me a reason to buy into your arguments.
• Don't forget to weight. You need to do more than just say the impacts of your argument. You need to tell me why your impacts are more important than your opponents in order for me to vote for you. Particularly important in later speeches.
• Signpost and give me a roadmap. The easier you make judging this round for me, the better it is for you.
• WSD is a global debate, so make sure to have examples across the world to back up your argumentation. Don't cherry-pick from one country or become us-centric.
• WSD is partly argumentative and partly performative. That being said, it's important that you deliver your arguments in a persuasive way. Don't spread and talk at a conversational rate and be respectful
• Ask and take POIs! I expect to see 2 taken per speech. But don't spam them or ask rambling ones that just eat up your opponents time.
• I generally prefer voting for practical over principled arguments unless you do a very good job weighing. If you want me to vote on the principle you have to weigh unless there's no other offense to vote off. If I'm given 2 competing arguments and no weighing then I default practical > principal.
• I'm definitely biased towards speeches that do a good job of giving me a big picture comparative as well as winning the line by line, but I'd much rather you debate in the style you're most comfortable with
• Green Bay Packers rhetoric = marginal bump in speaks

I'll explain my RFD after the round and give you individual feedback if you request it, if you want to ask me any questions or want more in depth feedback feel free to email me abindlish@gmail.com

PF

• Watch your speed. Keep it not too much faster than a normal conversational speed
• I'm not at all familiar with progressive argumentation, so probably don't run it
• Signpost and give me a roadmap. The easier you make judging this round for me, the better it is for you.
• Please weigh
• To be safe, consider me as slightly better than a lay judge
• Rhetoric for rebuttal and cases is required
• Keep your own time
• I require you to send all cards + rhetoric for case & rebuttal, abindlish@gmail.com

LD

- I have very very little experience with LD. As such, it's probably safest to consider me a lay judge. Don't run progressive args, keep speed at conversational levels, and keep speeches simple and cleanly signposted. The easier you make it for me to evaluate the round, the better it is for you.

She/Her | Seven Lakes 22' | UNT '26

Email: lorrainemeneses04@gmail.com

Hi! I'm Lorraine! I attended Seven Lakes High School as one of the co-captains of World Schools Debate ('21) and also one of the founding members of the squad and I've competed in International Extemp (although not frequently... so do not count on me for extensive advice). Some judges I typically align with include: Andy Stubbs & Nine Abad

General

- I need content warnings for SA & suicide

- I have zero tolerance for racism, xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, ableism, etc. Be sure to use people's preferred pronouns, and overall, be respectful. Debate should be a safe space, so if you have any concerns, please contact me.

- Be respectful in the round. There is a difference between aggression and meanness. I will be docking off points if I see rude behavior from competitors

- Online Debate: Before you start your speech, ask whether I am ready, and wait for a verbal indication from me

WSD

Worlds is definitely my favorite event on the circuit and I've competed for about three years (doing primarily 3rd speaker as a role). A few things that will make me vote for you:

- Please adhere worlds norms. I will definitely dock points if you don't. (No off-time roadmaps, take 1-2 POIs, no spreading, etc.)

- If you start your speech with an off-time roadmap, ill start your time immediately.

- The team that'll maintain clarity throughout the round usually wins my ballot. Be sure to have explicit organization with signposting. If you can clearly illustrate what your world looks like and compare it with the other side of the house It will help me weigh the round.

- Be sure to characterize each of the actors and stakeholders in the round and how it fits into your arguments and how it affects your world in the round.

- I'm expecting explicit worlds weighing for clash throughout the later speeches, specifically outline what prop and opp look like on your side of the house and explicitly show me as the judge the net harms and benefits.

- Style isn't a major concern for me, but there should generally be a good balance of the team on average maintaining similar style, content, and strategy.

- Please avoid tokenizing marginalized groups or exploiting statistics of deaths or illness for the sake of the ballot, impact weigh with consciousness.

MODEL DEBATES

- If you use the term fiat, use it correctly and explain how your side clearly demonstrates fiat power

- Adhere to motion wording — if the motion entails "supports" you don't necessarily have to adhere to practical grounds

- Models should be thorough and clear enough for me to understand, if they aren't then its going to be difficult for me to weigh later in the round.

