arushadabalar@gmail.com

Topshelf

- I'm fine w speed but slow down on interps and analytics

- Default to comparative worlds over truth testing.

LARP

This is what I'm most familiar with. I have read counterplans, disads, PICs, etc. and am comfortable voting for any of them. In these debates, clear weighing between impacts and strong evidence comparison are what are most likely to win my ballot.

Ks:

A good Kritik has three things in my opinion: a framing argument/ROB that frames why I should prioritize the impacts of the Kritik, link specific to the plan, and an alternative that I can easily understand and that actually does something. I primarily went for the cap K, and soft left affirmatives from time to time, but am comfortable evaluating most Ks, unless they involve high theory. However, I will have a high brightline for the explanation of the K.

T/Theory:

Prob won't vote on dumb theory arguments but comfortable evaluating t debates. I think 2 condo is fine but ill vote on the theory argument. above 3 condo, I'll prob err aff. I default drop the debater, competing interps, no RVI’s. If shell is frivolous, I'll lean other way.

Phil:

I went for phil sometimes in highschool, and I think phil debates are actually fun. However, I prefer phil arguments will a few well explained and carded warrants rather than a bunch of blippy warrants.

Tricks:

I have a very high threshold for voting on these.

General

psa this is a work in progress and will change as a judge and debate more xoxo

they/she/he (switch it up!)

coppell '23 || wake forest '27

send docs hunniya.ahmad@gmail.com-pls pls pls make the subject the tournament, round, & year!!!

credentials because people seem to care??: debated for coppell high school 4 years as an LDer, attended NSDA NATS as a freshman in policy, qualified to TFA state 3 years consecutively, qualified to TOC junior + senior year with 4 career bids not including 5+ bid rounds, breaking to doubles and achieving eighth speaker my senior year. coached middle school debate for 2+ years and have taught 3+ debate camps. have experience in policy, LD, and PF, currently coaching 4 ish HS debaters as well

dont be racist, sexist, homophobic, yada yada u down and i nuke ur speaks. if u feel unsafe in a round or need to talk about anything i am always here just shoot me an email <3

WSD:

Barely dabbled in this event so don't know a lot about event specifics- will most likely end up judging heavily on argumentation and who is winning the overall flow- so more techy than your traditional wsd judges due to my event background- just do your thing and I'll follow along

I find refusing alot of Pois, or asking too many a little frustrating! find the happy medium. Most of my worlds schools understanding comes from watching Coppell Black debate!!. I like the affect of the later speeches but make sure they resolve any argumentative concerns- especially the four. So I have a high expectations for 3s making the round clear and concise, and 2s to do a decent amount of line by line (getting all the arguments needed out there). The 1 should have emotion in their voice, and be engaging with presenting the information.

I like speeches that start with a creative introduction, I think they make the round more engaging and will boost speaks.

I love when debaters start with their offense first! makes stronger speeches

Shortcuts:

these are based on my ability to judge/understanding not personal preferences meaning you can read what you want just tell me how to evaluate it! tldr if ur good at it i dont care what you read just win. im human and have predispositions but my goal is to be trasnparent about them and let you guide my ballot

1- K v K, Policy v K, K v Phil, Traditional

2- Policy v Policy, T, Theory

3- Phil v Policy

4- Phil v Phil, Tricks

Trad

i care tons about weighing and worlds analysis to help me determine the winner. organization is ur best friendi use framework to filter which offense matters- if you dont do this it comes hard to adjucate I need you to not be two ships passing in the night and do the argument interaction work for me.

Counterplans

explain to me how their competitive + net benefits. process counter plans, pics, advantage counterplans are all a green light. im more likely to buy less probable impacts if there's a counterplan that solves the aff so da + cp is a pair that I respect

permutations are test of competitions but can reolsve many concerns on the cp-- they need a text and explanation beyond perm do both that gets blown up later. you should be explaining how the perm shields the link I find it highly persuasive. if ur gonna go for severance as a da to the perm impact it out or it wastes time and explicate how the links are das to the perm.

Disads

care so much about link analysis and the i/l chain, but other than that do ur thing. most impact turns r good except things like death good.

do evidence comparison it can make and break this debate, I hate outdate evidence on things that recency matter for.

