WSDC asks us to debate on balance and engage with the essential clash of the motion directly. I want to see teams making solid impact analysis and taking the other team's highest ground on directly, while demonstrating to me that they would still prefer their world given a best case scenario outcome on both sides. I also would encourage you all to summarize the debate by the third and reply and give me clash categories / big picture themes. This will help me (and all of your judges) make a clearer decision and process the information of the debate more easily. A judge will find it easier to vote your your side if you make it easy for them to do so by giving the judge what is essentially RFD in your impact analysis and weighing.

I have experience debating in Worlds in high school and British Parliamentary in undergrad and coach a Worlds team currently.

Put me on the email chain - sarahelisedavidson@gmail.com

**I don't know anything about this topic, please explain any jargon etc**

Online debate:

-I'd prefer if you have your camera on, but having it off is fine

-If my camera isn't on, I'm not ready

-Ask for confirmation that I'm ready before giving your speech

General things:

-time your own speech and prep

-tech > truth

-fairness > education

-I tend to place a lot of weight on evidence quality. I'll still vote on spin of course, but, if the debate is close, I usually look to the quality of both sides' evidence.

-I care a lot about judge instruction in rebuttals. It's really helpful and will get you good speaks

-I love impact turns, advantage cps, and well-debated disadvantages

-I don't like judging topicality or theory debates, but you should still go for it if you know it's the right strategy.

-I was a 2A, but my views are probably more in line with that of a 2N.

T:

-Topical versions of the aff and case lists are good.

-A smaller topic is probably better than aff innovation.

-Competing interpretations > reasonability

Soft left affs:

- I'm predisposed towards extinction-level impacts, and I tend to think utilitarianism is the best framework for evaluating choices between policies. You're far better off spending more time attacking the link and internal link level of a DA than wasting a bunch of time on framing, which is usually a wash anyway. I think that a securitization-type framing argument is way better than some arbitrary "probability first" or "util bad" claim, BUT winning this requires meaningfully reducing the risk of the DA.

DA:

- My favorite debates are DA/case debates.

- I love politics DAs, but aff specific and topic DAs are even better. But feel free to read whatever contrived DA scenario you want. I'll vote on it if you win it.

- Pls do impact calculus - it makes my decision 1000x times easier

- Turns case is also super persuasive to me

- If you're going for a non-unique + link turn, actually explain why the aff resolves the link

CPs:

- Impact out your solvency deficits or explain why the perm shields the net benefit

- I'm not a good judge for process CPs. Complicated competition debates are confusing to me

- I won't kick the CP for you unless you tell me to

Theory:

- I will vote on theory, but you need to give examples specific to abuse within the debate and impact out theory in the 2AR

- cheaty fiat cps (ie Tsai should resign or Saudi should stop the war in Yemen) are definitely bad

- Agent CPs, 2NC cps, 50 state fiat, consult Cps, con cons, etc are probably good

- condo = good (but, again, I can be persuaded otherwise)

- perf con is a reason you get to sever your reps

Ks on the neg:

- i feel like my views on the k have changed a lot over the past few months. i like it more than i used to.

- cap, security, fem ir, and settler colonialism are the literature bases I'm most familiar with -- if you want me to vote on other things, i need lots of explanation

- i prefer specific links to the plan - the more specific, the better

- actually engage with the 1ac and spend time on case in the 2nr - i like when neg teams take lines out of the 1ac and/or recut 1ac ev

- floating PIKs are bad

- the alt should resolve your impacts and links

- i hate long overviews - your overviews should be short & contextualized to the aff

K affs:

- I prefer that you read a plan & im probably not the best judge for you if you read an untopical aff, but I'll still vote for a k aff and I have several times in the past

- at least have some sort of relation to the topic

- just asserting that the USFG is bad is not enough to get my ballot

- k affs probably don't get perms - if the aff doesn't have to be topical, then Cps / K's don't have to be competitive, but this needs to be explained in the debate

Neg v. k affs:

- framework - fairness is an impact (but you have to explain why it is), TVAs are great, tell me what debate looks like in the world of the aff & neg and why your model is better

- presumption - go for it. a lot of k affs just don't do anything

- k's vs k affs - not great for this. if you're going to go for a k, pls do thorough explanations and impact out each of your links

Speaks

- I'll dock your speaks if you're mean or rude to me or others in the round

Hi! I’m Anu (they/she pronouns), and I’m primarily a worlds debater! I was on Team Texas for two years and have been in out rounds in quite a few tournaments. With that being said, I more than anything would appreciate you to be nice and respectful to your fellow debaters. If I feel that you are not, I will call you out.

