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.

Email: anb2924@coppellisd.com

Hi! I was a member of Coppell Varsity Debate senior and debated for 3 years :)

I usually run stock but I'm good with anything.

Avoid blippy theory args & I wont vote on disclosure.

No tricks.

Kritiks are fine just outline your framework clearly.

Wont vote on non T affs just because I haven't had much exposure to it.

Cps and disads are fine.

-------------------------------

Most important things is to always have fun when debating, it's meant to be educational.

Hello! My name is Zachary Li (he/him), and I'm a freshman at NYU!

Education:

New York University '27 (B.S. Business + B.A. Mathematics)

Coppell High School --> TAMS '23 (debated 3 years LD as well as some PF and CX)

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain! My email is zcl1578@gmail.com. I will skim the doc but won't intervene on evidence ethics unless it is brought up in the round. I do keep time, but I would love it if you timed and stopped yourself. Feel free to sit or stand, and spectators are fine as long as competitors are okay with it.

General Thoughts:

1. PLEASE TELL ME WHY YOU WIN. You can do this in a couple of ways.

a) First, ballot painting - write my ballot for me by telling me exactly how you win the round.

b) Second, impact calculus - weigh your impacts against theirs and tell me why they are more important (magnitude, probability, scope, reversibility, timeframe, whatever) and why that particular weighing standard is important, as well as why you weigh better under the framework (LD).

c) Thirdly, clash/argument resolution - tell me the most important questions in today's round and why you're winning them - if two cards make competing claims, give me a reason to prefer your card/evidence/analytics, whether it be timeframe, credentials, we take into account something they don't, biased view, whatever - just give me a reason why you win a key argument rather than just extending the card.

d) Fourthly, argument impacting - why does conceding/losing this argument matter to the round? Does it disrupt the CP? DA? Sever the link to the K? Does this mean they have no offense? Does this mean I have to evaluate through sufficiency framing? Does this mean your impact o/w?

2. I'm a 7 out of 10 for speed. Not a huge fan of spreading but I'll survive with a speech doc. Maybe about 275 words with speech doc and 200 otherwise - I will use clear if necessary.

3. I consider myself to be a flow judge. That is, I will look at my flows after the round, adjudicate arguments, and decide on a winner.

4. Generally, I give speaks between 27-30 based not only on your clarity but also your strategy and organization. I try to view it as independent of the ballot - that is, you might get higher speaks but not the ballot - but more often than not, the ballot goes to the debater who is more clear and has better strategy and organization. (for math nerds) Speaks~Norm(28.5, 0.5)

5. (for novices) PLEASE STOP DROPPING MAJOR ARGUMENTS - please respond to important arguments during the 1nc/1ar or I'll be forced to accept them as true :(

Lincoln-Douglas (LD):

1 - LARP/Policy-style arguments

2-3 - Theory/T

2 - Phil

3-4 - K

5 - Tricks

LARP/Policy-style arguments: I ran these almost every round in high school. I am fine with plans, CPs, DAs, and other LARP stuff. LARP debates are almost always hard to resolve, so please tell me why you are winning an argument/the opponent is behind, and then why that argument is important.

Theory/T: I am generally ok with theory/T, but be reasonable.

Phil: I am not the most phil-educated person, but I do really like phil arguments and often find them persuasive. If you go for phil be sure to explain why I should prefer your framework/way of thinking.

K: not the hugest fan of Ks but I'll evaluate them, especially if they are topical. I can understand basic Ks, but chances are I won't understand more complicated ones. In my opinion, Ks function as DAs and CPs - you need to win that the DA (link and impacts) matter and the CP (alt) solves/reduces. You should also probably win framing. I tend to take the side of LARP debaters against the K on issues such as fiat and the state, but you can still win if you show me clear warrants.

Tricks: tricks are for kids

Public Forum:

debated a little public forum (~10 rounds) in high school, so I'm relatively familiar with how the event works. I'm ok with disclosure and counterplans, but other than that I would like to see an actually topical debate on the genuine merits of the resolution. Please read #1 on my general thoughts, because I find that PF, in particular, is very difficult to resolve. Put yourself in my shoes - why should I vote for you?

