Hi! I'm Alex! (she/her)

Pls add me to the email chain alexcoulter512@gmail.com.

Westlake 2024 - I've been debating for 3 years

I'm good to eval anything as long as it isn't offensive. Read what you're best at! Just don't be problematic lol. Please respect pronouns, triggers and be kind!

Fine with any speed but pls be clear with tags/analytics

Have fun and be nice! :)

Ks

K's are my favorite style of debate, and I'm good anything you want to read. Please have a clear links, rob, and alt. And DO NOT read identity pol Ks if you do not identify with that identity group! I will drop you with very low speaks!

LARP

I'm good to eval larp. Please weigh and have a clear explanation of your link chain

T/Theory

I think T/Theory is a cool way to set norms in the debate space. If you read frivolous theory you should have a clear explanation of the interp and why it is good for debate. You should probably read paradigm issues, and also have clear standards

Phil

I have a good understanding of Deleuze, and decent understanding of Kant, Hobbes, Rawls, etc.If you are going to read dense Phil pls understand your fw and method and be able to articulate it.

Tricks

These are not my favorite, but if they're your thing go for it. I have a high threshold for warrents on spikes bc I will not be inclined to vote for a random spike just bc it's dropped by your opponent.

See you in round!

Hello :)

I’m Faizaan Dossani. He/Him. Add me to the email chain: faizaan.dossani@gmail.com

Westlake (TX) 2017-2021, I also coached here for the 2021-2022 season.

General/Introductions

I don't really have any disposition to any particular style of debate and will simply vote for whichever argument is winning the highest layer of the flow. I also have a low tolerance of being disrespectful to your opponents; just be nice please.

I competed in LD on the local and nat circuit in which I cleared at TFA and a sizable chunk of nat circuit tourneys. I also taught at ODI for its past two sessions. I think debate is a game with educational value and freedom. This basically means that I am tech>truth, but still care about maintaining the pedagogical value and accessibility that debate should have. I try to do everything possible to not intervene in my decisions, so navigate my ballot for me.

Kritiks + K Affs

I primarily read these arguments, as my go-to strat junior and senior year was 1-off K. I mainly read Settler Colonialism, Baudrillard, Wynter, Anthro, Berardi, Derrida, cap stuff, and Islamophobia lit but am extremely familiar with a lot of k lit (disability lit, most black scholars, and most identity politics). I have an extremely basic understanding of high theory (Deleuze, Nietzsche, etc.), but as long as you do the proper explanation, I can probably evaluate any literature you throw at me.

• Overviews are appreciated but good line by line is usually more compelling for my ballot
• I think reading pess args when you don't identify with that certain group is bad.
• Give trigger warnings. If you forget and remember midway through the speech, pause your timer and just ask everyone; safety is the most important.

LARP

I read/cut many larp positions and it was also the style of debate I hit the most, so I'm pretty comfortable evaluating these debates. I haven't done much research into the topic literature so please explain your positions to me very clearly!

• DO WEIGHING or I won't know which impacts you want me to evaluate first which means I have to intervene :(
• Evidence comparison is a must have in competing claims over the same argument
• I think reading like 6+ off and then just going for the one the aff had like 10 seconds to respond is a lazy strat, but I guess I will vote off it

Tricks

I have a love/hate relationship with tricks. I don’t mind an underview with some spikes scattered in, but I don’t understand most of the paradoxes. (Spark, GCB, Zenos, etc.) I think a lot of the tricks are stupid in nature, but I guess I will evaluate them.

• Don't be sketchy!
• Make sure that all of your tricks are on the doc. Even if you say "im extempting x" in the speech you still should send a doc of whatever analytics you read. In tricks debates, I heavily rely on the doc compared to other debates.

T + Theory

Usually wasn’t an off in my strats, but I think good theory debate can be fun. Bad theory debate means that you are just regurgitating the shell and not actually explaining how I should evaluate the abuse story on a framing level.

• I won't default any paradigm issues; please just make the implications yourself
• The more frivolous the violation, the more likely I will lower the threshold for response
• I think some form of disclosure is probably a good idea, but I also think that can be up for debate

Phil/FW

I barely read any complex framing other than Mouffe. However, I have judged a lot of phil debates so I feel that I can probably handle whatever you read as long as it is properly explained.

- Explain your complex buzzwords to me, examples will boost speaks

- I think framing hijacks/proving why your framework precludes their moral theory can be extremely compelling in these debates

Traditional Debate

I never really partook in any traditional style of debate (VC or definitional stuff) but I did debate traditional debaters a lot and feel that I can confidently evaluate these debates.

• I think the extra attention to ethos is nice in these debates, but at the end of the day I will still evaluate your arguments on a technical level first
• I'd rather you spend more of your time focusing on the substance of the debate instead of value/VC. I often find that most values are kinda the same thing but just worded differently, which makes evaluating weighing between different values kinda futile.

PF Paradigm

I never actually competed in PF but going to Westlake allowed me to drill/prep with a lot of our PFrs so I have been heavily exposed to the argumentation style and evolving nature of PF. The people that I have worked with that I have pretty similar takes on debate are Cale McCrary, Zain Syed, Jawad Bataneih, Jason Luo, and Cherie Wang.

