Hey my name is Immanuel George. I debate at Coppell High School. I’m cool with anything but if it’s phil, you will have to explain it well for me to consider it equally.

Add me to the email chain: img6149@g.coppellisd.com

Speaker Points:

Im generally pretty relaxed with speaks and I understand that this is a novice tournament, so I’ll be lenient. Speaks given are as follows:

29.7-30: Great job, you extended your points in a clear and concise manner which made the debate very easy to evaluate.

29-29.6: Good job, I expect you to do well at this tournament, make sure you are more organized next time.

27-29: Average novice debater.

<27: You messed up.

I’m looking forward to watching y’all debate!

Hello! I’m a sophomore high school debater at Coppell High School who has debated LD for over a year. I will listen to and vote on any argument, but be sure to explain them as to vote on an argument I need to understand them. Also, I would like to be on the email chain/speech drops, especially if you are spreading.

On speaker points, as this is a novice tournament I’m fairly leaning about it. Just make sure to speak clearly, not too fast, and speak like you truly believe and want to fight for what you’re saying. Feel free to ask me any questions in the round, as this tournament is an education experience. Good luck!

Email: ayaan.haque2019@gmail.com

Hi!

note for middle school NATS:

congrats on being here!!

• ill keep track of all arguments:) If I'm typing on my phone I promise I'm paying attention my computer probably just died and I need to type feedback somewhere lol
• if you forget speech times don’t be afraid to ask me I got you
• I can time for y’all :) (my alarm is like a duck quacking though so let me know if that bothers you)

• don’t stress if you’re a few mins late this place is confusing to navigate

• if your event is flighted- flt 1 means you start at the time listed, flt 2 means you’re right after the flt1 round but the time should be listed as well
• it’s always good to try to use all your speaking time in speeches, but don’t stress too much about it — it won’t evaluate my judging :)

• don’t worry about the stuff below unless you understand it, most of it’s not applicable

• ask questions if you need anything at all or if you’re confused!

- relax, you did the hard work to get here already, enjoy yourself:)

paradigm:

add me to the email chain :)

ayushj0824@gmail.com

(I also prefer speech drop instead of a email chain)

Email format: ( “aff name” vs “neg name” - “tournament name” - rd #) - or something that has all of that

TLDR:

• I'm okay with speed
• I flow
• off time roadmaps please
• I like impact calc and judge instruction
• don't be disrespectful
• have fun :)

Speaks

im generous

27 and below: you did something bad (check things that lower)

28-28.9: good job

29-30: good job x2

put a cute dog pic or a funny meme on the doc and ill give you a L 29.8 or W 29.9

Things that lower speaks:

* Any isms (racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, etc) will be a L w low speaks

* Being disrespectful to your opponent (be nice)

* Misgendering, respect peoples pronouns, if not listed, default to "my opponent" and they/them

speed: idc, just slow on tags, send me the docs, "spread" analytics at your own risk because i might not catch them

wont effect speaks, unless I like absolutely cannot understand you

LD

my event <3

Evaluation stuff:

FW: most important, tell me clearly why I should evaluate the round w your framing, and induct your opponents

Policy args: yes please! I understand this, go for it!, make sure to weigh

Trad: same thing as policy :), just weigh fw for sure

DAs: I understand this, go for it!

CPs: I understand this go for it! make sure to explain net benefits, and net benefits of perm if you're aff

Theory: within reason pls

Default to competing interps, drop the debater, fairness is an i/l to education, etc.

No friv theory pls: if its frivolous ill be highly persuaded by reasonability

theory for in round abuse and high chance ill vote on it

please make sure the shell is understandable, if i dont get it, i cant evaluate it properly

Ks: at your own risk

Just tell and explain to me what your scholarship says: I wont do the work for u but dont expect alot either, just make it so its understandable and please tell a story!

