I'm a career coach who has coached/judged WSD at nationals for several years now. I try to judge the debate on what was said. I am looking for a theme or team line. I appreciate it when debaters simplify the debate in rebuttal speeches. I expect emotional appeals designed to make me feel something in and amongst all the arguments presented. I also find the team line useful because it helps anchor the story that unfolds in the debate. World schools is a conversation. It's about turn-taking, respect, composure, and a limited amount of arguments...In other words, the best 'conversationalists' should accrue enough points for their team to win. I enjoy the format of WSD and I appreciate how it is different than other styles of debate. Most debates are close at nationals; just don't let the line-by-line overwhelm the pressing need for you to make me feel something. I'm a former policy debater...so i'll get the arguments on the flow. I just think that the 'face' we create in addition to our standard offense/defense is super important in WSD because it really humanizes the debate for me and helps me see and feel things that I might not see or feel in other forms of debate.

I'm cool w anything.

anthonyrbrown85@gmail.com for the chain

*Please show up to the round pre-flowed and ready to go. If you get to the room before me or are second flight, flip and get the email chain started so we don't delay the rounds.*

Background

Currently the head coach at Southlake Carroll. The majority of my experience is in Public Forum but I’ve spent time either competing or judging every event.

General

You would probably classify me as a flay judge. The easiest way to win my ballot is through comparative weighing. Explain why your links are clearer and stronger and how your impacts are more important than those of your opponents.

Speed is fine but if I miss something that is crucial to your case because you can’t speak fast and clearly at the same time then that’ll be your fault. If you really want to avoid this issue then I would send a speech doc if you plan on going more than 225 wpm.

I do not flow cross so if anything important was said mention it in a speech.

I would classify myself as tech over truth but let’s not get too crazy.

Speaking

Typical speaks are between 27-30. I don’t give many 30s but it’s not impossible to get a 30 from me.

I would much rather you sacrifice your speed for clarity. If you can’t get to everything that you need to say then it would probably be best to prioritize your impacts and do a great job weighing.

Any comments that are intended (or unintended in certain circumstances) to be discriminatory in any form will immediately result in the lowest possible speaker points.

PF Specific

I’m probably not evaluating your K or theory argument at a non-bid tournament. If you’re feeling brave then you can go for it but unless the literature is solid and it is very well run, I’m going to feel like you’re trying to strat out of the debate by utilizing a style that is not yet a norm and your opponents likely did not plan for. If we're at a bid tournament or state, go for it.

Don’t just extend card names and dates without at least briefly reminding me what that card said. Occasionally I write down the content of the card but not the author so if you just extend an author it won’t do you any good.

I have a super high threshold for IVIs. If there's some sort of debate based abuse run a proper shell.

LD Specific (This is not my primary event so I would make sure I check this)

Cheatsheet (1 is most comfortable, 5 is lowest)

Policy: 1

Theory: 2

Topical Ks: 2

Phil: 4

Non-Topical Ks: 4

Tricks: 5

I’ll understand your LARP arguments. I’ll be able to follow your spreading. I can evaluate most K’s but am most comfortable with topical K’s. I will understand your theory arguments but typically don't go for RVIs. I would over-explain if you don’t fall into those categories and adjust if possible.

I am a parent judge---don't run progressive or Ks---(I won't flow them).

Please speak slowly and explain your args clearly

Give me reasons why your opponent has lost and why you are winning this debate (Voters are key).

Speaks: I give you speaks mostly based on clarity and how effectively you communicate your arguments.

Good luck and have fun!

I was a high school debater and am now a junior Political Science major at Rhodes College. I'm pretty flexible about what you run in front of me as long as it is written well.

If you have questions about it feel free to ask me point blank before round I will not be offended. I would seriously rather you ask me very abrupt questions then you ask me something cryptic and we misunderstand each other and then the round isn't judged the way you want it to go.

Framing is literally so important. YOU get to decide how the round is judged if you so choose. Anything you run should have AT LEAST a sentence or two about how to frame the round (ex: "This round should be judged based on breaks down cap the best, etc.). If you get questions/arguments about how to frame the round, you should be prepared for it. If you do not give me a way to judge the round, then I have to make one up, and that sucks for everyone.

If there is only one framing mechanism presented in the round, I will default to that.

Speed- Spreading is fine, but be clear. I'll say clear 2x, but after that if I cannot understand you I'll stop flowing. I do generally prefer you either flash/email me your cases if you are going to spread because it makes both of our lives easier.

LARP Debate- Cool.

K's- I freaking LOVE a well run K. Make sure you understand the philosophy you're running though, at least well enough to cover anything that might be asked in the round.

