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

Hi I’m Samhith. I did LD and PF in highschool. I don't have any strong preferences on what you can and can't read in a round. For context though, I read mostly policy and kritikal arguments in LD and theory arguments in PF. 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. I prefer arguments that are well thought out and warranted as opposed to blippy. Please weigh, the earlier the better. Disclosure is good.

Speaker points are based off of how knowledgeable I feel you are about the topic and how good your strategy is. I will also give higher speaks if you send cut cards and analytics during rebuttals.

Have fun and let me know if you have any questions before the round!

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 have been judging for a little less than a year. My child has been debating LD Varsity for the last year and before that she debated Novice LD and Middle School PF.

I will struggle to follow you if you speak very quickly and will ask you to slow down. I will look for well-waranted arguments and you should make sure to explain to me why you should win the debate.

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

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

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.

UT UPDATE: It's my finals szn so if I seem frazzled, cut me some slack.

As a debater, I often went for anything standard for a Varsity LD debater; I have debated args in LD, so do you what you would like. Read Below.

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. Suppose you believe that the debate has become unsafe. In that case, we should likely pause the round and reach out to tournament officials, as the ballot is an insufficient mechanism to resolve safety issues. 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. That said, the standard is high for what would make a genuinely unsafe/abusive debate round.

I WILLevaluate Disclosure Theory if the violation is apparent. However, that comes with the burden of proof.

IMPORTANT STUFF

• Speed: Slow down on tags, interps, and analytics. I flow on paper. If you’re a numbers person, I would say I’m good at flowing about a speed of 6* on a scale of 1-10 (6 for finals weekend), maybe a 7, but try what you would like; I'll say slow if you need to slow down. This is particularly true for K/T debates
• Timing: I will begin your time on your first word. I stop flowing when the timer goes off. You will keep track of your own prep time.You should also keep track of your time.
• Signposting/Roadmaps: I will be much happier and more able to fully understand and follow your arguments if you signpost and number them!!
• No, I don’t believe you can re-insert verbal highlights you did not read.
• Disclosure is good. Reading disclosure against a small school with no Wiki page might make me smile because I'll hope you're joking.
• I love evaluating a good 2NR/2AR, give judge instructions, and make my job easy — I will be happy, and so will you be with your speaks. :-)
• On tricks/skep: I'll play a trick on you.

I would love to see a good topical, impact debate this weekend, but everyone's got a dream

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 complicated for me to comprehend)

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

• Affs/NCs that have entirely analytic frameworks (even if it is util!) - I think this is often right on the line of plagiarism, and my brain cannot process/flow it at high speeds.

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