Worlds School's Debate

This is the event I am most comfortable with, as I competed in this event for 4 years and spend a considerable amount of time judging/coaching WSD.

I will vote for the team that best proved their argument was true. For practical arguments, this means establishing characterizations, giving me multiple (preferably independent) mechanisms/links, and giving me clear impacts. For principle arguments, that means establishing that the principle is true and explaining to me why/how you fulfill the principle and why your opponents violate it. All arguments should be comparative (!), don't just critique your opponents world, actively/offensively tell me why your world is better. And of course, weigh your arguments (!) whether that be impact weighing, mechanism weighing, or metaweighing. Metaweighing is an easy way to get multiple paths to the ballot and score some strategy points.

It is not enough to prove to me that your world is "good" or that your opponents world is "bad", you must prove to me that your world is comparatively preferable to your opponents.

I very much prioritize content over style, as far as style goes all that matters is that you're speaking at a reasonable rate, your speech is easy to follow, and that you are not just reading off the paper but rather genuinely giving a speech. Can def score some extra points for good rhetoric/structure tho

PF/LD

I have judged PF/LD a decent amount 2 years, and will vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain and most strongly weighed impact, just debate good

If you ever have any questions or would like further feedback, you can reach out to me at diegocastilloo@icloud.com

If you get me as your judge in any event outside of these three, I am so sorry

Would prefer not spreading, but if you do then please send me a document.

Background: LD and CX Debater in high school.

Congress Paradigm: I am looking for solid evidence citations with a clear analysis of how the evidence supports your position for or against the bill. Specifically, it should be very clear to me which part of your speech is evidence presentation versus your own analysis through tone differentiation, reading your notes versus speaking your own thoughts. I really appreciate tying back into specific sections of the bill because it shows you have done your homework and you're not just making general statements about the topic. In congress, especially when there are so many speakers, I am also looking for a memorable beginning and strong conclusion that stands out and is very compelling. The impacts should be clear without me having to do any work to piece it together. I also appreciate clash as it shows you are also paying attention to what is happening in the chamber and adapting your speech to it. I will try my best to take good notes to reflect on your presentation of each position in order to pay attention to how strong your case was presented. Speaking abilities will ultimately be the tiebreaker and also the basis of ranking.

I have been a coach and consultant for the past 28 years and done every debate format available stateside and internationally. I also have taught at Stanford, ISD, Summit, UTD, UT, and Mean Green camps as a Curriculum Director and Senior Instructor. I think no matter what form of debate that you do, you must have a narrative that answers critical questions of who, what, when, where, why, how, and then what, and so what. Debaters do not need to be shy and need to be able to weigh and prioritize the issues of the day for me in what I ought to be evaluating. Tell me as a judge where I should flow things and how I ought to evaluate things. That's your job.

If you would like for me to look at a round through a policy lens, please justify to me why I ought to weigh that interpretation versus other alternatives. Conversely, if you want me to evaluate standards, those need to be clear in their reasoning why I ought to prioritize evaluation in that way.

In public forum, I need the summary to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the stark differences exist and what issues need to be prioritized. Remember in the collapse, you cannot go for everything. Final focus needs to be a big pic concept for me. Feel free to use policy terms such as magnitude, scope, probability. I do evaluate evidence and expect you all to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. The more complicated the link chain, the more probability you may lose your judge. Keep it tight and simple and very direct.

In LD, I still love my traditional Value and VC debate. I do really like a solid old school LD round. I am not big on K debate only because I think the K debate has changed so much that it becomes trendy and not a methodology that is truly educational and unique as it should be. Uniqueness is not the same as obscurity. Now, if you can provide a good solid link chain and evaluation method of the K, go for it. Don't assume my knowledge of the literature though because I don't have that amount of time in my life but I'm not above understanding a solidly good argument that is properly formatted. I think the quickest way to always get my vote is to write the ballot for me and also keep it simple. Trickery can make things messy. Messy debaters usually get Ls. So keep it simple, clean, solid debate with the basics of claim, warrant, impact, with some great cards and I'll be happy.

