I'm a parent judge, put me on the chain if you want to spread.

speaks are based on posture and clarity.

K, T, theory, and Phil still go over my head, but if you can connect the dots, I'll vote on it.

I'm a typical "some random guy's parent", that already tells a lot. So please address your argument clearly and speak slowly, please DO NOT spread. I will weigh style and arguments equally, and weigh analytics over evidence. Good luck guys!

Sara Bou-Hamdan (She/Her)

I am in college now and do not debate!

Grapevine Highschool- Policy: 2017-2019

Southlake Carroll- LD: 2020-2021

Yes, put me on the chain: sarabdebating@gmail.com

So I have been outta the game for a while. Make sure to: be clear, fully explain your arguments, and give me a clean round.

My Preferences

I like K affs. I like theory debates. I also like policy debates (nothing better than a yummy DA and a strong CP.) I do not like tricks because I do not understand them. :) I like debates that go down the flow. I like having a clean flow. I was never really too good at debate so although I think performance K's are cool, if you don't explain them, I won't understand them.

You can spread.

Tech > Truth.

My niches

I ran a Killjoy Fem K for a bit and loved it. I studied Set Col at UT debate camp. I have a lot of experience with topics concerning immigration, feminism, some queer stuff, and then like typical cap K's, Da's and Cp's.

****I get triggered by intense descriptions of sexual assault and sexual violence*****

Ariana (Ari) Chalajour – she/her/hers

Texas A&M ’21

SMU Dedman School of Law ’24

General Info

• Non-interventionist – please write the ballot for me. Please weigh/tell me why your arguments should win. I will not weigh for you.

• Do not be homophobic, racist, sexist, etc. I will not vote on a demoralizing argument.

• Most importantly, have fun!

Evidence and Prep Time

• Please keep track of your own time.

• I have no problems with flex prep!

• I will not look at your evidence after the round unless you call for the evidence yourself and ask me to call for it in your speech. (e.g., Judge, please call for XYZ ’23 because …)

• Your evidence should be organized. If it takes more than 3 minutes to pull up a few cards, I will start docking speaker points.

• If your opponent does not have the card you asked for, then you need to address that in your speech. I will not keep up with whether your opponent provided what you asked for – it is your job as a strategic debater to address these faults.

• Extend your evidence by author last name and year.

Rebuttal; Summary; Final Focus

• Second speaking team needs to respond to offense from first speaking rebuttal. It needs to be at least turns. You do not have to respond to all of the first rebuttal – be strategic with what you choose to respond to.

• If the second speaking rebuttal answers all of the first speaking rebuttal, first summary should extend defense. If second speaking rebuttal answers only offense, then the first summary does not need to extend defense.

• Please do not card dump without any weighing. I love strategic debaters (e.g., kick the case and go straight for turns.)

• The FF and summary should be consistent. If it’s not in the summary, it’s not in the FF.

• Collapse – do not give a second rebuttal.

• Please specifically tell me where you will be starting during your speech (e.g., straight down, C2, or a specific card).

• I prefer line by line in both FF and summary (big picture is fine if you think it’s strategic).

Weighing

• Analysis and weighing are incredibly important to me. Please do not complain about the decision if you didn’t weigh or try to write the ballot for me.

Speed and Overviews

• A fast pace is fine, but please do not spread. If you decide to debate on the faster side, please slow down on tags.

• If you are debating against a team that is obviously a novice and spread, you will not be happy with your speaks.

• I love overviews!

• I am open to “role of the ballot” arguments.

• CX is not binding.

• You can be a little sassy, but please don’t be rude.

Speaker Points

• Everyone starts out at a 30 and it goes down from there.

• Speaks are based on strategy, clarity, passion and intonation.

Theory, Counterplans, K literature:

• Theory: Theory is very interesting, but don't run it if legitimate abuse does not exist. If you run theory against a team that is obviously a novice, you will not be happy with your speaks.

• I am not a fan of disclosure theory.

• CPs: I haven't seen them run properly in PF.

• K: I enjoy K literature, but I am not super familiar with it. I will not flow anything I do not understand; feel free to run it but make sure you explain everything clearly.

I am a lay judge from The Oakridge School in Arlington, Texas, a PS-12 independent school. This is our first year back to competition post-COVID.