Now for what I appreciate in a good debate:

CASE

• Good characterizations: I want you to prove to me why something is the way this is. Debaters often make a claim without the sufficient link work to explain the process behind it. Characterization for me can come in the form of incentive analysis and/or examples. This should not only be in framework, but sprinkled throughout each of your warrants. This helps your judge (both at a technical and lay level) to understand where exactly your argumentation is coming from.
• Analysis of the worlds: both team should analyze what they want their ideal world to be by the end of the debate. This should not be a slight matter that one discusses for a slight minute. Your world and the way you illustrate it influences the rest of your debate. In order to think about these worlds, you should analyze what happens in your world’s worst case. Try to imagine different stakeholders within this.
• Integrated rebuttal: I REALLY enjoy when you start your debate at a higher level. This, to me, looks like having pre-emptive rebuttals within your substantives. Use phrases like “my opponents MIGHT say ___, so here’s our integrated rebuttal….”

ARGUMENTATION

• Integrated weighing: I also REALLY enjoy when you have weighing. I’m copy/pasting the amazing Nicholas Aranda here because he said it best: “weighing is a big deal and needs to happen on two levels. The first level has to do with specific content of the round and the impacts (i.e. who is factually correct about the material debated and the characterizations that are most likely). The second level has to do with the mechanics leveraged in the substantives and defensive part of round (i.e. independent of content - who did the better debating by relying on clear incentives, layered characterizations, and mechanisms). Most debates neglect this second level if weighing; these levels work together and complement each other.”
• Organization/timing: OF COURSE make sure you explain your warranting, but that SHOULD NOT come at the expense of your time. Make sure if you’re the two, you’re signposting where you are in the debate. For example, if you are responding to your opponent’s first substantive, and you have three responses, literally say “I have three responses to my opponent’s first substantive. My first response is ____. My second response is _____.” And so on…

That’s most of all I have to say, but ask me questions if any arise before round! I also enjoy references to The Bee Movie, so if you can include references in the round, I might consider giving you higher speaks (and you will definitely make me laugh).

Have fun, and you won’t be judged for how good/bad you do! You are all SO AMAZING, and I believe in you :)

TLDR:
Circuit judge, tech determines truth, you do you, no paper debate

Death good is a horrendous argument; the bar to answer it is low but I won't NOT vote on it.

Add these:

kunal007gaikwad@gmail.com, stockdalecx@gmail.com

Overview

Did policy and PF, got some bids in PF, I know trad LD, most familiar with policy, idk speech, I broke in worlds at Berkeley. I’ve judged dozens of practice debates on every topic and research everything.

Top Level - do whatever you want and do best. I appreciate risk taking and technical education more than safe slow rounds because it's fun and moves you way further on the learning curve.

Debate is fun! Keep it fun. Joke around and everything.

LAY DEBATE (and prog too lowk)

Honestly I don’t like judging lay and including my thoughts here is unproductive so I prefer you ask me questions before round.

That being said the basic expectation is you show up with preparation and focus more on arguments than presentation. I honestly don’t care about presentation much but you’ll definitely be rewarded for clarity since the communicative aspect of debate is good.

Bro just loosen up. Y’all are too uptight for being literal kids who are probably tryna fill your college apps. I will literally give you a few minutes (time permitting) to just talk and make friends with each other I promise you it is way better than antagonizing everyone

ALL DEBATE – Weird mix of Achten, Trufanov, and Yao Yao if ur familiar with them

0 risk only exists if the argument wasn’t said

I should have nothing in my ballot that you did not say yourself. I will intervene if there is no possible decision that enables otherwise.

Evidence comparison is significantly underutilized. You need to tell me “The *insert author name* is EXCELLENT” and go into the REASONS WHY IT IS GOOD instead of making me read it after the round. It’s especially helpful in closer rounds

Weigh everything. Speed of the link, likelihood of the terminal, and magnitude of uniqueness are all examples of comparison that is overpowered but near unused in PF and LD.