Easiest way to my heart is anti-cap lit.

Traditional- Trad is like, super boring, but its fine to run. Imo this has the highest standard of execution because you as a debater don't really have anything to hide behind, so when its bad it is BAD.

Racist, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, etc. comments= loss 20; being respectful is cool and stuff.

If you're running against a debater who clearly has less experience than you and maybe does not understand what you're doing, you should not be hammering that home to me or being rude/condescending towards them, be respectful, teach them something, don't be a jerk.

If you have any more specific questions feel free to ask me before round/if you see me.

email: emilyjudgesdebate@gmail.com (for email chains, questions, etc.)

updated Dec 2020

email chain: sarah.manjee@utexas.edu

I debated LD for 4 years at Colleyville Heritage and I am a first year out

I primarily did larp debate, but I’m comfortable with ks and phil if it is explained well. I def like a good larp round. Plans, counterplans, PICs, disads, solvency dumps were my thing. I don’t like judging theory rounds a lot and hate frivolous theory. I’d say I'm least comfortable judging tricks so if that's your A strat I probably wouldn't pref me. Do clear weighing and have a clear ballot story. Speed is fine, i'll yell clear. Other than that, I want to see good clash in round. You can get high speaks if you read something interesting, make me laugh, and just be nice to your opponent.

Background: I debated for March High School for four years in LD. I competed and placed regionally & nationally. I judged debate tournaments in both high school and university.

I attended the University of Texas at Austin ( Class of 22') for Computer Science and Business.

Speed: feel free to spread in front of me, I can probably handle your top speed but I will say clear should the need arise.

Disclosure: please disclose and throw me on the email chain @ sharmasej@gmail.com. I do not like Disclosure cases. It is not a requirement in NSDA to disclose and thus have a hard time entertaining these cases.

Skep/ Presumption/Tricks debate: I wouldn't advise going for this in front of me because of my personal dislike for it.

NOTE: I highly prefer staying topical and do not like cases that revolve around debate meta.

---

LARP: go for it and go all out this is what I know extremely well

K's: don't be afraid to go one off k just make sure you can explain the thesis really well because I had some limited experience. Check the in depth section below for more information on my experience.

T and theory: I'm all fine on this layer but just please don't spread analytics at full speed because that will make me sad. I have a low threshold for frivolous theory so just keep that in mind but aside from that I don't have an opinion on most shells.

Phil: Do not assume I know your Phil NC at all. Practically no experience during my career but go for it if you think it's strategic.

I'll allow you to run any argument you want in the round as long as it doesn't promote racism, sexism, ableism, etc.

I'd like to be on the email chain: juliatothezan@gmail.com

I am a former debater from Grapevine High School and competed in LD on the local circuit of Dallas, the state and UIL levels. I qualified for TFA state both my junior and senior year. I now judge in the Dallas, Austin and sometimes San Antonio circuits.

LD Paradigm:

I'm fine with both progressive and traditional LD. I did both, although I debated more progressive and tend to enjoy those rounds more. You can choose to read whatever you want but know that I'll vote you down on anything I deem to be blatantly offensive, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, etc.

Speed: I'm fine with any speed. Don't try to spread just because your opponent is or because you think I'll be more inclined to buy your arguments; I need to be able to hear them. Slow down on any important analytics and voters. I won't yell clear.

Framework: As long as there is some standard to evaluate the round, whether it be a traditional value criterion or some sort of role of ballot/judge, I'm good. Don't just read it at the beginning of the speech and drop it throughout the round because then you are wasting my time and yours. I like rounds weighed through framework but ultimately don't care how you weigh (impact calc, framework, comparative worlds, etc.). Pre-fiat like arguments are fine.

K debate: I'm fine with it as long as you explain the lit/philosophy. That being said, don't automatically assume I know whatever K literature or philosophy you are using, so please explain it anyway. I very rarely buy "reject the aff" alts; they don't actually mean much in the round and take away from substance. I will vote on them if the aff doesn't refute it. If you're going to read a K, please make sure to find specific links. That being said, I will vote on any of this if I have to.

T/Theory: I'm okay with this too as long as I don't think you're using it specifically as a strategy because you know the opponent is not as good at T/theory debate as you are. I will vote on it if there is no adequate response from your opponent but I would prefer it only be read if there is actually abuse in the round.

DAs/CPs: I'm good with both.

