Hey y'all I'm Sophia and I'm a student at William and Mary.

I graduated from Southlake Carroll and competed in WSD throughout

Couple things about me

How you lose my ballot:

1) Being excessively rude, mocking, badgering, or being disrespectful to your competitors. It is high school debate there's no need for any of that.

2) Being disorganized and not signposting clearly, if it's not signposted I probably won't flow it

3) Being abusive, using extreme unwarranted characterizations, or not engaging with the other team’s offense

4) Going too fast

Content

• Creative arguments (granted they aren't offensive) will always catch my attention however it's important they are characterized and mechanized
• Tell me why I should vote for you by speaking directly to me and using clear independent voters (especially in the 4s)
• Weigh in your 3s, if you do ref I usually don't flow it. Weighing is the most important deciding factor in any round imo so keep that in mind heading in
• Framework is very important, set it up from the 1 and extend it down

Style

• I love when speakers are passionate and charismatic
• I like a little aggression in your own speech as long as it's not extreme or done through pointed language toward me or your competitors

Strategy

• I love when teams are cohesive down the bench, don't switch their stances, and have a clear line of reasoning that is persuasive
• Be organized!
• I'm a tech > truth judge always but back it up down the bench and characterize it well to win your args
• Please don't ask POIs just to ask them and please don't make them too long, ask POIs with intention
• Please don't say "time starts on my first word" just start and don't say gut check

With that being said, I'm really excited to judge y'all!

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

I'm the current assistant coach at Coppell High School where I also have the lovely opportunity to teach Speech & Debate to great students. I did LD, Policy, and Worlds in High School (Newark Science '15) and a bit of Policy while I was in college (Stanford '19). I'm by no means "old" but I've been around long enough to appreciate different types of debate arguments at this point. As long as you're having fun, I can feel it and will probably have fun listening to you, too!

WSD

This is now my main event nowadays. Given my LD/Policy background, I do rely very heavily on my flow. That doesn't mean you have to be very techy--you should and can group arguments and do weighing--but I try my best to not just ignore concessions. Framing matters a lot to me because it helps me filter what impacts I should care about most by the end of the debate.

If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask.

Also follow @worldofwordsinstitute on Instagram or check out www.worldofworldsinstitute.com for quality WSD content :)

LD/Policy

I'd love to be on the email chain. My email is sunhee.simon@gmail.com

Pref shortcut for those of you who like those:

LARP: 1-2

K: 1-2

Phil: 1-2

Tricks: 5/strike

Theory (if it's your PRIMARY strat - otherwise I can be preffed higher): 3

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

Credentials that people seem to care about: senior (BA + MA candidate) at Stanford, Director of LD at the Victory Briefs Institute, did LD, policy, and worlds schools debate in high school, won/got to late elims in all of those events, double qualled to TOC in LD and Policy. Did well my freshman year in college in CX but didn't pursue it much after that. Now I coach and judge a bunch.

LD + Policy

Literally read whatever you want. If I don't like what you've read, I'll dock your speaks but I won't really intervene in the debate. Don't be sexist, ableist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, or a classist jerk in the round. Don't make arguments that can translate to marginalized folks not mattering (this will cloud my judgement and make me upset). I've also been mostly coaching and judging World Schools debate the past two years so you're going to need to slow down for me for sure. As the tournament goes on my ear adjusts but it's likely I'll say "slow" to get you to slow down. After 3 times, I won't do it anymore and will just stop listening.

Otherwise have fun and enjoy the activity for the 45 or 90 mins we're spending together! More info on specific things below:

Stock/Traditional Arguments

Makes sense.

Ks

I get this. The role of the ballots/framing is really helpful for me and usually where I look first.

T

I understand this. If reading against a K team I'd encourage you to make argument about how fairness/education relates to the theory of power/epistemology of the K. Would make all of our lives better and more interesting.

Theory

I also understand this. But don't abuse the privilege. I am not a friv theory fan so don't read it if you can (or else I might miss things as you blip through things).

Plans/CP/DAs

I understand this too. Slow down when the cards are shorter so I catch the tags.

I don't default to anything necessarily however I do know my experiences and understandings of debate were shaped by me coming from a low income school that specialized in traditional and critical debate. I've been around as a student and a coach (I think) long enough to know my defaults are subject to change and its the debaters' job to make it clear why theory comes first or case can be weighed against the K or RVIs are good or the K can be leveraged against theory. I learn so much from you all every time I judge. Teach me. Lead me to the ballot. This is a collaborative space so even if I have the power of the ballot, I still need you to tell me things. Otherwise, you might get a decision that was outside of your control and that's never fun.

On that note, let it be known that if you're white and/or a non-black POC reading afropessimism or black nihilism, you won't get higher than a 28.5 from me. The more it sounds like you did this specifically for me and don't know the literature, the lower your speaks will go. If you win the argument, I will give you the round though so either a) go for it if this is something you actually care about and know you know it well or b) let it go and surprise me in other ways. If you have a problem with this, I'd love to hear your reasons why but it probably won't change my mind. I can also refer other authors you can read to the best of my ability if I'm up to it that day.