K

yes! I read queerpess, cap, security, afropess, psychoanalysis and have an understanding of set col, identity ks but will need hand holding through baudy and any way high theory stuff. organize the 2nr, tell a story, ks dont need an alt but if they have one prove solvency, framing matters as how I evaluate the k and if I evaluate the post fiat impacts of the aff- how I come to that conclusion is up to you. the more specific a link is the more likely I am to vote for you.

contrary to popular belief im not a k hack- clash of civ debates are my favorite andI do vote on extinction own---> just win it

I need a k 2nr to be not 6 mins of reading ur backfiles but actual engagement w the 1ar these debates are most likely lost when you don't explicitly shut the door son 2ar outs and tell me where to flow ur prewritten stuff in the context of the 1ar

when answering a k win u weigh the case I buy clash most as a warrant but also eval fairness etc, if THEY CONCEDE CASE and you go for extinction OWS I am very likely to vote for you -- k debaters answer case or shut the dooorrrr on their access to it that doesn't rely on securitization of threats (bc you concede one is real)

K affs

I will not vote for u just because you read on- dont just do it for me (me having read it means my bar may be higher and so on).

what does the aff do? why do you need the ballot? why not defend the topic? are all questions that arise I expect to be answered in the debate. I won't vote for something I dont understand. performance rocks you do ur thing just justify it. contrary to popular belief- I WILL VOTE ON T- if you dont win your model. yes im the girl who read queer muslim futurity so be as creative unique fun and fresh with what you read and how you embody it

I need to be able to tell u what the aff is in the rfd. If I cannot you WILL NOT get my ballot.

TFW

my brain has tons of thoughts.

debate is a game but that game has value- means yes fairness matters but to what extent is for you to instruct me on. im more persuaded by clash and education 2nrs than anything that sounds like whining to me. definitions may be important but you have to win they are- world comparison on this flow is a make or break for me. contextualize it too the aff.

Theory

have voted on it when its executed well, I default to c/I and drop the debater but you can convince me otherwise. the more frivolous a shell is the less of a bar i have for responses so on and so forth. I enjoy judging this if you do it well

disclosure is good at bid tournaments but if ur a novice/small school debater who doesn't know what the wiki is just say that + error to reasonability and I won't vote you down! evading disclosure for competitive benefits is something I disagree with

yes ill vote on most theory shells just win competing interp and dont make it silly like shoe theory!!! I value tech a ton so if its conceded and no reasonability warrants it doesn't matter what the shell is if it has a voter.

Phil

I dont get this especially beyond Kant so be slow, explanatory and pretend your teaching it to a flay judge. some concepts click with me and ill nod but some fly over my head so watch my facial expressions. I will vote on it if you win it I just need hand holding through understanding it- again I can vote on it ONLY if I understand it

This is the hardest thing for me to judge as it confuses me ALOT because I just haven't delved into these philosophers as much as you. Tell me how this standard concession on framing means u win, tell me how you filter out their offense teach me why consequentialism doesn't matter.

Tricks

t I think these suck for debate so will take tons of convincing and slow/clear explanations, no I will not vote for any eval after x speech arguments but if you convince me to vote for ur apriori good for u i guess? ive come to the conclusion if you win it ill vote on it but the bar for responses is on the floor also pls tell me why the conceded thing means you win and dont assume I know why

Speaks/Notes

tech>truth to an extent, be clear and i dont care how fast you are- ill say clear but also my body language is really obvious! if I look confused I am.

I give speaks yes on speaking but also strategy + organization. make me smile and maybe ill up ur speaks ;). I dont like speaks theory. I will nuke ur speaks out of spite. Just do better !!

sitting down early or using less prep is a power move and a slay- ill reward u heavilyin speaks if u do it and crush the win.

NUMBER UR ARGUMENTS PLEASE

the more you split ur 2nr the less likely it is i will vote for you- ur arguments wont be fleshed out enough AT ALL

I have adhd and may or not be on meds when I judge you depending on the day- we love clear slow down moments and organization bc it helps me tons when im not medicated!! before 930am and after 830pm are times when you need to keep this in mind

along those lines pls be a nice person- your energy carries into the room and debate should be a positive place of community

ask me questions! if you disagree with my decision feel free to respectfully inquire about it-just key wordrespectfully andI loveeee helping people talk to me ill work with you on anything

I like when u make my decision easy- do it :)

Please turn your camera on for online debate.

