Coppell Classic Swing
2022 — NSDA Campus, TX/US
Novice CX Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Sia Arya / Coppell '24 (TX)
Add me on the email chain – email@example.com
Debate however you like, I'll evaluate the round how you tell me to.
Clash is good. Do line by line. Be organized (signpost!!). I love impact calc.
Most important: be nice and have fun.
I believe that students should effectively communicate any event competing in. I am a traditional debate judge/coach. However, I am opened to progressive debate if the student communicates it effectively.
Greenhill '20, Yale '25
Please put me on the email chain (and feel free to email me if you have any questions): firstname.lastname@example.org
Updated February 2022. I've judged relatively few rounds on the water topic, so please over-explain arguments and don't assume I'm familiar with community consensus.
Tech over truth, except for discriminatory or factually inaccurate arguments.
The two things that matter most to me (and affect my speaker points the most) are good organization and clear judge instruction.
I have much more experience with and am a better judge for policy args than critical args, but I will certainly evaluate and vote for either.
I generally won't read evidence unless I'm instructed to or I'm unable to resolve a question solely based on the debating.
I'm not a big fan of strategies that rely on your opponent missing a blippy argument to win (but like I said, tech over truth).
Online debate note: if you see me constantly looking to the side during your speech, don't worry - I am paying attention! I have a second screen off to the side on which I will be flowing.
Above all else, please be kind and respectful to everyone else in the room.
K Affs and Framework
I’m not great for K affs, though my voting record in these debates is somewhat split. I tend to be more convinced by affs that impact turn framework than those that try to counter-define specific words, etc.
If you’re neg and going for framework, I don’t tend to think of fairness as a terminal impact (which is not to say it can’t be one with some explanation, but in general I think clash-based impacts are a lot more persuasive). I think a well-constructed TVA can go a really long way in these debates.
I agree with what everyone else says about framing contentions: they should be as specific to the 1AC as possible and are not a substitute for debating the substance of the disads.
I am almost always more persuaded by internal link defense than impact defense.
Good T debating is good internal link debating. "Precision/education/predictability/etc. outweighs!" means very little without a robust explanation of why the other team's interpretation is highly imprecise/uneducational/unpredictable/etc.
Like I said above, I haven't judged a lot of debates on the water topic, so I don't really know what the community consensus is or have any preconceived notions about various interps.
In general, you shouldn’t assume that I am familiar with your argument. I need to be able to understand an argument before I can explain to the other team why they lost.
In these debates, I usually end up most confused by the alt, so if you're neg, you should probably do more explanation of the alt than you think is necessary. If you're not going for the alt, you still need to clearly explain what it means to vote neg.
Counterplans and Theory
Having been both a 2A and a 2N, I don't have a lot of strong biases about theory.
Conditionality is probably good, but kicking planks from counterplans that have tons of planks probably isn't. Condo is probably the only reason to reject the team.
I won't judge-kick by default.
Having a specific solvency advocate makes most counterplans legitimate, but not having a solvency advocate doesn't automatically make a counterplan illegitimate.
Impact calculus (even the simple magnitude/probability/timeframe stuff) plays a role in my decision more often that you might think.
I’m a bit of a politics nerd and I love politics debates. Savvy analysis or explanation of political dynamics will likely impress me.
If you have any questions, please feel free to email me (email@example.com)!
Please include me on the email chain- firstname.lastname@example.org
I'll evaluate anything you run but it would be nice if the affirmative was reasonably topical. Make sure you extend your arguments and answer the line by line debate. I like to hear impact calc on probability, timeframe, and magnitude- especially during the rebuttal speeches. Clash is really important for a good debate, as is organization, so make sure to provide an effective road map.
Stay civil and have fun!
My name is Alexis Sibanda (she/her), and I'm a junior and current policy debater at Coppell High School
Please add me to the email chain: email@example.com
Firstly, BE RESPECTFUL — Don't do anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or un-inclusive - Debate should be a space in which people feel comfortable to exist as themselves and put themselves out there. I will not hesitate to take action if it gets out of hand whether that means docking speaks, voting a team down, or reporting behavior, but y’all should be fine as long as you keep respect in mind. :)
Feel free to spread, just make sure you’re clear. I'll say clear if I can't understand. I’m not to much of a stickler with speaks just keep clarity, organization, and good argument engagement in mind and high speaker points will likely follow.
Topical Policy AFFs:
I completely understand these debates, so go for it! I’m chill with any type of argument as long as they are articulated well. Make sure to weigh the arguments and explain the story of your impacts under your articulated framework. Telling a clear link story is key to these debates!
