UT '26

My email is t@bawa.us

TL;DR

Update November 2023: I have not been involved with debate for upwards of a year now. I won't be familiar with topic lit, so thoroughly explain and assume that I don't know your acronyms/abbreviations. Also please slow down for online debate. I'm probably an 8/10 for speed at this point, but like 6.5/10 when it's over Zoom.

I'll evaluate any argument. Speed is fine just make sure to be clear and slow down on tags, advocacies, plan texts, etc. Please include me on the email chain.

Substantively, I'm pretty much tab. Read anything but make sure to warrant your arguments thoroughly. Tech>Truth and I generally tend to think of debate as a game (unless you tell me otherwise). Also, err on the side of overexplaining because I'm likely not familiar with the topic literature.

Please feel free to email me if you have any questions before/after the round. Debate is a difficult activity and I'd love to help for future rounds.

PREFS SHORTCUT

1- Policy/Topicality/Theory

2- Ks/Phil

3- Tricks

Speed

Slow down on tags/advocacies/plan texts. Don't mumble, I'll yell clear twice before stopping my flow.

Policy

Most comfortable with this literature. Make sure to weigh and make strong, substantive arguments

For CPs and PICs make sure to explicitly warrant the net benefits. Will judge kick CP if told to do so.

Impact calc makes a disad debate interesting - do it.

Kritiks

I read some Ks in high school (capitalism, settler colonialism, Baudrillard, some more). I understand most K literature but please err on the side of overexplaining - I've been out of the activity for some time so the jargon isn't really fresh to me. I'm big on framework so emphasize why your model for the round should win.

Generate offense!

I'm okay with non-T affs but am very receptive to topicality against them. If you're reading one prove why not being topical is beneficial and propose an alternative mechanism to weigh the round.

Phil

For context, I read mostly util and some Kant in high school. However, I'm familiar with most common frameworks.

I love a solid AC/NC debate but make sure to have a substantive clash on the framework level. It's hard to evaluate these rounds unless I'm given reasons to prefer a framework over another. Again, err on overexplaining and slow down on lengthy analytical arguments.

Trad

Go for it. Weigh offense and be willing to collapse under your opponent's framework. I've seen too many debates where people spend the whole round arguing about a weighing mechanism without actually having offense under it. Don't do that.

Topicality/Theory

These are good debates to be had. Prove the abuse and weigh your impacts and you should be fine.

I generally believe that disclosure is a good practice and am pretty receptive to disclosure theory, especially if the aff specifies a small part of the literature.

Utilize combo shells - they can be extremely helpful and can create better, more contextualized debates.

Friv theory is fine but don't expect high speaks if you plan on collapsing on it.

Please use definitions in the T debate.

Tricks

Err on the side of overexplanation. Not that comfortable with tricks

Case

I love case. If you successfully collapse on a case turn, expect high speaks. People don't utilize case arguments enough.

Miscellaneous:

Prep ends when you're done preparing the doc, but if you take too long to send it I'll start running it again.

If there's a clear skill discrepancy please be reasonable - I'll boost your speaks.

Time yourself

I'm okay with flex prep/open CX as long as your opponent is.

Good luck and have fun!

she/her

Marcus '20

StMU ‘24

Email: cynthiamd147@gmail.com (I don't look at the doc during the debate, but I like to have it if I need them).

I debated LD for 4 years and I have a little experience competing in Congress, Extemp, and World Schools.

For all events clarity is extremely important to me, for example, you would be better off with 4 sources stated clearly than 10 that don't come across clearly. With that, I prefer fewer well thought out arguments over tons of half-baked ideas.

I don't love spreading, especially if you have to gasp for air the whole time, it takes away from what you are saying and distracts from the content of your speech.

I don't really want to limit too much as far as content goes because I feel that is unfair to the competitors, that said, I am mainly a PF judge so in other events I may not love something like a K for policy or running a theory heavy case or something like that.

As a former female debater, I know judges often mark down women for sounding 'shrill' or 'aggressive'. While abuse will never be tolerated, neither will sexism against powerful/confident women, and speaker points will reflect that :)

Background

Competed in PF at Lovejoy High School in Lucas, Texas for 4 years. I was ok I guess.

Currently I'm a freshman at Rice University in Houston.

Add me to email chain: shalin.mehta16@gmail.com

PF

Short Version: I'm your average PF flow judge. Debate is a game. This paradigm is a set of rules that I generally believe to be good. However nothing is concrete. If you tell me to evaluate something a different way and I think you win that argument then that’s what I will do.

Long Version:

1) I'm fine with speed but not full spreading. I'll say clear if you're going too fast.

2) tech > truth. If it is conceded that the government is run by the Walrus Mafia then the government is run by the Walrus Mafia and that’s on you for dropping it. That being said, if you do make a wacky arg such as saying that the government is run by the Walrus Mafia then my threshold for responses will go down.

3) plz weigh

4) I think second rebuttal should respond to EVERYTHING in first rebuttal that you want to go for. This can be hard with time so at the very least respond to turns or I will consider them conceded. I think this is very important for the overall fairness of the round, because the 2nd speaking advantage in PF is crazy.

5) summaries are 3 minutes now – defense isn't sticky.

6) Offense you want me to vote on should be in both summary and final focus. Plz collapse, I will be very sad if you don't and you will be sad when you see your speaks. I accept new weighing in final.

7) I will ALWAYS prefer logical analysis and warranting over unwarranted evidence.

8) no independent offense in second rebuttal.

9) Framing is cool but plz warrant it.

10) I expect you to go line by line in every speech.

Some other things:

Evidence

- tell me to call it if you think it's been miscut

- If I call a piece of evidence please give me the cut card not a pdf or website.

Theory, Ks, etc.

- I am not super confident in my ability to correctly evaluate these, so run at your own risk, but I will listen (I'm def more comfortable with Theory than Ks)