Last thing, please make sure I can understand you! I understand spreading but some of y'all think judges are robots. I don't look at speech docs during the round (and try not to after the round unless I really need to) so keep that in mind when you spread. Pay attention to see if I'm flowing. I'll make sure to say clear if I can't understand you. I'll appreciate it a lot if you keep this in mind and boost your speaks!

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 sophomore 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!

Judging Experience:

WSD Debater 2 years (State Qualified, Nats Qualified, Advanced to elims at many tourneys (Berkeley, UT, ghill, gv, etc etc etc)

General Expectations

• DO NOT MAKE RACIST, SEXIST, HOMOPHOBIC, AND HORRIBLE STATEMENTS OR U WILL BE DROPPED IMMEDIATELY I WILL END THE ROUND EARLY :)
• no spreading...if u do not speak in a comprehensible way I will cry and then yell clear and also stop flowing because I am not a robot
• engage engage engage...don't extend if u won't address their case or I will be bored and make a decision u will NOT be happy with
• I'm tech over truth within reason...i will def buy ur analysis as long as it is in the realm of intuition
• for example, if u say arjun krishnan is smart, I will question ur analysis bc cmon, guys rlly?

WSD Expectations

• debate is like building a sandcastle...the ones find a spot to build it through introducing framing and case, the twos get the sand by refuting and extending AND defending, and the three builds it through 2/3 clash questions and WEIGHING...the reply puts the flag on top and explains to me what sand castle u built.
• I love WSD...plz do not ruin it
• be respectful and leave your American-centric ideas behind
• this is WORLD schools debate, not AMERICAN schools debate...plz engage on an international level
• FRAMING is IMPORTANT but should not be ur entire case lmao
• if u run abusive framing I will look at u weirdly, laugh out loud, stop flowing, and then probably give u a w bc the other team doesn't know how to respond...but if they do respond, or I do think ur framing is wayyyy too abusive, I will be heavy in contemplation trying to figure out if I want to vote for bad guys who won or good guys that lost
• pois should not exceed 15 seconds u had ur time to speak u failed--or maybe u didn't but plz--stop trying
• plz do not badger I love badgering but I'm not competing and due to saltiness u guys r now not allowed to badger...also NSDA and TFA say not to so if u do ill doc speaks accordingly
• I love examples, but they're also unfair if u do not give logic. U r putting the cart before the horse...examples are for development of args, not the args itself.
• i think personal experiences is useless and makes the debate awkward and kinda unfair for the team that has no personal experiences
• FINALLY, do not lie...i hate lying. don't lie about stats, bc they will not help u without real analysis.

Rhetoric "suggestions" (would definitely listen before losing all your speaks)

• if u say imagine a world, you can imagine 60s on ur ballot (jk but plz do not)
• any rhetoric that includes another teams name in order to be "funny" will not see their name have the opportunity to be made fun of in elims
• chess rhetoric will lose u the debate automatically (or I guess manually since u chose to do it)
• if u say "iLl sTaRt On My FiRsT wOrD" I will seriously contemplate not listening to any of ur words
• IF U USE AN INTRO THAT U RECYCLED FROM A FAMOUS RD OR SPEAKER chances are I've already seen it...so either don't do it bc it will be boring, or do it better so I'm impressed
• if u use a hypothetical person as your main character (single mother of fifty, poor boy in Africa) I will question your choices of rhetoric bc lets be fr this is getting old
• PLZ PLZ PLZ BE FUNNY. ANYTHING U DO IS BOUND TO MAKE ME GIVE HIGHER SPEAKS. JUDGING IS KINDA STALE SO IF U DO SOMETHING, EVEN IF U THINK IT WON'T BE FUNNY, I'LL APPRECIATE THE EFFORT.
• we use "so proud to propose/oppose" at the end of our speeches a LOT...plz change it up it will be fun for me to watch

Policy/LD/PF

• I have only done PF once, and it traumatized me, so do with that info what u will
• if u spread I will literally not understand u and will prob down vote u sorry
• to be honest, nontopical k's will make me sad and then happy knowing I can downvote a k bc I prefer u to debate the resolution
• good luck! honestly if u run a k and it makes a lot of sense to me, I am def willing to amend my previous comments regarding k's but until then, it stands
• I love cross x plz ask questions be funny be aggressive but don't be rude or mean

I competed in WSD for 2 1/2 years with Coppell High School. During my time there, my team and I have won UNT 2022; made it to finals at UT Austin 2023; made it to semis at Greenhill 2023, Grapevine 2023, and TOC 2024; and I have personally received 2nd speaker at Berkeley 2024 and 4th speaker at Greenhill 2023. You may know me as the 3 from Coppell Rose!