---------

PF Paradigm:

Speed: See above

"Progressive" PF: I will evaluate any arguments brought up in the round. I understand PF has the tendency to be more traditional around framework and impact weighing; however, the nature of these events is that they can and do tend to run more progressive at times (I say this as a former progressive LDer). I am cool with you running Ks, DAs, CPs, etc., but I am not super comfortable with T/theory/tricks in PF because I don't think they are arguments most PFers can run comfortably. I say this as a general rule, but if you are a good T/theory PFer, by all means, run your arguments. Just know I probably can evaluate these arguments better than you could successfully run them in PF. Frivolous and not well run t/theory in PF is somehow a thing I keep seeing. I tend to grant more RVIs in PF unless the aff is proven to be clearly abusive. For specifics on progressive arguments check the LD paradigm above.

Framework: I like a framework debate. Numbering your voters helps. Don't drop your framework unless planning to collapse to the other teams' framework justification.

Links/Impacts: I vote off of impacts and links. I'm not going to make the link or impact calculus for you so make it clear in the round.

Extend: Extensions are important to PF debate offense so make sure you extend cards you want me to flow in the round. I'm not going to extend something across your speeches if you don't bring it up. I don't expect the first speaker to extend their own case in rebuttal since there's no offense on it. If something isn't extended to the last speech I'm not voting on it. This should come as a given in any debate type but I will make a point to mention it here: extending your card doesn't mean saying "extend *insert author name*" and moving on. Properly extending evidence means extending the uniqueness -> warrant -> link -> impact, otherwise I don't know why the card is brought up again. Unwarranted claims kills debate clash and education.

-------

Make sure you weigh the round, whether it be through framework, voters, or anything else. Otherwise, I don't know how to vote.

If you have any questions after round, feel free to email me.

Hello! I'm Celine (she/her/hers). I graduated from Colleyville Heritage in Texas last year and am currently a freshman at Duke. I debated in LD for 4 years, on both the local and national circuit. I qualified for NSDA nationals, UIL, and TFA state, so I'm comfortable with both traditional and circuit debate.

email: celine.x.wei@gmail.com (please put me on the email chain)

Generally, I'm good with any argument as long as it is clearly connected to some sort of evaluative framework and it isn't offensive. Just make sure to extend warrants through your speeches, and tell me what I'm voting on in your last speech, and why it's better than your opponents arguments (ie weigh). I decide by first looking at framework/weighing mechanisms, and then determine who met it better. If there's no offense in the round, my default is presuming neg (though obviously can be convinced otherwise). I'm fairly good with speed, but obviously slow down on taglines and theory.

Analytical Phil: I appreciate a good phil debate. Just make sure to explain how your offense links back to the framework. If you're not consequentialist, make sure your offense is not consequentialist either. If it's not a common framework, make sure to explain it well.

Policy/LARP: I ran a fair bit of policy args in high school. You should be reading a framework (ie util, structural violence, etc.), it doesn't have to be a strict value/value criterion, but it should be specific. I appreciate good case debate. Make sure you're explaining warrants and doing good impact and link weighing.

Ks: I loved running Ks in high school, and am pretty familiar with most common critical literature (ranging from identity to post-structuralist). I default to affs having to be topical, but can be convinced otherwise. I do think that pre-fiat debates can occur, but I see that as more of a methods debate, so you have to know how to defend your method/solvency in terms of how your aff/method engages with the world. Also, neg K's should be able to explain what their alt looks like, and be specific and warranted in their links. If you're reading something more obscure, make sure to explain it well.

Tricks: I'm fine if you want to read a theory underview, or have tricky elements to your strategy. If your strategy is to read a nailbomb aff, or truth-testing with a bunch of not very well-warranted NCs, I'm probably not the judge for you, and will probably be more permissible to your opponents responses.

Theory: I view theory in an offense-defense paradigm (voters are framework and your standards should link to them). I default competing interps, drop the arg, and no RVIs if you don't tell me otherwise. I think people should disclose, but I'm also sympathetic to small school debaters who aren't aware of disclosure norms (disclosure shells should include screenshots). If you run frivolous theory (ie water bottle theory), I'll have a lower threshold for reasonability args. I'm honestly a big fan of a good theory debate, so please don't make it messy (ie if you don't have a cohesive story, no one weighs, no clear extensions, no explanation of voters).

Speaks: If you have a super effective overview, efficient weighing, great line by line, etc. I will give you higher speaks for making the round better! Don't be unnecessarily rude or condescending (note: this doesn't mean passionate or aggressive) toward a younger or newer debater. I'll say slow or clear a few times if I'm having trouble flowing, but after that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I start at 28 and go higher or lower.

If there's anything in here or anything else you have questions on, feel free to ask before round, although try to keep your questions specific. Also, if you have any questions after round, feel free to find or contact me as well. Looking forward to good rounds!