Go for it! I’m very middle of the road on this. Whoever does the better articulation of why their interp and impacts are better gets my vote on this flow. Don’t just assume that because you win the flow you win the debate. Make sure to articulate as to why this matters and affects the rest of the debate if you want a ballot off of this flow as I am less likely to vote solely on T w/o any type of explanation of that.
I enjoy K debates! Feel free to go for it (as long as you know what you are doing). I'm a K debater and read policy positions so I get both. I run Anti-blackness and Afropess but I’m pretty well versed in many of the generic lit bases that people tend to read. Make sure to explain to me what ur scholarship says in your rebuttals especially: I won’t do the work for u. Articulating the story of the K in context with the debate is vital to a ballot.
Feel free to ask any questions you want in round or even through email. I will make sure to answer to the best of my ability! All in all, just make sure you’re having fun! That’s the most important part. :)
( Í¡° ÍœÊ– Í¡°)
I am Dyspolity@gmail on email chains.
Who I am:
Policy debater in the 1970's and 80's. I left debate for 15 years then became a coach in 1995. I was a spread debater, but speed then was not what speed is today. I am not the fast judge you want if you like speed. Because you will email me your constructive speeches, I will follow along fine, but in the speeches that win or lose the round I may not be following if you are TOC circuit fast. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it.
I have coached most of my career in Houston at public schools and currently I coach at Athens in East Texas. I have had strong TOC debaters in LD, but recently any LDers that I have coached were getting their best help from private coaching. Only recently have I had Policy debate good enough to be relevant at TOC tournaments.
I rarely give 30's. High points come from clear speaking, cogent strategic choices, professional attitudes and eloquent rhetoric.
Line by line debates. I want to see the clash of ideas.
Policy arguments that are sufficiently developed. A disadvantage is almost never one card. Counterplans, too, must be fully developed. Case specific counterplans are vastly preferable to broad generics. PIC's are fine.
Framework debates that actually clash. I like K debates, but I am more likely to vote on a K that is based on philosophy that is more substantive and less ephemeral. NOTE: I have recently concluded that running a K with me in the back of the room is likely to be a mistake. I like the ideas in critical arguments, but I believe I evaluate policy arguments more cleanly.
Poor extensions. Adept extensions will include references to evidence, warrants and impacts.
Overclaiming. Did I need to actually include that?
Theory Arguments, including T. I get that sometimes it is necessary, but flowing the standards and other analytical elements of the debate, particularly in rebuttals, is miserable. To be clear, I do vote on both theory and T, but the standards debate will lose me if you are running through it.
Circuit level speed.
I am fine with conditional elements of a negative advocacy. I believe that policy making in the real world is going to evaluate multiple options and may even question assumptions at the same time. But I prefer that the positions be presented cogently.
Rudeness and arrogance. I believe that every time you debate you ae functioning as a representative of the activity. When you are debating an opponent whose skill development does not approach your own, I would prefer that you debate in such a way so as to enable them to learn from the beating your are giving them. You can beat them soundly, and not risk losing the ballot, without crushing their hopes and dreams. Don't be a jerk. Here is a test, if you have to ask if a certain behavior is symptomatic of jerkitude, then it is.
One More Concern:
There are terms of art in debate that seem to change rather frequently. My observation is that many of these terms become shorthand for more thoroughly explained arguments, or theoretical positions. You should not assume that I understand the particularly specialized language of this specific iteration of debate.
I default negative unless convinced otherwise. Also, I fail to see why the concept of presumption lacks relevance any more.
Because of the time skew, I try to give the affirmative a lot of leeway. For example, I default aff unless convinced otherwise.
I have a very high threshold to overcome my skepticism on ROTB and ROTJ and Pre-Fiat arguments. I should also include K aff's that do not affirm the resolution and most RVI's in that set of ideas that I am skeptical about on face. I will vote on these arguments but there is a higher threshold of certainty to trigger my ballot. I find theory arguments more persuasive if there is demonstrable in-round abuse.
I won't drop a team for paraphrasing, yet, but I think it is one of the most odious practices on the landscape of modern debate. Both teams are responsible for extending arguments through the debate and I certainly do not give any consideration for arguments in the final focus speeches that were not properly extended in the middle of the debate.
1) This is not an interactive activity. I will not signal you when I am ready. If I am in the back of your Congress session, I am ready. 2) At the best levels of this event, everyone speaks well. Content rules my rankings. 3)I am particularly fond of strong sourcing. 4)If you aren't warranting your claims, you do not warrant a high ranking on my ballot. 5) Your language choices should reflect scholarship. 6) All debate is about the resolution of substantive issues central to some controversy, as such clash is critical.