As a former 3, I highly value round strategy and weighing. I want you to tell me what your impacts are and why I should care about them. I try to be as non-interventionist as possible, but if you leave me no choice you will probably not be happy with your decision.

With that in mind, I want you to be defining the terms that matter to the round. When it comes to definitions, principles, and the like: tell me EVERYTHING. Act like I'm some rando who just came off the street.

In general, I am tech over truth (as long as you actually have tech and you aren't too egregious with where you land). Examples are nice, but if you hinge your whole case on them I will see your argumentation as weaker than the other side. Bonus points to your opponents if they point out how dependent on examples your case is. My priority is always links > examples.

I value humor as part of narrative building! Especially in elim rounds, people tend to be way more stiff than they should be. If you land a joke with me, I will boost your speaks for that!

General expectation is 1-2 POIs per speech, try not to ask POIs with less than 20 seconds in between.

Lastly, try to tell me why you win, not just why your opponents lose. Tell me what positive material your side has, and connect that to the burdens.

Some no-nos in debate:

- Starting your speech with "Imagine a world..."

- Being too rude to the other team (there is a line, don't jump over it)

- Telling me the other team dropped an argument when I know they didn't

- Lying!

Intro: Wsg, I'm Rishi, I debated for 4 years at Southlake Carroll in WSD and championed at the Longhorn Classic, semied TFA state, and quartered nats. I usually was a third speaker and at times did the 2-4, but I am familiar with the structure/approach for each speech.

Judging philosophy (personal take): Evaluating arguments in a debate depends on how well you build and present them. Winning round hinges on how you justify your points, use them against your opponent, defend them, and characterize their impact. Most crucially, how you weigh arguments can decisively influence my decision. Prop/opp 3's, this is where you can make a significant impact.

Case building/structure: Ensure your framework and substantive arguments are clearly organized and logically structured. I appreciate well-constructed cases that flow smoothly. I really also focus on carrying your team strategy all throughout speeches by pushing the same narrative, teams' speeches should be cohesive.

Speeches: In Worlds, while I prioritize the argumentative aspect, I also appreciate personality in speeches. Feel free to be funny, sarcastic, dramatic, or calm—showing your character can make the round more engaging. Respect is key, but don't shy away from playful jabs or showing energy and enthusiasm in your delivery. Just keep it respectful and avoid being outright rude. :)

Clash/Weighing: My decision hinges on the development and clash of arguments, as I'm a flow judge. It's not enough to claim "our argument is better" or "our argument is truer." I need comparative analysis to understand why your argument stands out. Please ensure you weigh and compare the prop/opp worlds on factors like scale, timeframe, magnitude, briteline, prereq, and solvency

Feel free to reach out to me at rshori2005@gmail.com if you have any questions/concerns/anything. Have a nice day!

Judging Experience:

• WSD 2 yrs (tfa champ, multiple elims @ tournaments, etc)
• FX 2 yrs (state finalist, national qualifier, etc)
• Congress 2 yrs (semis @ nats, etc)

General:

• Don’t be racist, homophobic, etc. This is not difficult. Impact>intention
• Being aggressive is fine, personally attacking people, laughing, and being generally unkind are not
• Tech>truth but if I know an argument is false, I have a much lower threshold for the other team’s quality of response for me to just believe them
• If you see me not flowing at a point in the round where I definitely should be, it’s probably because you’re too fast.

WSD:

Content-wise, be comparative and preemptive in early round speeches, and please make your offense very clear in the later speeches. Please weigh, and when you weigh, explain to me exactly why your weighing metrics are applicable to your side of the house; don’t just state weighing mechanisms. Stylistically, I love fun intros, emotional rhetoric, and all of the other creative things that come along with worlds. Style will definitely impact your speaker points significantly (entertain me). Strategy-wise, I like a consistent narrative down the bench, but I am open to strategic shifts in the three if done tastefully.If you do not signpost exactly where you are,what I do and don’t flow is up to chance.

Please also try to follow world schools norms to the greatest extent possible- I probably won’t vote for any arguments that aren’t typically accepted in worlds. Don’t say “time starts on my first word”. Explain things through logic, not dropping random evidence and examples.

Extemp:

Have a balance of rhetoric and analysis- it shouldn’t be just one or the other. Generally speaking, the intro you give me should have the standard seven parts, unified analysis is ideal, and I appreciate stylistic things like emotional variation and humor. Make your analysis easy to follow and make sure your analysis actually answers your question. Make your hand gestures and body language purposeful.

Congress:

If you actively clash with other representatives, produce meaningful emotional/humorous rhetoric in your speeches, and give me logical semi-new information, you will do well. Later speeches should be crystallizing the round; do not simply repeat the same information. That being said, I will rank an authorship/sponsor that is done well over a crystal that is repetitive— every speech in the round has a different role, and I don’t inherently prefer one to another.

PF/LD/CX:

I have no experience in these events. Please make it as easy as possible for me to vote for you in the simplest way possible. Things like ks, tricks, etc are unlikely to go well with me because I don’t know what they are.