I dislike the mentality of a card doc, I know debaters, so I know there’s too much incentive to include/exclude cards to your own benefit. If I really have to I’ll ask which speech doc to look in for a specific card.

Policy, prog LD and PF

Debate has no rules. Read a plan, go for the Death K, 1ar restart, idrc

Policy/LARP > K/Planless > Phil > Theory

Theory/T

I judge this the same as everyone. You should weigh the interps and compare definitions that justify themas well as the model.

0 clue why PF theory shells are a minute long. You should look at collegiate policy theory.
Default to offense-defense, can be persuaded by reasonability
Treat it like a disad debate.

Education is good, fairness is probably good, disclosure is good but I hate voting on it so don’t read it

Debate ends after the 2ar

CP

Yes I love omg. Good rehighlights of evidence that concedes warrants and in depth competition debates are great. I’m much more amenable to “neg terror” because I don’t think it exists.

I prefer you go for competition than PICs bad.

Judge instruction very important if it’s a new process CP.

Stop big overviews.

Default to judge kick

DA and PF

Turns case and impact comparison always.
Smart analytics that take out internal links are preferred to carded terminal impact defense (both is good)

K/FW

I’ve been on both sides of this debate.
I think topicality is good outside of debate. You need to convince me why it’s bad.
K teams will benefit from strong impact turns that frame their fairness offense

FW teams should stop the chunky overviews and just line by line the offense.

I vote for the K more often than I should because of one concession. Remember they have a really good extension for EVERY fw disad because they don’t need to prep as much, you have to answer everything.

You should also question their method and how my ballot is somehow a manifestation of the alt.

If you are reading a policy aff, your case is probably a disad to the alt.

Boost speaks!

- Bringing me a Celsius or Starbucks means 28.5 minimum

- Email chain set up before round with everyone added

- Showing me your full flow after the round, I’ll give you .1 more if it’s good

- Don’t read friv theory

- Good cx

- Have good evidence and it’s pretty (Verbatim)

Pasted from Achten because public forum needs to grow up

Pretty much everything in the above paradigm is applicable here but there are two key additions. First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.

Other than that I am excited to hear your debate! If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask me.

About me:

Notre Dame HS '23

1A/2N for 3 years

2A/1N for 1 year

CSUS '27

Please call me Mari (not Mary) or Atlas, either one works, don't use my full name. Thanks

pls add me to the email chain: marianagarcia.debate@gmail.com

Pronouns: They/He/She

TLDR;

Have fun. Make strategic arguments and work hard. Debate is a game and if you are dedicated enough, you will succeed. A dropped argument is true if you explain why.

It's your responsibility to explain the arguments being made to me. The cards support your argument. If you have any questions after the debate don't be afraid to email me or ask questions.

I have no topic knowledge so don't overuse jargon I won't understand. Explain in-depth and how each arguments connect.

Christina Phillips and Joshua Michael taught me all I know

I enjoy CP+DA debates.

Slow down on Taglines/analytics/theory. I am extremely nit-picky when it comes to spreading analytics/ overviews/taglines/ theory/ whatever you did not flash. Don't spread it.

Online db8:

My wifi is sometimes bad so I might have to ask you to repeat certain things. If you have wifi issues I understand, just let me know and we can pause the debate and wait for you to get it fixed. Please do not say you have tech issues just to steal prep time.

I'm ok with spreading but please speak clearly. Clarity>speed

I will only say clear twice.

DAs

TL: DA o/w Case

Im ok with DAs, just explain the story of the DA to me. What is your uq claim, how do you link to the plan, IL, and why does that lead to your impact. I want to see the links explained and not a shallow explanation of the tagline. I won't buy it.

"Any risk of the DA means you vote neg" ok why? what are you winning on?

Specific links > generic -- its ok if you don't have specific links tho, you're just gonna have to do extra work to convince me. Sure read more links in the block as long you choose one in the 2NR and explain.

CPs

I have no problem voting for a counterplan. I do think the CP should have a net benefit or INB and it should be explained in-round.

Do not be afraid to run a CP. Specify what the net-benefit is in CX and explain their relation with each other.

• Process and Consult CPs are pretty abusive
• artificial cps are ok but its gonna be hard to convince me

Conditionality: Sure, don't have a problem. You can run as many arguments as you want, as long by the 2nc/2nr its been kicked out. If not then I think the aff can go for condo -- its more on my theory explanation.