If youre a novice only run if you actually understand the literature and all, butchered ks are painful

I'm not well versed with every literature but doesnt mean I wont evaluate it

Phil:not preferred

chances are high that im not familiar with the lit, so you would have to do alot of work "dumbing it down" for me

if its basic value criterion sure but dense phil fws i am probably not the best for it, i have trouble understanding it but if u go for it, pls crystalize it in the 1ar and 2nr

I'm not a phil debater, so wont be the best for like specific feedback

tricks: no bruh, i won’t vote of extrapolations of a non warranted 1 line blip in the 1ac

other things:

*Please do impact calc! if i'm judging you you're probably a novice so all that means is tell me why ur impact matters more (under ur fw) or using things like magnitude, probability, timeframe, scope

*argumentation is great but weighing makes my job so much easier and i'm way more likely to vote for you

*please signpost! as novices yall can get really messy so it would mean alot to tell me what you're answering and what flow you're on!!

*wont flow new arguments in 2nr/2ar

*keep your own time, incase i forget

*send me a email or tell me if you ever feel unsafe during/after round, and lmk if theres anything i can do :)

*will disclose (if both teams want it) unless tournament rules say otherwise

PF and CX, WSD

Treat me like a lay parent judge that knows how to flow basically

see LD for what i like

* go at a reasonable speed, signpost, write the ballot for me

- for worlds just treat me like you would a parent

have fun and good luck!

About Me: I am Pranav Krishnan. My email is pranavk.sky@gmail.com. Some additional information about me is that I am an LD debater, I go to CHS and am a sophomore.

Debate Prefferences: I value deep analysis, clear articulation, and evidence-backed arguments. I appreciate debaters who can effectively navigate impact and framework debates while providing clear explanations of their refutations. I look forward to your debates having clash and being educational.

Hey my name is Neel (Pronouns he/him). I currently debate at Coppell High School. I've debated 2 years ld and one year pf.

Add me to the email chain: coppellnm@gmail.com

Speaks:

You get good speaks if you are easy to flow ie. organization, clarity. I don't mind some speed.

General thoughts:

1] I really enjoy watching strong cx and will up speaks if you are using cx well. HOWEVER, this does not mean to be overly aggressive. It just means don't only ask clarifying questions.

2] Please be clear when signposting. If I do not know where you want me to put something on the flow, I will put it where I think it goes. The same is true about cross-applying: If you don’t tell me to cross-apply a crucial argument, I will assume I shouldn’t.

3] Have a fun debate. That’s the whole reason why we are all here.

4] Please condense in the nr/2ar if you are obviously ahead on a certain flow. Too many times I have seen debaters line by lining in their last speech when it isn’t needed.

I’m looking forward to watching y’all debate!

-Neel

Hi, I’m Sankalp Mudaliar, I’m a Junior at NTH@C and am an LD debater.

paradigm:

add me to the email chain.

debate.sankalpm@gmail.com

Email format: ( “aff name” vs “neg name” - “tournament name” - rd #) - or something that has all of that

TLDR:

• I'm okay with speed
• I flow
• off time roadmaps please
• I like impact calc and judge instruction
• don't be disrespectful
• have fun :)

Speaks

im generous

27 and below: you did something bad (check things cause that below)

28-28.9: good job

29-30: good job x2

Things that lower speaks:

* Any isms (racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, etc) will be a L w low speaks

* Being disrespectful to your opponent (be nice)

* Misgendering, respect peoples pronouns, if not listed, default to "my opponent" and they/them

speed: idc, just slow on tags, send me the docs, "spread" analytics at your own risk because i might not catch them

wont effect speaks, unless I like absolutely cannot understand you

LD

my event woo

Evaluation stuff:

FW: most important, tell me clearly why I should evaluate the round w your framing, and induct your opponents

Policy args: yes please! I understand this, go for it!, make sure to weigh

Trad: same thing as policy :), just weigh fw for sure

DAs: I understand this, go for it!

CPs: I understand this go for it! make sure to explain net benefits, and net benefits of perm if you're aff

Theory: within reason pls

Default to competing interps, drop the debater, fairness is an i/l to education, etc.

No friv theory pls: if its frivolous ill be highly persuaded by reasonability

theory for in round abuse and high chance ill vote on it

please make sure the shell is understandable, if i dont get it, i cant evaluate it properly

Ks: at your own risk

Just tell and explain to me what your scholarship says: I wont do the work for u but dont expect alot either, just make it so its understandable and please tell a story!