My experience lies in the realm of PF and LD. At Oakridge, our Debate Team has supplanted campus partisanship (Young Democrats and Teenage Republicans), which I believe is a strength for youth not yet ready to vote. As a history teacher, I appreciate an argument better if it is historically framed.

I prefer to be treated as a lay judge. Please adopt to my needs. Avoid jargon. I flow and strive to provide feedback that helps debaters improve argumentation skills. I am fine with some speed as long as it doesn’t undermine clarity. I look forward to a good argument!

I competed in Policy Debate and Extemp at the Varsity level in High School where I lettered and was awarded Distinguished in the NFL. I also competed in numerous public speaking events and contests both in an academic and business environment. Hosted a radio program, acted in legitimate theater, commercial stage productions, conducted commercial seminars nationwide, and acted in motion pictures and a member of SAG.

I look for developed, effective, public speaking delivery utilizing your personal style. I do not like spreading in any Debate. I reward logical arguments, persuasive rhetoric, solid evidence based on quality not quantity. You must be able to convince me to win the ballot. I reward those who can adapt their arguments as needed to make their point. Don't rely on reading a manuscript from a computer without fleshing out the information as appropriate. I reward debaters who are well informed on the topic and are able to apply evidence that supports their contention.

Decorum, respect, and courtesy, are required from all contestants. Bullies will not prevail or be tolerated. All students are respected regardless of their culture, background, or individual preferences.

School:

Marcus High School

College Affiliation:

Texas A&M Commerce

Years Judging/Coaching:

6

Frequency of Judging:

I have not judged much this year; mainly WSD and Congress.

Speaker Point Scale:

27-30 (lower for egregious incidents)

Stylistic Preferences:

I want to hear the resolution debated; that's the entire purpose of the round. I prefer traditional value/criterion LD cases. The quality of arguments is more important than the quantity. Speed is ok if I am on the e-mail chain and all arguments are included in the chain; otherwise, no spreading

Things not to run when I am the judge:

Pre-standards. K's. Theory just for the sake of running theory when an actual violation has not occurred in the round. As for impact calculus- do not run extinction arguments; they're unrealistic and I will vote probability over magnitude when given the option. I won't automatically discount plans and CP's but if there is something else in the round that is a viable option for me to vote on, I will. Topicality arguments need to consist of an actual topicality violation. I will vote it down if you run this nonsense topicality argument that the aff needs to narrow down the focus of the resolution instead of debating the exact wording.

Congressional debater for 7 years on local, state, national level - very experienced in CD and have had a fair share of experience with PF and Extemp.

For Cong - be active in round - questions matter! Speech quality matters over quantity. Make sure to warrant statistics and provide a reason why your impacts matter. You are here to represent your constituents so keep that in mind.

PF - flay judge -> Favor tech but only if you explain how tech is specific to the topic (no extinction etc)

Make sure I can at least understand what you are saying, if you spread w/o email link or in rebuttals and I don't pick up what is said it is on you.

Email for email link - theomzhunt@gmail.com

Hello,

My name is Atul Kapoor. I am a lay judge with a solid amount of judging experience. Please explain your arguments clearly, and speak at a pace with emphasis on quality of your argument rather than quantity. Do not spread and do not overload your speech with debate jargon. I will do my best to judge only off what I am given in the round, so please do the work for me and don't make me have to intervene. Please add me to the email chain at kapoor.atul@gmail.com.

I don't base my judgment on your crossfire, so please don't use it to persuade me. Crossfire is for you to understand your opponent's case and address it in your next speeches. Pretend I'm not listening during crossfire. Make your case in the next speech.

If you're presenting an extinction argument, make sure it's believable. For instance, arguing that affirming or negating healthcare for all could lead to nuclear war and extinction seems far-fetched. If your opponents present an extension argument that seems implausible, address it. It shouldn't only be me thinking it's not plausible.

I assess your speaker points based on clarity, articulation, appropriate speed, and eye contact.

I will do my best to disclose my decision when I am allowed to, and will leave feedback on the ballot. Above all, remember to have fun and be respectful to your opponents!

Best of luck!

My name is William Mathison. I'm the coach at Colleyville Heritage High School.

I'm the most familiar with PF and LD.

If you spread make sure to add me to your SpeechDrop or email chain. I can flow directly off of the doc but if I can't understand you while spreading, you'll lose speaker points.