PF/LD

Overall, I'm not extremely familiar with PF/LD, but i'll vote for the team/debater that'll have these key aspects:

- Please signpost + avoid spreading super fast (i'm going to vote off of clarity)

- Have organized argumentation + explicit explanations. I'm fine with technical terms, but use them correctly (i.e use fiat or uniqueness correctly)

- Have clear warrants (hows + the whys) and how it links to your claim

- Please avoid tokenizing marginalized groups or exploiting statistics of deaths or illness for the sake of the ballot, impact weigh with consciousness

- Whoever shows clear links to not only your claim, but your impacts and explicitly weighs those impacts will ultimately win my ballot

School affiliation/s - please indicate all - None

Hired - yes

If HIRED - what schools/programs in Texas do you work with if any: none

High School Affiliation if graduated within last five years - n/a

Please list ANY schools that you would need to be coded/conflicted against - none
Currently enrolled in college? grad school University of Texas at Dallas

College Speech and Debate Experience - parliamentary debate

Years Judging/Coaching - 4

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event - 25

Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year - lots

Check all that apply

_XX___I judge WS regularly on the local level

_XX__I judge WS at national level tournaments

Rounds judged in other events this year

xx_ PF

xx__ LD

xx__ Extemp/OO/Info

xx__ DI/HI/Duo/POI

Have you chaired a WS round before? yes

What does chairing a round involve? facilitating between speeches

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else? equal burdens

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate? flow

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain. I think there needs to be a balance of both.

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? for strategy it's a matter of addressing the arguments in the round and how well they adhere to the norms of their speech order.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast? style

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read? which side presents more compelling logical warrants as to why something is true.

How do you resolve model quibbles? whichever side does a better job of explaining why we should prefer theirs

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels? whichever side does a better job of explaining why we should prefer theirs

*updated 10/17/20*

Hi, welcome to my 30 second tutorial called, 'Answering Arguments Wins Debates.' Notice I didn't say 'repeating arguments wins debates,' because it doesn't. You have to listen to your opponent's argument, and then craft a response that shows why your side of the resolution is comparatively better regarding this issue. Telling me their argument isn't well-warranted isn't enough. You have to provide me with a warrant for why your side of the debate wins that point.

Now onto the stuff about me...

NO SPEED IN DEBATE. If it's faster than you would talk to a parent or teacher, don't do it. I will say clear once, then I will take off speaker points if I have to say clear again. I find speed problematic for two reasons. 1) it does not promote an inclusive debate space, because participants who are new or rarely compete cannot truly participate. 2) it is completely ableist to assume all of your competitors and judges will be able to meaningfully understand your speech. A decade ago I experienced a bipolar break, and since then my brain doesn't work as fast, and my ear-to-brain interaction isn't what it used to be. That doesn't mean I am stupid. It just means that I need to hear things at a normal, conversational speed.

***Whether it's prelims or elims of LD, PF, or worlds, at the point that you disregard my ability to participate in the round, you will not win my ballot. You might think you can win the other two ballots in an elim round, but it's not a great idea to have a 50% chance of winning/50% chance of winning/0% chance of winning when you could go slower and have 50% chance of winning each judge.*** Please note that I rarely am put in policy rounds, but sometimes I am needed. In prelims I expect a slower round. In elims, I will not be offended if you go your regular speed, but you have a greater chance of winning my ballot by going slower, as pointed out above. If you are in LD, PF, or worlds I WILL be offended if you go faster than my preference, and offending judges is not a great look.

In terms of argumentation, I will consider anything that isn't offensive. If you're trying to make an argument based on debate jargon explain it to me. Just because you think you sound cool saying something doesn't mean I am going to vote on it. I do not vote off tricks on the flow. Not every dropped argument actually matters. On the flipside, don't ignore arguments. LISTEN to your opponent. Respond to them.

I vote more on the big picture - overall impacts, overall strategy. I want to see you show why your side of the resolution is comparatively better than your opponent's. I do not like overwrought impacts. I am going to buy the impact about a million people that has a high probability of happening and a strong link chain over an existential impact that has a shady link story. If you think your opponent's impact is ridiculous, I probably do, too. Point that out to me so I can vote on yours instead. Every time a debater makes an argument that extinction level impacts have a zero percent probability, an angel gets its wings and Tinkerbell can fly again. You want to save flying paranormal creatures, don't you? Then be the person who isn't impacting to extinction.

Lastly, be respectful of me and of your opponent. If I am cringing by how rude you are in CX, you won't be getting high speaks. I don't vote for bullies. I vote for debaters. If you have questions about how to get better after the round, you can ask me. If you want to re-debate the round, I will not be tolerant. You had a chance to communicate to me, and if you lost, you lost. I am not going to change my mind, and arguing with me will just mean I will be in a bad mood if I ever have to judge you again. I judge often enough you want to be the person I smile when I see.

