All topics are OKAY

I will request and email chain - and for you to announce your order. - Roadmaps (in the event order changes)

am.corral86@gmail.com

Please do not spread!

LD-Focus on Value criterion

My paradigm is blank slate. 

Hi, I'm Karthik - TAMU '28 - McNeil '24 - 4 years of LD on TFA and national circuit

speechdrop is chill, email is chill too: karthik.jay531@gmail.com

General

i flow by ear. don't spread anything you want me to understand/flow. if i miss something, i might feel bad for you but i won't vote on it

only time I'll check the doc is for ev ethics, but I'd rather you read it as a shell

only rules are speech times, rest is up for debate

tech>truth for the ballot (only exception is safety/ -isms), speaks are up to me (read: no speaks spikes)

defaults: theory > rob/framework > offense , presumption and permissibility negate

Novice

weighing is everything

pls don't read theory or K's, everything else is chill

don't worry too much about wins and losses, focus on getting better so you can move up to varsity

Pref sheet

Phil - 1/2 depending on the phil

This is what I find the most interesting in debate, I read some Rawls, Kant, Hobbes, etc. but don't assume ik your philosopher

skep, determinism, and logic tricks like paradoxes are also fine, but make sure to explain why they justify voting for you

K - 3

did a little of this (cap, setcol, security), but don't assume I know your K

not afraid to vote on presumption v a K aff if I don't know what it does

if you can't explain your thesis to a 5 year old within cross ex, then don't read the K in front of me

dislike doc botted 2nrs full of buzzwords

Theory - 1

Did a lot of this as a debater, I'll vote on friv shells if you're winning the flow

I dislike theory spikes without good warranting, but if they have warrants I'll vote on it i guess

judge instruction is key when collapsing to theory, esp when you have to up layer over ROB

defaults: ci>reasonability, drop the debater, no RVI

LARP - 3/4 depending on complexity

I did very little of this, but it seems straightforward enough

assume I don't know anything about current events

I like overviews in 2nr/2ar explaining what the collapse/win condition will be esp in complex debates (multiple condo cp's, impact turns, etc)

other info

speaks

speaks are somewhat arbitrary but influenced by being nice and good judge instruction

shout outs

influenced by: Henderson, Anshul Gulati, Yara Mustafa, Ben Duong, Vishnu Nataraja

shout outs: Rohan Sthanu, Manu Yenikapati, Aditya Patwardhan, Nithya Challa

"live laugh love lose"

email: brianjeon@college.harvard.edu

full disclosure i haven't been in debate for a semester so my ears are not as fast as they used to be meaning clarity is key and do your best to include analytics (especially if they're pre-written) into the 1AC/1NC (bonus speaks if in the 1AR/2NR)

general

hey y'all! i'm brian (he/him), and i debated for westwood hs for 4 years (circuit + toc), x1 bid, x1 toc qual, x3 tfa qual

i will evaluate all arguments (except bigotry) and do my best to understand what you read in front of me

i will disclose speaks if you ask

i do not feel comfortable adjudicating out-of-round actions besides disclosure

flex prep is good

what's below (besides non-negotiables) are my preferences but at the end of the day do what you love, judging debaters who know and care about what they're saying is much more fun than seeing half-baked strategies that over adapt

non-negotiables

cross-ex is binding

i will evaluate all speeches in the round

no 30 speaks theory

no theory that polices what people wear

no floating pik 2nr pivot unless it was very clear in the 1nc

ev ethics

all evidence should follow nsda rules

i do not think accusations of evidence ethics should be risk-less for any team: if the violation is true, L25 BUT if the violation is false, L25 for the other team

if you mark a card, mark it on your end; if you take time to go back and mark it, take prep

policy

i love impact turns! spark, ddev, warming good, even extinction good BUT absolutely no death good/harm good/suffering good

strong case press with fewer offs makes me happy

good research/specific links to the plan will be rewarded with good speaks

t/theory

nebel t/whole res t is totally fine by me, just explain the upward entailment tests and stuff

my defaults are (and please don't let me decide on defaults): no rvis, dtd, ci

i think disclosure is good but i dislike more marginal shells about round robins, cites, judges, etc

• as long as a good faith reasonable attempt was made to disclose the aff and neg positions, i generally think disclosure is less persuasive

the more plan-inclusive the pic is (process, actor, consult) the more cheaty it feels but this is all debatable

kritik

first question on my mind is: what does my ballot do? top of 2nr/2ar should answer this

the kritiks i have read/though about the most are cap, techno-orientalism, and settler colonialism on the affirmative and negative (context: i read storytelling/scifi affs)

regardless of how familiar i am with the literature, good explanation and judge instruction are important

HEAVILY dense literature (some branches of psychoanalysis and post-modern theory) will retire much more slowing down, good explanation, and a solid 2nr overview

quotes in the 1nc/2nr make me very happy

a sole presumption 2nr is an out but my offense/defense brain prefers either separate offense + presumption or offensively-spun presumption

kaffs should be SOMEWHAT related to the resolution (creativity encouraged!)

phil

i'm familiar with and have read kant, hobbes, and butler before

reading a card or two that justifies part of the framework rather than an entire analytic one will be rewarded with speaks - i think debaters have started to plagiarise from theorists with half baked analytics

for your sanity and mine and to reduce the chances of a judge screw, please include all pre-written case framework indicts in the doc

no outright skep please: skep triggers and skep to justify other normative theories are fine

no value debate please

tricks

i guess? the later in the day this is read, the more confused and annoyed i'll get so read at your own risk

please do not be deliberately avoidant of clash like extemping shells or blippy a prioris or being dodgy in cross

lmk if you have any questions!