Congress:

never judged this before but I go off of who was the clearest and had the most insightful arguments/analysis. Be sure to genuinely respond to points brought up by your fellow representatives and senators and advance substantive debate about the topic rather than theatrics and hand-waving. POs start slightly above the middle of the pack and move up based on performance; PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE respect the time limits not only for speeches but for questioning periods as well to create the best experience for your fellow members of Congress.

BIO:

Education:

• Pursuing a B.B.A in Management and a B.A in International Relations & Global Studies at UT Austin
• Pursuing a minor in Sociology and a Certificate in Core Texts & Ideas

Debate Teaching/Coaching:

• Space City Camp Instructor (Summer '23)
• Middle School Debate Coach at Coppell Debate Academy (22-23)
• Coaching Intern at Coppell High School (22-23)
• World of Words Institute Instructor (Summer '23 & '24)
• Victory Briefs Institute Instructor (Summer '24)

Hey y'all! I'm a freshman at UT Austin who debated at Coppell High School (in Texas) for about 4 years; 3 years in World Schools Debate and a dabbling in Extemp, Congress, & Policy. I also debated for Team Texas my senior year and the NSDA Longhorns my junior year.

The tl;dr of winning my ballot: Win your asserted arguments, have a clearly delineated claim, warrant, impact structure with a strong (and mechanized) link-chain, and make sure you weigh your impacts vs the other side. BE COMPARATIVE and CHARITABLE! make sure to have fun :)

I don't have an issue with speed – unless you're unintelligible – but if I ask you to slow down please do so.

I'll automatically vote someone down if they're being discriminatory or harmful in any way shape or form, those rhetorics have no place in debate so be careful about what you say.

Longer Ballot:

• Make sure you engage on the most important parts of the motion; be clear in your weighing and have logical extensions (throughout the whole debate!)
• Weighing at the end of the round should be comparative and charitable of both sides best/worst grounds
• I'm going to buy most arguments at face value – unless they're ridiculous – so whoever bestproves their argument and weighing is going to win --> if someone makes a dumb argument but you don't refute it, I'm taking it at face value – no judge intervention!
• Prop Teams: You have to establish a compelling framing at the top; given the skew in the Opp Block you need to set up your Prop 3 to get as far ahead as possible --> I'm not taking new arguments in the P4 (but equally if the O3-4 is new content I'll dock it)
• Opp Teams: Use the block strategically – don't repeat content and make sure you sound different (but cohesive)
• Weighing – in my opinion – functions on two levels: factual/tangible content & in round (meta) weighing
• Principled arguments: I'll buy them and they can win rounds but only if they're weighed effectively; I need to hear from the top why I should prefer this argument over any possible/potential practical from the opposing side – don't hang your principle and then tell me to vote independent of practical
• Regrets: don't be daft, they're inherently retroactive in nature so if you make a mechanizing argument I'm going to look at you funny. the biggest thing is to make sure your counterfactual is believable and likely
• Stylistically have fun! I loved the style aspect of WSD when I debated and I think its about being your own speaker, the more fun I have the better the speaks for the round lol

Have fun and good luck :)

If you have any questions reach out at sahith.mocharla@gmail.com, always happy to help!

I'm a Juinor at Coppell High School who has done LD for 3 years

Winning my ballot will be relatively simple and straightforward – win your asserted arguments, have a clearly delineated claim, warrant, and impact structure with a strong (and mechanized) link chain, and make sure you weigh your impacts vs the other side.

I don't have an issue with speed – unless you're unintelligible – but if I ask you to slow down please do so. If you spread then send my your case.

It'll automatically vote someone down if they're being discriminatory or harmful in any way shape or form, those rhetorics have no place in the debate so be careful about what you say.

Don't do any crazy things

Make good arguments

If you do theory make sure I understand