The later in the day it is the more slow + judge instruction heavy I expect you to be

Coppell 22

LD-

I compete in LD and extemp, so I'm good with basically any arg, just be nice and not sexist, racist, etc.

some random things:

- put me on the chain- natashabanga@gmail.com (and click reply all!!!)

- pls keep theory to a minimum...frivolous shells are annoying

- extend clearly/signpost

- give me some sort of framework (burden, value, standard, etc) to evaluate impacts

- weigh under your framework

- weighing impacts and evidence comparison is good

- collapse on just a few args

- speed is no problem but speaks go up or down based on clarity

- be funny if that's your thing, don't get too sassy (i.e. this is not PF)

Good luck!!!! You got this :)

General: Send cases to agbasinger@gmail.com. Trained through NSDA and NFHS. Will disclose through writing immediately after the round.

LD/CX/PF:

Generally speaking, things I like to see:

-Signposting is so important.

-VCV or framework explicitly stated and aligned to arguments and evidence throughout the case.

-a classical approach to debate that values depth of argument over speed and spread. Technical language is okay but should be defined.

-Negative has the burden of rejoinder. No rejoinder, no win.

-CX that challenges to the links between definition and framework, evidence and impact, and VCV and framework.

-Clearly stated impact calculus (probability/substantiality, magnitude, severity, timeframe).

-direct and sustained clash that leads to clarification of positions.

-Voters being mentioned early and often.

Things that I think weaken or sink a case:

-Poor definition work from generalized sources or definitions that play little role in case development.

-Citing specific data as 'common knowledge'.

-Hodgepodge cases: your definitions come from Blackwell's Law, your C1 cards come from 1980's Russian Nuclear scientist, your C2 cards come from The New Yorker, your c3 cards come from an experimental geological research journal and your framework is util and justice. Stick to a lane and work from that lane- legal, scientific, popular theory, something consistent holds more weight that trying to link disciplines that require multiple degrees before you can read the industry material with any level of comprehension. In other words, good cases require continuity of understanding and depth of knowledge.

Kritiks:

-Jargon-heavy kritiks that lack definition work and teams that don't challenge these kritiks.

-Deconstructive kritiks, particularly in their anti-colonialist form, have their place in debate as red flags in our collective conscience, but they do not constitute a counterplan. You must provide an alternative.

-Kritiks are inherently philosophically loaded positions. If your K shifts the debate from policy to values you must define and defend your values. Kritiks require strong linking and framework not just a cut card of implications.

Case sharing and good sportsmanship:

-If your team asks to see a case, you provide the case first.

-You provide the case you are running, not cards that 'you might run'. Unethical.

-There is no rule that says you MUST provide a case to an opposing team. You can provide a framework if you wish, either on-clock or off-clock.

-Agreeing to share cases then sharing your case moments before you compete? Bad taste.

-Frustration and anger are expected but don't let it turn to sarcasm or passive aggressive remarks. How you react to a poor competitor reflects your confidence in your case and abilities.

SPEECH EVENTS

DX/IX

Generally I prefer analysis and sourcing to style and delivery. Clearly structured is more important than having exactly three points. State your question and take a side. Bonus points for setting context and complexity through historical references and present/future impacts

POI/OO/DX/PO

I favor clear characterization and the elements of plot. Creating building tension, owning the stage, and balancing verbal/nonverbal elements of drama is important to me. Filling the entire clock is less important than the art of storytelling, but generally I don't rank sub 5 minute piece well.

Public Forum paradigm

I now coach speech, but I have also coached Congress and have judged PF and LD for the past 15 years in Ohio, Louisiana, and the national circuit. I never competed, but you know what they say about those who can’t (or don't).

I like to hear a well organized case—I value clarity and consistency. I prefer depth of analysis of one or two contentions rather than superficial treatment of a long list. Supporting evidence is important, but not as important as logical argumentation. Be sure that evidence actually supports or refutes and is not just thrown in to provide a source. I tend to vote on the arguments that involve impact and scope.