Preferences

1 - CP/DA/Advantages

2 - T, Theory (the good kind)

BE ADVISED. RUNNING A K OR NON-T AFF WILL LIKELY RESULT IN BEING VOTED DOWN.

3 - Kritiks

4 - Non-T Affs, Tricks (if the opponent can't understand them, neither will I), Friv Theory, Performance/Identity K's, Spikes

Timing

10-15 second grace period at the end of the speech if you're in the middle of a sentence. Don't abuse this.

PLEASE USE STOPWATCHES. PLEASE LET ME KEEP TIME AND DO NOT INTERRUPT THE OTHER TEAM WITH AN ALARM OR TELLING ME THEY'RE OVER TIME.

Speaker Points:

30: Perfection

28-29: Great with some notes

26-27: Needs significant work

25: Offensive comments were made

Add me to your email chain! mathison.debate@gmail.com or add me on your speech drop.

For World Schools Debate (WSD):

1. Embrace the core principles of WSD, steering clear of overly specific elements from other debate formats, which are often ineffective in this context. Recognize and appreciate WSD's unique character as a distinct event, and avoid the rapid delivery style.

2. Stay aligned with the fundamental essence of the motion and ensure that all points of contention are directly relevant to the scope of the debate. When taking the opposition stance, be explicit and persuasive in presenting counter-models, and make certain they serve a meaningful purpose. Articulate and utilize them effectively to bolster your substantive arguments.

3. Winning every single point in a line-by-line manner is not always necessary. Instead, maintain a comparative approach throughout the debate, particularly in the later stages. Offer comparative analyses and provide compelling reasons for why the proposition or opposition's world should be preferred.

4. Keep your focus on the most impactful aspects of your argument; getting bogged down in minor details won't secure you the round. Be mindful of the time you allocate to each idea.

5. As the debate progresses, consider breaking it down into two or three key points of contention, concentrating on the crucial voting issues that will shape my final decision.

6. Above all, maintain a respectful and constructive tone when interacting with everyone in the round, as debate is intended to be an enriching activity.

For Public Forum (PF):

1. Remember that warranting and weighing are essential.

2. Ensure that your arguments are well-structured and flow smoothly, with clear extensions and effective weighing to guide my decision-making.

3. Extend all arguments throughout the speech and do not introduce new arguments late in the round.

4. Weigh your arguments thoughtfully.

5. Avoid excessive spreading and maintain a civil demeanor during cross-examination.

6. When extending your arguments, present a clear structure comprising a claim, warrant, and impact. Explain why and how you're winning and why your argument holds significance for my ultimate decision. Effective argument extension is crucial, as it creates a coherent narrative for your side of the debate.

7. Always treat everyone involved in the debate with respect, as our purpose here is to learn and grow from one another.

Treat me like a lay judge, so please don't spread-if I'm a bit slow, please bear with me

I'd prefer if you didn't run theory shells or Ks, but if you choose to do so, please explain in depth.

Racism, sexism, homophobia, or rudeness/bigotry of any kind will result in 0 speaks and an auto loss

Tech > truth, but keep your arguments sensible

I encourage you to share your case document (PDF format) with me at r_prasanna@yahoo.com

Speak Loud and clear.. Have fun debating!

Hi everyone :D I am a novice lay judge.

I am a sophomore at UT Dallas studying healthcare management on the pre-law track. I encourage all contestants to try hard, put their best effort in, and most importantly have fun.

I recommend all contestants to speak clearly and slower, as I may have a little bit of trouble of picking things up at first so please bear with me. I will prioritize a well-constructed argument over factual correctness of information. I will scrutinize behavior and general conduct during debate.

I wish everyone good luck and hope things go well :D

sean.sudalaimani@gmail.com

I am the coach of a highly successful speech and debate team in Plano, TX. I am a two diamond coach in the NSDA and coach all debate events. In college, I was a policy debater and still enjoy the nuances of policy debate. Overall, I follow the logic in debate. I don't care about how you look, but I always follow the logic. As such, I always flow every round. If I am sitting there looking at you while you are delivering, that is a bad sign because you are not giving me arguments to flow. I am quite happy to give a low point win if one debater is a fantastic speaker but the other debater had the best arguments. My paradigms for the different debates are as follows:

L/D: I am more of a traditionalist with L/D debate. You can speak fast, but I want to know you can communicate. Don't spread. I enjoy the philosophical aspects to LD, but as an old policy debater, you must back up what you say with evidence. Give me a value and go deep with your framework. Because I was a policy debater, I do enjoy unique cases and actually believe that a K is fun in LD. So, feel free to give a unique perspective on your resolution. However, as I stated earlier, communicate it to me. In Policy, I don't care about the dressing, but in LD I do.

