I'm a career coach who has coached/judged WSD at nationals for several years now. I try to judge the debate on what was said. I am looking for a theme or team line. I appreciate it when debaters simplify the debate in rebuttal speeches. I expect emotional appeals designed to make me feel something in and amongst all the arguments presented. I also find the team line useful because it helps anchor the story that unfolds in the debate. World schools is a conversation. It's about turn-taking, respect, composure, and a limited amount of arguments...In other words, the best 'conversationalists' should accrue enough points for their team to win. I enjoy the format of WSD and I appreciate how it is different than other styles of debate. Most debates are close at nationals; just don't let the line-by-line overwhelm the pressing need for you to make me feel something. I'm a former policy debater...so i'll get the arguments on the flow. I just think that the 'face' we create in addition to our standard offense/defense is super important in WSD because it really humanizes the debate for me and helps me see and feel things that I might not see or feel in other forms of debate.

email: sxc6165@g.coppellisd.com

Be respectful to each other. Debate should be a safe environment. Any -isms (racism, sexism, misgendering, etc.) will lower speaks and result in you losing.

I am a junior who debates VLD for the Greenhill Debate Team. Try to share docs: don't mind if it's an email chain or speech drop - try not to spend too much time doing this so we can keep the debates going! My email is cyberdragon.pobo@gmail.com - feel free to reach out if you have any questions. He/him pronouns

!!FOR JUNIOR NATIONALS: Ignore the rest of me yapping - just have fun! I will focus on the debate being as educational as possible and as long as you know what you're doing I'll evaluate based on that. Just make sure to explain to me in your last speech why you win the round over your opponent! Have fun and feel free to email me if you have any questions!

General Stuff:

Overall, I've gone for all kinds of args: K, Trad, T, etc. Have debated/gone against phil and tricks but would still say I'm not the most knowledgeable on these - and would prefer you don't read the latter (honestly feels bad for debate).

Preferences:

1 - LARP, Trad, T, CPs, DA, etc.

1.5 - Ks/K Affs (Love these both casually and in debate but just make sure to explain it and that you know what you're talking about)

2- Theory (within reason, stuff like Condo, CP Theory, etc. are all good)

2 - Identity Stuff (Love this stuff on a general level, not so much in a debate sense. If you can do it well enough I will vote for it. Also be very thorough and warranted if you go for an IVI debate. I often find debaters throwing this around in very dumb manners to get ballots - please actually explain the point if you want the ballot.)

3- Friv Theory/Phil (Be a bit more hand-holdy and take ur time to explain this stuff to me)

4- Tricks (please dont)

Speed: I can go up to about a 6-7/10, but clarity should be still present when you speak. Going into "card mode" is fine but during analytics, tags, and big points try to slow down and articulate. I will indicate when clarity is an issue in round and I hope that you adapt accordingly. Slow down on analytics especially if not on the doc - and maybe give me some pen time if I'm flowing on paper (switch between laptop and paper depending on my mood lol)

Speaks: Start at 28.5 and go up or down depending on the speeches. If ur racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. its an instant L 25.

Other:

• I usually flow CX or make note of what happens, but to bring something into my decision bring it up in your speeches
• Clash = good debate, don't try to play around answering your opponent.
• I'm not the best with RVIs on Theory/T so go slow with these. Err aff on friv theory RVIs and err neg on T RVIs.
• Big on weighing, crystallization, all that stuff - make sure to explain your arguments and explain to me why you win!

Arg Specifics:

Framing: Nothing super preferential here but did want to make a note. I see too many debates devolve into FW v. FW versus actually explaining the plan, DA, etc. Understand your FW and depend on it sure, but always tie it back to your case and the debate!

Policy, DA, CPs, etc.: Do your thing. Just be careful with cheaty CPs/PICs and you really should have a warrant for them. Other than that, explain links/uniqueness/solvency well and ur good!