Clash is essential—nothing more deadly than listening to dueling evidence with no actual interaction. Do as much damage as you can to your opponent’s case and defend you own—sounds really basic, but that’s what I like to hear.

Crossfire is a time to ask questions—please do not use it to advance or restate your case (unless, of course, it pertains to a question you’ve been asked). I like to see teamwork in grand cross—please do not monopolize and let your partner get a word in edgewise.

I enjoy a nice extemporaneous delivery that demonstrates some real (or feigned) enthusiasm for your argument. Please do not spread—it is not impressive, and if I can’t follow you, the quality of your argument suffers.

And finally I value civility, courtesy, and respect—please don’t disappoint.

Lincoln Douglas paradigm

Similar to my PF standards, I am pretty traditional. I like a case that is well organized, clear, and consistent. Supporting evidence and depth of analysis are important, but logical arguments are essential. I really enjoy a good framework debate, and I appreciate hearing voting issues--tell me why I should vote for you. Why are your impacts more important?

I like an extemporaneous and conversational delivery. I am okay with some speed, but no spreading, please--if I can't follow you, I can't vote for you.

Civility, courtesy, and respect--always important.

Congress paradigm

Congress rankings are based on content (structure, evidence, clarity, analysis, clash) and delivery (articulation, fluency, vocal and physical expression, confidence/poise). Most importantly who advanced the debate and contributed the most through the quality (not necessarily the quantity) of his/her/their speeches and questions?

Civility, courtesy, and respect apply here as well.

krutin.devesh@gmail.com

After a year of judging, I feel I am probably better at evaluating clash rounds than straight policy rounds, although I primarily judged the latter last year and enjoyed it. As a competitor, I was frequently on both sides of policy v kritik rounds and would happily judge these.

Good judge instruction feels like a lost art, but it will be rewarded handsomely. The best debaters make my job pretty simple by accurately pointing out the key issues in the round, explaining why those issues are key, and explaining why they are ahead.

I evaluate the debate after every speech.

I care far more about your grasp of the arguments you choose to read than the actual content of the arguments. Please demonstrate a high understanding of strategy, regardless of what you read. I would prefer if you stay away from exceptionally bad theory arguments.

Disclosure is good, but I'm more convinced debaters should make a good effort to allow for engagement in round that meet an arbitrary threshold of disclosure (e.g. open source v full text, etc)

Even though these were not my favorite arguments, I have voted for a state bad link, a "trigger warnings" theory argument, and Kant takes out settler colonialism.

I enjoy hearing creative/"cheaty" counterplan rounds. I am also a fan of politics rounds.Sillier impact turns (spark, CO2 ag) are more difficult to win if appropriately handled. IR-based impact turns are encouraged.

I much prefer specific K links to some portion of the aff instead of state good links packaged as having some relation to the topic.

I am least interested in judging arguments that rely on your opponent missing a barely-warranted argument or are attacks towards your opponent's character or background. Debate is about argumentative flexibility, not individual people. Please clash and weigh.

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

Hey! My name is Shrayes (he/him), and I'm a junior and current debater at Coppell High School

Please add me to the email chain: sxg2686@gmail.com

Firstly, BE RESPECTFUL — I don't condone racism, sexism, homophobia, etc and I'll drop you if you are. Also, respect people's pronouns (if not on tab... don't assume, either ask or default to they/them).

Speaks: Feel free to spread, just make sure your'e clear. I'll say clear if I can't understand! I'm pretty generous with speaks but it takes organization, clarity, and inflection for a 30!

Policy/Trad debates: I completely understand these debates, so go for it! Make sure to weigh the arguments and if more trade clearly articulate your framework and explain the story of your impacts under framework. Telling a clear link story is key to these debates!

Theory:

default to competing interps, drop the debater, fairness is an i/l to education

Don't run frivolous theory, I'll be easily persuaded to reasonability!

If your opponents actions in the round are abusive, make a theory arg or blip and I'll evaluate it as needed.

Kritiks:

I enjoy K debates! Feel free to go for it, especially if you want feedback, I'll do my best! However, don't just run a K to win the round if you don't understand—I'll dock speaks. I'm a K debater and read policy positions so I get both, but if you read dense lit be clear in articulating the K in the 1ar or 2nr—don't expect me to understand ah so tell the story!