PFD: Show me you can work as a team. I am fine with you dividing up the workload. I am a framework judge. Really explain your FW, don't just say, "Judge, you must vote this way if..." In reality, I can do what I want. If I really should vote a certain way "if.." then explain why fully. For your rebuttals, group your arguments. Kick out what doesn't work. Again, give me something to flow. I want deep warranting. Explain, explain, explain.

Policy: I love policy! Topicality is one of my favorite arguments. Disads need to be bad, really bad. Don't give "might happens" as the fact that they "might not" is running through my mind. Don't whine and call arguments by your opponent abusive, unless they truly are. I rarely agree when debaters call the opponents arguments abusive. This is debate, research and develop arguments of your own and stop complaining that you didn't have time. Your harms need to be significant as do any advantages. K's are fine, but they better be explained well.

Speech: For oratory and Informative speaking, I am looking for a unique perspective on the topic you chose. With Informative, inform me. I don't mind advocacy but I am not looking for a Persuasive speech. I do not want an act, I want to know you care about the topic you are presenting and that this is a speech, not an act.

Interp: I try really hard not to take notes during your performance as I want to give you my full attention. If you can make me forget that I am timing you, that is a great thing indeed. It means, you took me to a new place, time, thought and away from the real world for the moment. That means you hit the mark! I love that. I enjoy all types of selections, those with many characters and those with one. I judge on how well you performed that selection.

Congress: Congress is a wonderful event. I want you to clash with the other debaters in the chamber. If we are in the fourth or fifth speech on a particular piece of legislation, you better be bringing something new for argumentation or your speech will not be ranked high. I judge on the quality of your research.

I am an alumnus of the University of Oklahoma with a B.A. in Geographic Information Science. I have an experience in Public Forum debate and prefer a high degree of explanation of evidence and well-developed comparison of it instead of just listing off evidence without explanations. The most important part is persuasiveness—whether or not you're factually correct is not as important as a well-developed argument.

I also ask that you please do not spread; I prefer quality over quantity.

Note for today's event (The McMillen High School Last Word) - I have a sore throat and would like to minimize my speaking / talking as much as possible.

I am a parent judge and have been judging for many years now. I used to judge PF earlier but for last couple of years I am doing IEs.

My paradigm regarding IE:

• I did a lot of drama and theater in my school and college days and am still involved today. So I am familiar with the intricacies of most of the IE events and have a good understanding of what makes a for a good performance.
• I like to see energy and passion in performances. Ability to evoke the emotion in audience is a key metric of success for me.
• Delivery, voice modulations, facial expressions, hand gestures, character swapping etc. are key component of IE performance (as applicable to each event). They make the performance richer and more impactful. So doing more is preferred than doing less.
• Each IE event has its guardrails. I like to see students stick to that as much as possible.
• Time management is key for me. I would like performances to use as much time as possible and avoid a situation of finishing too early. But going over is also a no-no.
• Most important - your conviction as a performer in the piece that you are performing. Make it convincing!
• Lastly, in every round, I need someone to help me with the time keeping.

My Paradigm regarding PF:

• I would highly prefer that you speak clearly than quickly. I like when teams use a structured framework for their arguments. I will vote for the team that best responds to the other team's arguments while at the same time clarifying their own arguments.

• Comparison and direct weighing of arguments will make it much easier to make my decision. With that being said, please refrain from using too much technical jargon without being able to explain it first.

Good luck to everyone!

I debated Public Forum 4 years in High school

All I ask is that you speak clearly and at an understandable pace. If I can't hear you I cannot flow your arguments.

I default to weighing the round off of impacts I suggest making time in your speech for impact analysis especially in summary and final those speeches should be used to crystalize your main arguments not try and extend everything thats been said in the round. Use framing like probability, timeframe, and magnitude to your advantage by comparing directly with your opponents impacts and tell me why your arguments are more important.

Make sure you warrant clearly. Impacts don't mean much if you don't have a solid link chain you can defend and is logical.

I also like hearing unique and niche arguments.

Besides that it's your round debate it how you like.