Ks: Love this if the link and alt make sense. Good for most generics (Cap, Set-Col, etc.) but err on the slow side just so I can wrap my head around your argument and fully understand it. Make sure you know what you're talking about and make sure to explain to me the solvency/weighing of the alt/perm when doing so an you can fs win my ballot! Identity is cool as long as you can beat out T and explain to me why getting the ballot is important for the K - this stuff is painful to sit through if you botch it.

Th/Topicality: Default to reasonability > competing interps. A good 5-6 minutes of T can get you the ballot. Extend interps, violations, and explain to me why they don't meet and you should win - just don't be stupid with it. Theory isn't my strong point but I can pretty comfortably eval things like Condo, CP Competition, Vague Alts, etc. as offense and voters. Just don't get too crazy with it.

Phil: Just be slow with it and explain to me your argument. Not the most experienced here - but have some experience against stuff like Kant, Levinas, etc. Love the K v. Phil debate especially if both sides can go for it well.

Tricks: no

2NR/2AR: This speech can honestly make or break a debate for me. Do it well and it can get you a ballot, do it bad and you could throw away a lead. Collapse is always welcome and preferred. Emphasize why you win and weigh plz!

ABOVE ALL ELSE HAVE FUN AND BE RESPECTFUL!

+.1 Speaks for getting the reference in my email (Yay you read my paradigm) - let me know before the round

Feel free to reach out for any additional questions!

I am a former LD debater returning to judge for the first time in over 10 years in Fall 2023.

My strong preference is to hear you debate the resolution at hand. Therefore I will only consider traditional arguments.

I also strongly prefer quality of arguments over quantity, consider that before you spread.

To send documents my email is aimee.henderson@gmail.com

Hello I am Elise Howe!

Please include me on the email chain, my email is elicarhow@gmail.com.

I've debated exclusively in LD for three years at Coppell High School.

Shortcuts:

LARP - 1-2

Identity/Soft Ks - 2-3

Theory 3

Phil - 3-4

"High" Theory Ks - 4

Trix - Strike pls

Top Level:

I'm fine with spreading just make sure you don't sacrifice clarity for speed. I don't normally believe the aff has to be topical, but def will evaluate the debate as you give it to me. Performativity is cool just make sure you defend the methodology completely. Cross ex is all about concessions - i actually do care about cx in the framing of the whole round and i don't mind people who are assertive, but please don't be flat out aggressive. Please be especially nice to novices, accommodate people if they ask for something, don't consistently misgender people, give content warnings, and I believe disclosure (at least cites on the wiki) are a good norm in debate.

LARP

My favorite debates to watch are LARP - feel free to read any argument and number of arguments before me so long as they are warranted. I lean towards CPs can be conditional, but you can convince me otherwise. Perms are tests of competition and need a net-benefit/world justification for me to buy them. Pls weigh your impacts.

Ks

I am most familiar with "soft ks" such as the cap k, sec k, etc., but I've also read enough on most identity ks to feel equipped analyzing the round. Please don't assume I know absolutely everything you are saying - explain any jargon that isn't mainstream pls!! make sure you have multiple links and solvency with the alt and a robust rob that makes sense. Now high theory I have limited knowledge on, so if that is what you are going for, you better do enough explaining that I can follow your story.

K v K is my absolute fav type of debate to watch just make sure you are cross applying theory of powers and all that stuff because clash is key !

Theory

I def expect to see standards weighed with voters in a theory round. without implications i have no clue how to resolve any of your claims. With that being said, theory is a tool and effective strategy that I like to see play out occasionally but pls keep it within limits. i.e. don't run friv theory, i don't need my time wasted with that. if you want to tell jokes go do stand-up comedy or HI. or if you just want to hack win then find another judge.

Phil

I've dabbled in most of the major philosophers: Kant, Hobbes, Levinas, Rawls, Butler and I can typically evaluate some generic claim about egalitarianism or social contract. However, I think phil debates are often either done very slowly and boringly where arguments are made but not implicated well. Or they are paired with friv theory and spikes (see up and below). So I'm not against phil I just want to see something creative. And always be sure if you are going to be creative to explain in a straightforward manner what you are doing instead of using dense wording to hide your true intents. If your arguments are solid you shouldn't need to hide behind mega combinations of words.