David Li
WWHS, 24
tidaldolphin10@gmail.com - yes email chain

Spark                                                                                                 No Spark

X---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quick prefs:

1 - Policy
2 - Phil
3 - K
4 - T/Theory
5 - Tricks

Hello. My name is Shaurya Pathania and I am a junior at Westwood Highschool. My email is shauryapathania75@gmail.com (I want to be added to the email chain.) Let me know if you have any questions before round.

Prefs:

1 - Policy

2 - T

3 - Theory/Phil/K (The more abstract or dense - the lower on the prefs I am)

4/5/Strike - Trix

Don't be afraid to read args that are low on my prefs, do whatever u want - this is just what I am most comfortable dealing with. Try to keep round as educational and as safe as possible and just have fun!

Back when the OGs and I were watching the Good Ol' debates between the democratic Stephen A. Douglas and my main man Abraham Lincoln from the republican party, I learned a couple of things about debate.

Short Cut Prefs:

1 - Policy/T/Theory

2 - Phil (Kant, Hobbes, Util), K (Cap, Pess, Set Col, Psychoanalysis)

3 - Tricks

4 - Dense Phil, K (anything I didn't list), K Affs

Big Things:

I go to Westwood High School and I am a junior.

email: akhileshpissay@gmail.com

An ideal debate probably has an affirmative that defends a meaningful change from the status quo and a negative that proves an opportunity cost to that change.

Fine with speed as long as you are clear, will clear you/say slow

Policy:

• affs must defend change from squo

• adv cps are underrated, read them more

• favorite 2nr is cp + da

• ^that is tied with the ! turn 2nr

• make more offensive arguements rather than defensive ones

Theory/T:

• T debates are cool, I just wish people explained to me the violation a little better

• nebel/leslie needs good explanation in 2nr to be voted on

• Condo 2ars are underrated, i find a lot of 2nrs to be making terrible arguments for condo good

• disclosure is good, losing to disclosure makes people disclose better imo but ill be lenient with like rr theory and such

• defaults: dtd, ci, no rvis, education/fairness voters

K:

• Debate i dabbled into the least, but i still have a good understanding for a couple of lit bases (psychoanalysis, set col, afropess, cap, asian mel)

• Topic specific links > generics

• i think that the aff should always be able to weigh case, i think excluding the aff is stupid bc it moots the 1ac, if aff, my favorite 2ar is framework + case o/ws

• Topical k affs are cool but i think that extinction o/ws is a true argument

• T-FW stuff: Err neg on framework debates but still think that the aff must win why their model is better, pls dont j ! turn fw, answer it w why ur model is good

Phil:

• I know what kant, levinas, hobbes, and util say. If you want to read something else ie agonism, pettit, butler, exc, feel free to read it but if u want the ballot i need to understand it in the round

• Explain me the philosophy as if i was a two year old - goo goo ga ga

• cps/das dont negate is funny but i have low threshold for this argument

• tricks are troll but make sure to have claim, warrant, impact to them

• Pls ask for new 2nr/2ar answers to tricks, they are usually read as a claim and warrant but no impact till the 2nr/2ar.

Speaks:

• 29.8-30: should win the tournament/did a v v good job

• 29.3-29.7: you are good, will def clear, maybe late elims

• 28.9-29.3: probably clear, def bubble round

• Probably wont give anything below 28 if u try and debate, unless you say something racist, sexist, exc.

Please add me to the email chain. My email is aparnapolavaram@yahoo.com

I have no experience in debate, so please don't use debate terminology. Please be clear and slow when you give speeches. Please tell me what I should vote on, and why I should vote for you. Also, if you want to be voted for make sure you clearly explain your arguments and the different parts of your argument.

Experience: Teacher and Coach of Speech & Debate! Although I have a few years of experience I am BIG on public speaking skills!

What I look for: A speaker who keeps the audience in mind by applying speaking techniques that keep the listener interested. (Eye contact, non-verbal communication, body language is important to get an overall perspective of the speaker).

Each speech or performance needs the basics: intro, body conclusion.

For extempers, I love to see the waltz during your delivery.

I am always open for the speakers to find their own unique ways to make their topics interesting and purposeful! I am all about the persuasion and emotion behind a performance (THINK ethos, pathos and logos).

*Treat the round as a "communication experience" and remember to have FUN!!

For debaters, DO NOT spread during a round. I like to flow during rounds and understanding your arguments is most important.

I enjoy clash during CX and voter reasons! (Remember part of a debate is in the art of persuasion)

Currently doing LD at Westwood High School

I am fine with any argument as long as you can explain them

Would prefer to be put on the email chain