If youre a novice only run if you actually understand the literature and all, butchered ks are painful

I'm not well versed with every literature but doesnt mean I wont evaluate it

Phil:not preferred

chances are high that im not familiar with the lit, so you would have to do alot of work "dumbing it down" for me

if its basic value criterion sure but dense phil fws i am probably not the best for it, i have trouble understanding it but if u go for it, pls crystalize it in the 1ar and 2nr

I'm not a phil debater, so wont be the best for like specific feedback

tricks: no bruh, i won’t vote of extrapolations of a non warranted 1 line blip in the 1ac

other things:

*Please do impact calc! if i'm judging you you're probably a novice so all that means is tell me why ur impact matters more (under ur fw) or using things like magnitude, probability, timeframe, scope

*argumentation is great but weighing makes my job so much easier and i'm way more likely to vote for you

*please signpost! as novices yall can get really messy so it would mean alot to tell me what you're answering and what flow you're on!!

*wont flow new arguments in 2nr/2ar

*keep your own time, incase i forget

*send me a email or tell me if you ever feel unsafe during/after round, and lmk if theres anything i can do :)

*will disclose (if both teams want it) unless tournament rules say otherwise

PF and CX, WSD

Treat me like a lay parent judge that knows how to flow basically

see LD for what i like

* go at a reasonable speed, signpost, write the ballot for me

- for worlds just treat me like you would a parent

have fun and good luck!

I debate as a Junior for Greenhill. I'm fine with an email chain or speechdrop, please just get the files sent as quickly as possible so we can move on to the actual round. Please include both on the email chain: ghspsdebate@gmail.com, greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com

I have been coached/taught primarily by Mr. Rodrigo Paramo, Dr. Allie Chase, and Mr. Aaron Timmons.

For Junior Nationals: Read anything; please disclose.

TL;DR:

1 - LARP (CPs, DAs, T), Traditional, Generic Ks

2 - Theory, Identity Ks, Pess

3 - Phil, Confusing Ks (Baudrillard, Nietszche, etc.)

4/Strike - Friv Theory, Tricks

Speed is good if you are clear. Despite my extensive yapping, debate how you want and have fun :)

General Stuff:

I flow on paper; please give me pen time especially when switching flows. Roadmaps are good, overly detailed ones hurt you more than they help. Tech > Truth.

I think CX is a core part of debates and is always binding. Flex prep is good if both debaters agree.

Speaks start at 29, past ~29.7 you'll need to be near perfect in your clarity, signposting, and overall argumentation but I am a speaks fairy until there. (NOTE FOR NOVICES) If you give me an easy decision by the end of the debate then the lowest you can go is a 29.3.

DAs and CPs - Love these, typically will be more aff leaning for cheaty CP competition debates. Except for condo, 1AR theory defaults DTA. 0% risk is possible.

Ks - Pess is chill, overexplain the alt please. Confusing theories are confusing. Winning 1 link cleanly and extending it slowly is a lot more convincing than 5 independent turns that the alt probably doesn't solve.

Theory - Not the best judge for these kinds of debates. Meta-theory weighing is good, direct impact comparison is better. UVs are understandable but boring. 1AR restarts are really boring (write a better 1AC) but I'll evaluate them. Default Reasonability > Competing Interps. I hack for Reasonability v Friv Shells.

T-Framework - Threshold for voting on framework gets lower the further away an aff is from the topic. Win your model, not just your definitions. If I can't tell what the aff is supposed to do after the 2AR good luck.

Tricks - Things I don't vote on: hidden spikes, skep triggers, eval after X speech. Your speaks drop 0.2 for every spike you read. I hack for theory v tricks. If you win on a trick you get at max 28.5, if you lose you get a 26. I don't evaluate the 30 speaks spike.

Phil - Do it if you want but I will likely be lost. One liner calc indicts are boring and unpersuasive. I feel comfortable voting against something because I didn't get it. Please directly answer a ROB/ROJ.

Anything racist/sexist/homophobic is an instant L 25. I will tank speaks if you are blatantly or overtly rude to your opponent.

If you play good music during your prep time you get +0.2 speaks.