Trix

Please just don't run these in front of me. I think trix destroy reciprocity and totally monopolize time skew, which although strategic, bothers me because trix hurt people new to the event most and I don't want to scare them away, nor embolden them to become mini trix monsters.

Speaks

I give speaks between 27.5 and 29 normally.

I do appreciate humor and personality in your case so be original. It does add speaks.

Absolutely no impact turns on terrible things (ie racism good, sexism good, homophobia good, etc.). That will be a 25 L.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions!

Hi guys, I'm Suchit. I've debated at Coppell ('23) for 4 years, primarily in world schools, but I have some minimal experience in LD. Half the reason I'm involved in debate is that I have fun doing so, so let's keep it that way and avoid being problematic (racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.)

If I'm judging you in PF/LD, I'm not the most experienced with the format, so slow down a bit for me. You don't have to go conversational, but I'm not used to people spreading. I'd probably be best described as a flay judge. I'm willing to vote on anything, but it's your responsibility to prove why I should vote on it/why I should care. If you're running a k, you're going to have to explain it well to make me feel comfortable voting on it.

WSD:

The biggest thing I have is to be fair when you're debating. If your strategy is to straw man your opponents or use abusive models/definitions, I'm probably not going to vote for you. I like to see well-warranted arguments with impacts that are weighed in the context of the round. I'll try not to intervene whatsoever, but typically, the worse an argument is (in terms of warrants, how true it is, if there are any contradictions, etc.), the lower the burden on the other team there is to refute it. That isn't to say that I won't vote for an argument that I don't like/believe; if an argument is untouched down the bench, I'm left to assume that it's true.

I love principled arguments and have found myself voting on them a lot recently, but that's typically because the practical is too messy or isn't explained well enough. I have no qualms with valuing a principle over a practical, but you generally need to do a lot of work explaining why I should vote on it.

Speaking of which, weighing is a huge thing for me. I'll vote for anything (unproblematic of course), but only if you tell me why I should. This isn't just within a clash, but on an overarching level (meta-weighing). Tell me why some arguments matter more than others. Tell me why some impacts are more important than others. If I don't get any of this, I'm left to intervene and choose what I believe is most important, and you definitely don't want that.

If you have any questions about a round or want further feedback, feel free to reach out to me at suchitineni@gmail.com

jnats note: please use speech drop https://speechdrop.net/

Hi! I go by sorin! Senior at Coppell High School.

add me to the email chain :)

s8rink@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 :)

things to keep in mind:

*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

LD/CX

Evaluation stuff:

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

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

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

please make sure the shell is understandable, and clear warranted voters, if i dont get it or don’t know what to do with it, I cant evaluate it properly :(

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

friv theory: if its frivolous ill be highly persuaded by reasonability + low threshold for response , there’s also a time to be “funny” and not funny like don’t read some wild debaters must play Fortnite shell on a identity position

IVIs:something like misgendering or like a jargon ivi i’d prob vote on if won, but for things like author indicts— sure this old white guy is problematic, and I most likely agree with you, but it needs to have like a impact, tell me what reading this author really does yk (and in relation to your position if applicable).

Ks: at your own risk

I am a k debater but that doesn’t mean I know every lit base. (especially if high theory, err on over explanation, talk to me like I’m 5 i don’t mind getting lectured for a bit) Just tell and explain to me what your scholarship says: I wont do the work for u but don’t expect a lot either, just make it so it’s understandable and please tell a story!

If you’re 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 doesn’t mean I wont evaluate it

LD Specific:

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

Phil:not preferred

chances are high that im not familiar unless maybe like Kant or Rawls as purely framing mech, so you would have to do alot of work "dumbing it down" for me

again 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

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

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

PF and WSD

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

see LD for what i like if it’s applicable

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

• for worlds just literally treat me like you would a parent

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-er 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)

have fun and good luck!

