Email: anb2924@coppellisd.com

Hi! I was a member of Coppell Varsity Debate senior and debated for 3 years :)

I usually run stock but I'm good with anything.

Avoid blippy theory args & I wont vote on disclosure.

No tricks.

Kritiks are fine just outline your framework clearly.

Wont vote on non T affs just because I haven't had much exposure to it.

Cps and disads are fine.

-------------------------------

Most important things is to always have fun when debating, it's meant to be educational.

I am a parent judge, fulfilling, and this is my first tournament to judge.

Southlake Carroll '23

UT ‘27

General: Hi I’m Samhith. The most important things to me are judge instruction and being clear. I’m not the greatest flower ever so make sure you slow down on important parts of the round but otherwise speed is ok.

Policy: Least ideological about this form of debate. Weighing and impact calc win. I also find that comparing the strength of internal links and implicating that to the impact of your da or case is very persuasive. Cp's are cool. Condo is usually very good.

K: ROB's don't mean anything to me, impact calc arguments do. Familiar with afropessism, set col, and capitalism. The aff probably gets to weigh the case. K affs should still defend the topic, consider this the strongest opinion in my paradigm.

Theory/T: Not a fan of nebel but will still vote on it. Reasonability and drop the argument are incredibly persuasive. The more frivolous the shell the lower the threshold for responses.

Phil: My knowledge of philosophy extends to Kant, Hobbes, and that's about it. I find util to be true in most cases but won't hack for it just make sure you err on the side of over-explanation.

Tricks: No

I have been a parent judge for two years and am familiar with LD to an extent. I view debate as the ultimate game of strategy and persuasion. Creativity is encouraged. Regardless of whatever argument you're going to run, it ought to be run clearly. Ks and Theory need to be explained thoroughly. If I can’t follow you, I won’t vote on them.

Speed is okay, but if you’re spreading, I would like to be on the email chain. However, If you do spread, it will impact your speaker points. Debate is about communication. The more effectively you communicate, the higher your speaks will be.

I am tech over truth. I evaluate strictly on what is presented in the round. I will inevitably have to choose one argument over the other but I will base those interpretations on warrants and analysis presented in the round—not outside information.

If you want me to vote on a certain argument, it should be explained in a clear manner and your impacts should be extended. Weighing your argument and impacts against your opponent's argument and impacts will make your path to the ballot easier. I will try not to intervene, but please weigh arguments comparatively to make my job easier as a judge. If not, I will have to decide which arguments are more important.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me.

I am a parent judge and this is my first tournament. My child has been debating for the last 3 years and before COVID I attended every one of her debates.

I will struggle to follow you if you speak very quickly and will ask you to slow down.

I expect debaters to treat each other with courtesy and respect.

Hi friends I'm Shreeya, I'm a senior at Greenhill and I do policy.

add me to the email chain: shreeyadesikan@gmail.com

Please judge instruction

Don't be racist homophobic sexist pls

time your own speeches and prep

In order for me to vote on an argument you need to extend + implicate your claim, i.e. you need a well warranted argument that has an actual impact in round

Be nice to each other, have fun! This should be fun!!!

public forum

i'm fine with any kind of argument. my decision is mostly based off the line by line debate. be sure to have real impacts that you carry across the flow and weigh against your opponents. if there is a weighing mech make sure it's actually one worth while and that you continue relating back to it and explaining how you win under it. take full advantage of cross, ie bringing up what happened during cross in your speeches. arguments need to have warrants and links. i'm fine with speed, just don't sacrifice clarity. any homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, etc will result in an L. respect your opponents.

I have been in debate for three years, however, I only have a background in PF. To win my ballot you must adapt to that style of debate and explain your arguments more than you are likely used to.

I would prefer an email chain to send all speech docs- zekestalnaker17@gmail.com

Im Jaden. I'm a student @ UT l - I have been debating since 6th grade in both LD and policy. If you'd like to use an email chain / share speech docs, please use jadenb0622@gmail.com

I think in an ideal world, the affirmative should defend a meaningful change from the status quo, and the negative should prove why the affirmative is a bad idea.

I have debated and judged most args in LD so do you what you would like. Read Below.

That said, I am most comfortable evaluating critical and policy debates, and thoroughly enjoy 6 minutes of topicality or framework 2nrs[like, T-framework against k affs, not kant]ifdelivered at a speed i can flow. I will make it clear if you are going too fast - i am very expressive so if i am lost you should be able to tell.

I am a bad judge for denser "phil" debates- i do not think about analytic philosophy/tricks outside of debate tournaments, soI need these debates to happen at a much slower pace for me to process and understand all the moving parts. This is true for all styles of debates.

I think the word "unsafe" means something and I am uncomfortable when it is deployed cavalierly -it is a meaningful accusation to suggest that an opponent has made a space unsafe (vs uncomfortable),and i think students/coaches/judges should be mindful of that distinction.this applies to things like “evidence ethics,” “independent voters,” "psychological violence," etc., though in different ways for each.If you believe that the debate has become unsafe, we should likely pause the round and reach out to tournament officials, as the ballot is an insufficient mechanism with which to resolve issues of safety.similarly, it will take a lot for me to feel comfortable concluding that a round has been psychologically violent and thus decide the round on that conclusion, or to sign a ballot that accuses a student of cheating without robust, clear evidence to support that. i have judged a lot of debates, and it is very difficult for me to think of many that have been *unsafe* in any meaningful way.

I will evaluate Disclosure Theory if the violation is apparent However, that comes with the burden to prove it.

1. LARP
2. CP/DA
3. Theory
4. T
5. K
6. Tricks

- Take the aforementioned list lightly safe for tricks, because I will play a trick on you and not evaluate it.

Finally, I am not particularly good for the following buckets of debates:

• Bad theory arguments / theory debates w/ very marginal offense (it is unlikely i will vote for theory debates where i can not identify meaningful offense / where the abuse story is very difficult for me to comprehend)

• Identity ks that appropriate the form and language of antiblackness literature

• affs/nc's that have entirely analytic frameworks (even if it is util!) - i think this is often right on the line of plagiarism, andmy brain simply cannot process/flow it at high speeds.

+.1 speaks for a Carti reference

Please do not be mean or say something offensive. I can tank speaks for the former and drop you for the latter. Racism = bad

Have fun fr! I will try to adapt to the debate you want to have.

Thanks,

Jaden