Phil:

Crystallize and articulate it nicely so that I can understand; I haven't really gone for these positions so don't expect me to understand.

Notes:

- Do impact calc!! Weigh the argumentations and tell me why to give you the ballot, don't make me do the work

- Signpost and reorganized pleaseee!!! It's a habit that is best started young.

- I do disclose with a brief RFD! Feel free to ask questions! :)

I did LD for four years in high school. I really only competed in TFA and UIL. I am a traditional judge and I have basic knowledge of most events and I will do my best to give you detailed and beneficial feedback.

Don’t spread in LD. If I can’t understand you then I will not flow your arguments even if you bring them up in your next speech. I am fine with Jargon but make sure to explain the word or meaning at least once that way I can follow more clearly.

CX tell me how to judge the round. I know nothing about CX so I will be relying on you in order to know how to vote.

IEs I have basic knowledge of speeches and acting performances. I want to be engaged and I don’t want to see you just represent a character or individual I was to see you be that individual. For speeches as long as you sound confident I will be pretty lenient with any mistakes when judging but I will include them in the ballots.

Hey!

IMPORTANT NOTE: PLEASE put me on an email chain for your rounds! vxk8484@g.coppellisd.com

General Information About Me

Coppell '22

I do LD Debate for my Coppell Debate team, and I have been doing this since 10th grade. I have competed in Policy Debate for my 9th grade. I have only competed in 1 tournament for Public Forum Debate in my 9th grade. For LD Debate, I have qualified for quarters, semi-finals, and finals in many tournaments throughout the years. I won 2nd place in the FosterFulshear National Tournament. I qualified for the North Texas Districts Tournament and NSDA all in 10th grade. I qualified for NSDA and TFA State all in my 11th grade. I am continuing to do what I love which is debate during this 12th grade year. For Policy Debate, I have qualified to quarters and semi-finals in many tournaments throughout the year. I won 2nd place with my partner for Policy Debate at the Coppell Cowboy Classic Debate Tournament.

I am super excited to be judging debate rounds! I love the whole concept of Debate, and I believe this is all a fun and safe environment where everybody can have fun and win! I DO NOT TORELATE any sort of racist, sexist, homophobic, or any type of disrespectful activity in the debate rounds! Your ballot will be reflected upon your actions so be careful! This should not be a big problem, because debaters are usually amazing people! Again, I just love debate so much and I am so happy that there are so many people just like me who love the world of debate. I will always do my best to provide a safe and fun environment when I judge debate rounds by being flexible, creating positive vibes, and giving important analysis and feedback for the debate rounds! DEBATE IS ALL ABOUT HAVING FUN so bring that positive energy and vibes into your rounds ! :)

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

I ABSOLUTELY LOVE LD Debates! I usually like clear traditional debates! There should be a clear framework debate between both sides. There should be good arguments on framework, and I do evaluate the framework debate when I am choosing who wins the round. Framework IS NOT EVERYTHING, but it is important so do not DROP IT and give me reasons why your framework should be considered in context with your case. K's, T's, and Phil's are fine, but I will only evaluate these arguments if you really expand on these arguments and give a clear reason why these should be evaluated in the round. I need a clear explanation for each of these arguments in order for me to use it in my final decision. I usually would not recommend running these arguments unless you are super familiar with the topic and know what you are talking about when you run these arguments. ORGANIZATION is key in debate. I have to be able to understand what your arguments are referring to, and if you are responding to the affirmative or negative. This makes my life A WHOLE LOT EASIER if you are organized in your speeches instead of jumping around. There will be DEDUCTIONS in speaker points if I do see a lot of unorganized arguments. THERE SHOULD ALWAYS BE CLEAR arguments presented throughout the rounds. You have to give me multiple reasons for why your opponent lost, and why you won. I am good with any argument that is fair in the debate world. I love traditional case debates so try to keep that in mind if I am judging your round! One additional note, I love jokes so throwing one in your speech would be so cool, and I would bump your speakers points depending on how funny I think it is. I am a super funny person, so I laugh at a lot of things but you have to REALLY try to make me laugh! :)

Policy Debate

I REALLY LOVE policy debates! Refer to my Lincoln-Douglas Debate paradigm for how I interpret policy debates. Again, I REALLY LIKE TO SEE traditional case debates and good arguments that clash on both sides!