I don't think speed is ever necessary in any format so speak concisely, know how to master rhetoric, and be the master of persuasion that way. Please do not be rude to your opponent. Fight well and fight fair. First reason for me to down anyone is on burdens. Aff has burden of proof, neg has burden to clash unless it is WSD format where burdens exist on both sides to clash. If you have further questions, feel free to ask specifics.

In plat events, structure as well as uniqueness (not obscurity) is key to placing. Organization to a speech as well as a clear call to order is required in OO, Info, Persuasive. In LPs, answer the question if you want to place. Formatting and structure well an avoid giving me generic arguments and transitional phrases. Canned intros are not welcome in my world usually and will be frowned upon. Smart humor is always welcome however.

I want you all to learn, grow, have fun, and fight fair. Best of luck and love one another through this activity!!

She/Her | Seven Lakes 22' | UNT '26

Email: lorrainemeneses04@gmail.com

Hi! I'm Lorraine! I attended Seven Lakes High School as one of the co-captains of World Schools Debate ('21) and also one of the founding members of the squad and I've competed in International Extemp (although not frequently... so do not count on me for extensive advice). Some judges I typically align with include: Andy Stubbs & Nine Abad

General

- I need content warnings for SA & suicide

- I have zero tolerance for racism, xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, ableism, etc. Be sure to use people's preferred pronouns, and overall, be respectful. Debate should be a safe space, so if you have any concerns, please contact me.

- Be respectful in the round. There is a difference between aggression and meanness. I will be docking off points if I see rude behavior from competitors

- Online Debate: Before you start your speech, ask whether I am ready, and wait for a verbal indication from me

WSD

Worlds is definitely my favorite event on the circuit and I've competed for about three years (doing primarily 3rd speaker as a role). A few things that will make me vote for you:

- Please adhere worlds norms. I will definitely dock points if you don't. (No off-time roadmaps, take 1-2 POIs, no spreading, etc.)

- If you start your speech with an off-time roadmap, ill start your time immediately.

- The team that'll maintain clarity throughout the round usually wins my ballot. Be sure to have explicit organization with signposting. If you can clearly illustrate what your world looks like and compare it with the other side of the house It will help me weigh the round.

- Be sure to characterize each of the actors and stakeholders in the round and how it fits into your arguments and how it affects your world in the round.

- I'm expecting explicit worlds weighing for clash throughout the later speeches, specifically outline what prop and opp look like on your side of the house and explicitly show me as the judge the net harms and benefits.

- Style isn't a major concern for me, but there should generally be a good balance of the team on average maintaining similar style, content, and strategy.

- Please avoid tokenizing marginalized groups or exploiting statistics of deaths or illness for the sake of the ballot, impact weigh with consciousness.

MODEL DEBATES

- If you use the term fiat, use it correctly and explain how your side clearly demonstrates fiat power

- Adhere to motion wording — if the motion entails "supports" you don't necessarily have to adhere to practical grounds

- Models should be thorough and clear enough for me to understand, if they aren't then its going to be difficult for me to weigh later in the round.

PF/LD

Overall, I'm not extremely familiar with PF/LD, but i'll vote for the team/debater that'll have these key aspects:

- Please signpost + avoid spreading super fast (i'm going to vote off of clarity)

- Have organized argumentation + explicit explanations. I'm fine with technical terms, but use them correctly (i.e use fiat or uniqueness correctly)

- Have clear warrants (hows + the whys) and how it links to your claim

- Please avoid tokenizing marginalized groups or exploiting statistics of deaths or illness for the sake of the ballot, impact weigh with consciousness

- Whoever shows clear links to not only your claim, but your impacts and explicitly weighs those impacts will ultimately win my ballot

Speak in a normal speed and tone. When you speak fast, it comes off very monotone. Debate is a conversation about specific topics. Be CONVERSATIONAL in your speaking. It's not about who gets the most information, but about who has the best information and presents it best. DO NOT SPREAD!!!

Please make sure your cameras are turned on.

Please don't tell me how to vote. You may SUGGEST how I should vote. But, when one says "you must vote in favor of (insert side here)," it sounds more like a demand.