• You can debate as tech or lay as you want in front of me. Doing LD broadened the styles of debate I partook in, so I can handle whatever progressive arguments you throw at me. Speed is fine as well, but be clear.
• I will give both teams plus 0.2 in speaks if yall just flash cases before constructive, we all know your calling for evidence just to steal prep which wastes everyones' time

Speaks + Misc.

I give speaks based off efficiency, argument quality, and just your general attitude in round. I try to be as consistent as possible with speaks, so you will most likely get between a 28-29.6 unless you do something exceedingly bad/good.

• Please record your speeches, especially if you have a history of laggy wifi
• Throwing in jokes during your speeches is always a plus
• For evidence ethics, I'd rather you form the argument into some type of theory shell instead of staking the round and allowing me to decide, but I will try to default on whatever rules the tournament is following

I know debate can be stressful and toxic; just do your best and have fun cause at the end of the day we are just some losers yelling at each other on NSDA campus :)

Hey y’all!

I’m Anastasia/Ana – Westlake LD '23, Baylor Policy '27

Pronouns – she/her

General:

Please be nice to eachother! Debate is a fun activity & should be treated as such, your opponents pronouns & triggers are non-negotiables and not complying with either will result in an L0. Safety > any round win ever. We are all human and deserve to be treated with the respect as such.

fine with speed just slow down on analytics or send analytic shells/ivis in a doc

please send all docs – prefer speech drop but email is anastasiaskeeler@gmail.com

Preferences (these are kinda iffy depending on how u execute them, everyone is differebt in how they explain arguments & I’m definitely not the single most tab human ever)

LARP: 1

I think LARP is cool. A lot of nuanced larp debates have been super interesting to watch & be a part of, but the same 3 affs and disads on every topic gets boring. I love creative advocacies and a good impact turn debate.

Some of my favorite speeches to give are a 2n on an impact turn (spark and dedev being my go-tos)

Please, for the love of God, weigh. This mainly applies to any novice rounds/ less experienced debaters – but I need weighing in the 2n or 2ar to be able to possibly evaluate a round.

T/theory: 2

Going for T is my guilty pleasure. I’m probably good with evaluating basic shells like:

Nebel, pics, condo, vague alts, afc, I could not think of more at the time of writing this.

Once you get into more blippy/tricky shells I will be fairly lost, if you go for the shell I need a clear explanation of the abuse story and why I should vote on it/the norm it would create.

I don’t have defaults for paradigm issues – read your own justifications when reading the shell instead of making new justifications in the next speech

Ks: 1

This is what I do the most, I am the most comfortable evaluating this kind of debate & would love to judge this.

Things that a lot of people forget to do:

• Weigh theory & K

• Make K tricks! These are so fun!

• Make substantive arguments unrelated to the theory of power on case

Familiar with basically every K lit at least at a baseline level. I do the most work with cap, disability & some pomo for reference. I love K v Kaff interactions & the claims within each lit base.

Phil: 3

I am familiar with a lot of ethical fws and Phil positions. just explain everything and make sure that what you are saying actually makes sense - ie your ethic + meta ethic and how the framing operates in the round

That being said, the way that phil gets executed now is something I am infinitely less comfortable with, ie the one paragraph of framing and then a bunch of blips. I am going to need you to go slower & give more explanation for these positions.

Tricks: 73164976

I dont like these. If you read these i will probably sigh loudly. I can eval them but speaks will be low and i will be sad.

cale.debate@gmail.com works, but prefer SpeechDrop

i coach some and am a director at vbi

former director at westlake & corona del sol

mostly judged/coached ld the past 2 seasons, pf before that.

overall:

i'm cool with anything you read, and any speed you go, as long as you are clear, signpost well, and keep the round a safe and pleasant place for everyone :)

ld:

1- policy, T/theory, cap

2- setcol, non-phil tricks

3- other Ks

strike- phil, trad, pomo Ks

policy: default judge kick. lean neg on cp theory claims, prefer affs substantively engage with the cp unless the abuse is egregious. cool w cheaty cps. 3 word perms aren't arguments. i <3 well executed impact turn debates.

theory: default competing interps, yes rvis, dtd, T>theory>rest, but idc ill change any of that. will entertain late restarts just pretty please send interps. speaks boost for shells in doc + slowing down for extemped shells/analytics :)

K: cap is my comfort lit base, so i'll be open to niche stuff, 1ac strats, and all impact turns. i'm also v comfortable with setcol, securitization, and ir-centric Ks. beyond that, my in-depth understanding is more limited, but i still often vote for these positions. just please especially actually resolve the lbl: far too many K 2n and 2ars are vaguely cross applying the overview everywhere in a way that hurts my head.

tricks: i can deal given they're not phil-adjacent, are clearly delineated in the doc, and you're willing to identify independent reasons to vote in cx if asked. that means i'm not the right judge for stuff hidden in the cut of a card, a full-force nailbomb 1ac, or a bunch of indexicals. i am the right judge for a standard truth testing 1ac, skep triggers, and common aprioris delineated in the 1ac text. if you think there's a risk it's phil-adjacent, prob just don't do it.

pf:

frontline in 2nd rebuttal, extend defense the speech after its answered, and be comparative when you're weighing or going for a fw argument.

come to rd ready to debate (pre-flowed, have docs ready if you're sending, etc)