Public Forum Debate

Public forum debate is cool. I will always evaluate the round based on the arguments presented to me at the end of the day. You should be clear about what you are arguing for, and give me reasons as to why the opponents lost and you won. Organization is SUPER IMPORTANT IN DEBATE. You need to specifically address what evidence, what arguments, and what side you are talking about. There will be a DEDUCTION in speaker points if you or your partner does not have an organized speech. I will choose whichever side upholds the winning criteria with whatever arguments are presented throughout the debate round.

Worlds Schools Debate

World schools debate is very interesting. You should have good arguments throughout the debate, and be very strong! Whichever side has the best arguments and responds to the opponents will win the debate round!

Speaks

I am very strict on speaking. Speaking clearly and smoothly is an INTEGRAL PART OF DEBATE. Spreading is good, but you have to be clear on what you are saying. If you are not clear, I WILL NOT EVALUATE YOUR ARGUMENTS AND YOUR SPEAKER POINTS WILL DROP. Be clear and be very strong! You have to be EXTREMELY CONFIDENT in debate, and I have to see that when I am deciding on your speaker points. If I do see any type of bad behavior, your speaker points are going to be SEVERELY AFFECTED so DO NOT BE MEAN! I start at 28 and move up or down depending on the strategies you use in the debate, delivery of the speech, in-round choices, communication, or any other information that I listed on my paradigms. If you get a 29, that means I think you are great but there are some small areas of improvement. If you get a 30, that means I think you are brilliant at speaking! If you get a 27, I think there are some good spots in your speaking but there is a lot to improve on. If you get a 26, you were not speaking well but there were very few times that I thought you did ok. If you get anything below a 26, you had a bad round or did something that REALLY made me MAD. I always give feedback speaking-wise after the round or in my ballot so check it out on what things I thought you did good on or what you need to work on. I also give strategies for how to improve your speaking so look out for that! Again, SPEAKING is VERY VERY IMPORTANT in debate so you need to give your best in the debate round and improve as much as you can speaking-wise!

Final Thoughts

Debate SHOULD ALWAYS be fun! Please reach out to me if you have any questions regarding the ballot or any questions in general about debate! My email is vxk8484@g.coppellisd.com . Debate is all about working together to improve oneself and those around you! I would love to help anybody out in debate because it is such an amazing event! One GREAT tip, HAVE FUN IN DEBATE AND SPREAD POSITIVITY! :)

I like flushed out frameworks but don't be abusive with fiat. If you run any interesting models then warrant why they are reasonable.

Warranting is important, especially in rebuttal speeches

Weigh as much as possible

don't make the debate boring, I know its harder with certain topics but please try to be entertaining and have fun

follow wsd norms, if you're confused please ask

Hello! I'm Siya Sangani— I am currently a freshman at UT Austin, double-majoring in both Finance & Plan II Honors.

Please do a couple of things in round:

• Signpost with distinct names, and reference where you are on the flow frequently.
• Illustrate the comparative and craft a narrative for me
• Weigh and analyze clashes in both a comparative lens telling me why your clash precedes other clashes as well as descriptively with measures such as scope, impact, timeline, stakeholders, and any pre-requisites.

Feel free to reach out to me: thesiyasangani@gmail.com

Please add me to the email chain, and feel free to email me if you have any questions!

coppelldebateas@gmail.com

Online Debate:

- Speed: 70%.

- Don't cut arguments from twitter or medium.com that aren't written by trustworthy, researched authors lol

- I will evaluate all arguments based on how well it is weighed. Make sure you impact out your arguments and tell me WHY you outweigh.

General Info:

- Please make sure you have enough time to read the plan text!!

- Any argument you want me to weigh, extend it with a warrant and have evidence

- I will keep time for both sides and flashing/emailing won't count as prep (as long as you dont take too long)

- I am fine with open cross x, as long as the person who is supposed to be answering takes the lead

- Spreading is fine but clarity > speed

- You can prompt, just keep it at a minimum

- No new 2NR/2AR arguments