Hi!
My name is Shreyas Arathri, I’m a LD Debater at Coppell High School (26’)

Policy Arguments: Yes, this is what I run, and what I am most comfortable evaluating.

DAs: Same thing as policy

CPs: I also understand these wells, be sure to have clear net benefits, and benefits of the perm if you are aff.

Theory: Please be reasonable, and provide a clear abuse story, otherwise I will have a low threshold for responses

Ks: I am less familiar with these, so you will have to err on the side of over-explaining.

*Note: Please do not read a K if you are a novice, everyone in the room will be confused and for the sake of a scrimmage try to make the round as educational as possible, so that everyone can benefit.

Phil: I am reasonably familiar with these, however for clarity's sake you will have to err on the side of over-explaining, as well.

Tricks: no

Speaker Points: I will start at 28.5 and go up or down from there depending on how you do on the round.

Please be respectful of everyone in the room, and do not make any asinine arguments.

Have fun! I look forward to judging yall!

Hi my name is Leo (he/him), you can call me judge or by my name idc. I mainly do LD but I have also gone into Policy, plus I went to policy camp last summer. My email is ewitsleo@gmail.com, let me know if I can do anything to make you more comfortable, and if you have any concerns please talk to me.

I think debate should be a space for people to freely express ideas no matter how unconventional. So long as it's justified with evidence or proper argumentation (and reasonable) I am willing to evaluate any argument, theory, Ks, CP, etc, but T always goes first. HOWEVER you MUST explain your arguments for me to do so. I understand MOST Ks that are common, however if they're more nuanced explain to me what it means to you, the debate, and why this comes first. Feel free to spread, just know I expect at least some clarity, but I'll be looking at the doc. PLEASE slow down on analytics, and give me the offtime roadmap.

If you want my ballot I expect weighing to be clear, and for you to tell me why I'm going to be voting for you, sign posting is the way to my heart. Explain to me why they're wrong or why they're bad, don't just say they are and expect me to know why. Pick apart their arguments by warranting them out and try to clearly tell me what you win on, and why it's important. Don't expect me to understand your argument by myself, I need you to explain it just as much as you defend it to make your win clear.

Now for speaker points, don't pause, do your best to just keep talking. I'd rather you say whatever comes to mind and risk looking "dumb" to yourself instead of just going "uhh" and then going silent, that will doc your speaks however regardless I will not judge you for that, everybody that debates does or has done that. I start speaks at 28, and am not super stubborn when it comes to raising that.

Great speaks to me are driven off of emotion, and consistency (speaking wise) a combination of the 2 will likely get you a 30. I want YOU to make me feel like a horrible person/ an idiot for not voting for you. Among this, clarity is a big one. I don't mind spreading in the realm of argumentation, again, but clarity's important for good speaks. I want you to seem like you're having fun and sound like you're doing something meaningful. I think being aggressive is good but don’t be an opp LOL, you should still be respectful.

Okay well, on an ending note and after rereading this I’d like to add that often times people forget how hard it is to follow through with everybody’s preferences and to debate in general. Just know this is a maximum, not a minimum of what I expect. At minimum you should be having fun and learning, that is enough, please try not to feel super nervous and have a good time.

I am a parent judge and an attorney in Dallas. I value logical and complete arguments. I can't follow spreading.

Hey everyone!! I'm Evita, and I'm a senior and Worlds Schools debater at Hockaday. This is my second year judging PF and LD debate, so I am really excited to be a judge again at this tournament!

A few things I'm looking for:

• SIGNPOSTING!! I need to follow where you are in your speech and organization is key.
• Talk at a normal pace -- I need to understand what you're saying so I can note it in my flow.
• Don't assume I know your links to each arg. Explicitly state your arg and your evidence, followed by why I should weigh your arg more heavily. Realistic impacts are really important!!!
• Both teams are going to have arguments that they are going to almost certainly win. The point of the debate then is to tell me why your argument is so important and impactful that it will win you the round. Explain why your argument is better than your opponents' best argument.
• Do not repeat examples or args. There is a difference between extending your point and restating it.
• Tell me why YOU'RE winning and why the other team is losing. I cannot vote for you just because you say your opponents are worse.
• Be respectful and polite at all times, especially during crossfire rounds.

Best of luck!!

Tina Thompson ttsui88@hotmail.com

I'm here to provide real-world guidance for debate. Good luck!

A few tips:

-Don't use Rapid Delivery (spreading). It's not good public speaking. Not persuasive.

-Respect towards your opponent show poise and grace.

-Speak clearly and make eye contact.

-Summarize to ensure your audience caught your rationales/your focus.

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

Here's a few more tips from Mr. Hensley from Newman-Smith High School:

How Should Debaters Approach Constructive Speeches?

A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments., Arguments should each be addressed individually.

How Should Debaters Approach Rebuttal Speeches?

Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive speeches.

How Should Debaters Approach Evidence?

Citations after article introduction are preferred.

How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position?

Build the value that is not overly complicated and should be relatable, and criterion should not be over technical.

What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position?

Empirical, but a highly persuasive philosophical approach can potentially work just as well.

Kritik (K) arguments:

Critical arguments should provide substantial evidence for their support: as in every criticism needs at least one "For example" or at the very least a thorough clarification with a credible, referenced source.

How should debaters run on case arguments?

Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples. Avoid paraphrasing.

How should debaters run off case arguments?

Make sure they have a purpose or illustration for the case at hand.

How should Debaters run theory arguments?

The focus should be winning the debate, not just attacking a person’s style or flaws of method. Winning on technicalities isn't winning a debate.