Background: I’m a second-year Journalism major at the University of Texas at Austin. I did 2 years of Congress and 2 years of PF at Vista Ridge High School.

PF

Argumentation

• 2nd rebuttal should be frontlining

• Extensions, extensions, extensions

• Weigh as early as you have time for and make sure that it’s comparative. I want clear warranting as to why I should vote for one impact over the other, not just name-dropping random weighing mechanisms

• I won’t vote on theory unless there’s an actual reasonable violation in round, so no disclosure, paraphrasing, etc

• I never really learned progressive argumentation, so think of me as a lay judge when it comes to that and run it at your own risk

• It’s really up to you, but I prefer line-by-line in summary and voters in FF

• Definitely frame the round and WEIGH in summary

• I’m listening during cross but won’t vote on anything

Evidence/Speed

• Add me to the chain: raiyanshaik22@gmail.com

• Don’t just ask for multiple pieces of evidence for the purpose of prep

• I’m generally ok with speed as long as you’re speaking clearly, but if you’re going to spread send me a doc

• Be respectful. I will lower your speaks if you’re rude or excessively aggressive during CX

I will immediately vote you down if you say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

Congress

• Do not just give multiple sponsorship speeches in a row. After the first speech, your speeches should be interacting with the arguments before

• do not repeat arguments from prior speeches unless you're specifically adding something new to the conversation and acknowledging that you're doing so

• If you’re giving one of the last speeches of the round, crystallization is preferred

• Clear cited evidence

background:

• 4 years HS experience
• 1 year judging/coaching

Round eval:

• Make sure to weigh heavily in rounds. It makes it easier for me to decide which arguments are worth voting for and which side creates the best solvency (magnitude, scale, timeframe, prereqs, briteline, etc.). Highest ground analysis is the best.
• Your narrative is more compelling with characterization, so make sure to include examples from across the world
• I like arguments that have strong linkchains and incentive analysis, so warranting is a must.
• Don't use abusive frameworks or have definitional debates. These make it harder for me to vote for either side.
• Focus on strategy down the bench. Collapse on arguments with the best impact or logic and add a new layer of analysis in each speech.
• Show pathos in your speeches, either through the use of rhetoric, tonal fluctuation, etc. Be persuasive
• Lastly, have fun.

If you have any questions or want additional feedback, feel free to reach out to me through my email: sanjayshori03@gmail.com

Hi! I debated worlds for 2 years and dabbled in LD, but pls beware my knowledge/experience in both have become lowkey rusty lol

Worlds

A couple of things:

- If the arg is important, take the time to explain why it's important and impact it out. If you think it's one of the biggest args in the round, I probably think so too, so don't sell it short - 30 secs isn't enough to tell me why my ballot should be weighed solely off this arg. Properly warranting and impacting out your biggest arg is more valuable to me than filling the flow.

- Weighing is too important to forget! I won't necessarily believe that the princ or prac is more important for a given motion, so don't leave it for replies or the last minute of your third speech - do that work for me early on so I have a clear method of understanding your argumentation and why it's better.

- Models are always fun but not when they become the central focus of a round. A countermodel gives opp teams ground, but uniqueness is what makes them work in the first place. If there are unresolved quibbles by the 3s, drop it - you're wasting valuable time on a framing mechanism. Same thing with narratives and examples! They're nice embellishments you can add here and there, but they don't warrant arguments.

LD

For the little amount of time that I did LD, I liked LARP debates the most. I'm familiar with Ks and Theory, but still please make sure to flesh it out/explain it well for me to fully comprehend b/c I haven't interacted w progressive debate in years

A couple of things:

- Line-by-line is great! I'll evaluate the round based on what my flow looks like

- Some speed is fine but try your best to keep it at a conversational pace so that I can follow along and flow everything you want me to flow

- I fall victim to not caring as much about FW as the debate progresses, but still make sure all of your args relate back to your V/C. I should be hearing why/how you fulfill your FW when you crystalize the round for me

- During rebuttals, I shouldn't be hearing new args here - crystalize and weigh weigh weigh!! Why should I value your impact above the other teams? What arg should I be prioritizing when evaluating my flow?

If you have any other questions before/after round, feel free to contact me and/or (please) add me to your email chains: miaxia021@gmail.com

Happy debating! Be confident, trust yourself, and have fun :)