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:)

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.

I'm Kaitlyn, and I currently debate for Coppell. I use she/they pronouns.

Please add me to the email chain: kaitlyntapia427@gmail.com

1 - K

1/2 - Larp, theory

3/4 - High theory phil

4 - Tricks

General: I can flow speeches that are fast and clear. Please sign post and give proper judge instruction.

K's: I’m familiar with most mainstream K’s, and I've read up on setcol, academy, cap, deleuze, and IR quite a bit. Please explain the thesis of anything else

K affs: I'm a K aff debater myself, and I would love to judge any! I really enjoy hearing innovative and quirky affs in general. The main issues I have with voting for non-topical affs are a lack of a warrant for the ballot, or an explanation of what voting aff actually does. I have a pretty high threshold for TFW when the aff has decent offense on it, but I'm willing to vote on TFW if you run it well. I tend to err aff in a lot of KvK rounds on the perm debate, but if you have a great explanation for why the alt competes, go for it!

Larp/policy style: I used to do CX and usually went for the politics DA, consult CP, or econ DA on the neg. I went for a ton of blippy advantages in the 1AC, which I don't necessarily recommend you do. Instead, I like in-depth rounds that narrow down to a core issue or topic, since it's easiest for me to evaluate. You will be rewarded with speaks for efficient on-case coverage as the neg (I love case turn NR's)

Theory: you need all parts of a shell (interpretation, violation, standards, paradigm issues) extended throughout the round in order for me to vote on any theory/T arguments, regardless of whether or not it was dropped by the opponent. Defense is not sticky, as PFers would say. I will grant significant weight to whichever side wins and terminalizes the counter interps vs. reasonability debate, but please contextualize your standards in the specific round you are debating in to make it easier for me to see the abuse claims.

- Here are my "default" stances that are still subject to change based on the debate: yes condo, yes 20 minute disclosure, yes pics (including word pics), no floating piks, yes 1ar theory, yes RVIs, no paraphrasing, plan specs are fine but not required

Phil: I am knowledgeable on some of the more mainstream frameworks (Rawls, Kant, Hegel, Levinas, Nozick, Locke, etc.), but explain any other high theory arguments so that I can evaluate offense properly. I do consider reps IVIs ("your philosopher is racist/sexist/homophobic"), but teams must warrant out DTD just as one would with any theory argument.

Trad: I used to be a PF debater throughout middle school, so I'm pretty familiar with lay and traditional debates. That being said, this is probably the type of debate I am least excited to judge, just because I believe stock positions get boring after debating this topic for so long. I also don't see why one would read a value/value criterion that devolves to a utilitarian framework. Overall, if you are a trad debater, I am definitely still willing to vote for you over a larper/K debater; however, you must be winning the flow and should keep in mind that I will not factor speaking style into my decision whatsoever.

Tricks: I can understand most tricks, but I have a very high threshold for evaluating them; they essentially have to be dropped for me to even consider voting. This is simply due to the fact that I don't think a model that promotes red-herring blips does anything educational or fair for the debate space. I won't vote on new extrapolations in the NR/1AR, as well as any arguments that constrain the NC's ability to run theory.

Speaks: I average at a 28.5 and add more points with clarity, judge instruction, sign posting, and/or funny jokes. I will yell clear 3 times before I just stop flowing. I’ll decrease your speaks if you are rude (interruptive, unnecessarily aggressive). I am also not afraid to completely tank your points if you misgender your opponent. I will disclose speaks upon mutual request.

I am a parent judge with little judging and debate experience.

Please no spreading. Talk at a normal speed and speak CLEARLY

I am a new parent judge who is very lay

Make arguments clear, concise, and compelling.
I would prefer a slow conversational pace to prioritize clarity.
Highly discourage any tricks, extensive phil, extensive k's, or any unreasonable arguments.

I will be judging your logic, speaking skills, knowledge, and responses.

Giving clear voters and being organized will be very helpful.

My email is crossing66@gmail.com feel free to make an email chain.