T

T is good- tho it's the neg's job to tell me why the aff is untopical and why that is bad for debate.

W/M , C/I , and your standards

The aff should explain why that's not true, etc.

It's your job to clash with competing interps

I don't like T when its clear that the Aff is topical or when theres no standards. If I think your aff is untopical it's probably untopical.

Ks

I prefer K v policy debates than K v K debates. I usually always went for FW v K debate but that doesn't mean I enjoy them.

I love Ks. I know most common Ks, like Settler colonialism, Cap K, and Security. When explaining your K, explain to me why the alt solves the links, impacts and plan. Just because i know these Ks dont assume I know what your cards are talking about. You gotta explain your thesis/ theory of power to me and why its important in the debate. Your explanation of the alt is so important. It's the weakest part of the K so when someone doesn't explain it well, it hurts. Extend your FW then pick and choose which is your strongest i/l impact to extend in the 2NR. Running a poorly explained K is not fun to watch.

Don't just say you link without explaining to me why the aff causes ur impacts or why it continues x, y , z. You should def go down the lbl in the 2nc. Specific link > generic

Just because I'm queer doesn't mean you should run queer theory in front of me. I'm not well versed with the lit. When it comes to High theory, I know a bit but not enough to understand what you're saying. If you do plan to run Baudrillard, Fanon, Hegel, Deleuze, etc or any high theory, you're going to have to explain to me in depth.

- Joshua Michael taught me all I know

Theory

theory debates are fun when you have a reason to run it

Condo when there are more than 5 off>>

I have a lower threshold for the aff on Condo. I think that answering 13min of the block when the neg has read more than 5 off is unfair. Although I think it's answerable if you prioritize the right arguments and understand what's happening in the round.

pls dont hide Aspec within T

Just because I love theory does not mean I'll vote on a 5min condo with little to no explanation. If you think you're losing the theory debate, don't go for it. I don't believe in disclosure theory when someone changes to a common aff or its the first tournament of the season. I do believe that if the neg or aff refuses to tell the other or disclose then yes disclosure. I won't vote on it alone tho.Prove in-round abuse.

Case

Case is so important! please please extend your evidence and do evidence comparison. Tell me why i should prioritize your plan over what the neg is suggesting. Explain how doing the plan is good for us and why it outweighs. This should follow the lbl and you should have a short o/v on top by the rebuttal. Please don't forget about Solvency

MISC.

-SIGN POST PLEASE. If you start jumping flow from flow i will get lost and miss arguments

-Don't forget about roadmaps

-Pls respect each other, if you dont i will dock points

-don't support anything that ends with "ism"

-please make your CX useful!! Thats your time to ask smart questions to help you

-Do not clip cards- if you do i will stop the debate.

- If you ask me to drop an arg or cross apply to a diff arg i will

-dont read new evidence in ur rebuttals

-judge instruction! it will make my job so much easier!

• don't forget to smile and have fun :)
• Please make jokes

Hello! My name is Anahita (she/her). I debated WSD at Notre Dame High School for four years. Now, I am a college student at Northeastern University judging tournaments. As a judge, I prioritize creating a respectful, educational space where all voices are heard and valued. I expect debates to avoid offensive language or bigotry and maintain a positive atmosphere. I prefer a clear framework to help me follow along, and I encourage strong impact analysis that connects each argument to a real-world scenario. As this is WORLD schools, I look for international examples along with domestic examples. I also welcome a definitions or burdens debate, as I believe they add depth and clarity to the debate. Direct clash is essential, and I encourage debaters to summarize their cases by the third and reply speeches, with solid "two-world" scenarios to help me weigh impacts. I value good sportsmanship throughout the round, and I do not encourage spreading. Please be clear, and most importantly, please have fun!

About me:

Add me to the chain: tielladebates@gmail.com

I am currently a senior at ND. It's my fourth year debating. I coach MS debate at St. Francis De Sales

Y'all can call me Tiella (tea-ella) or judge, I don't care.

General notes:

clarity > speed

tech > truth

depth > breadth

Fairness and education are impacts.

Please clearly signpost.

Tagline extensions are not extensions.

You need to be flowing.

Tag team cross is fine.

I will only judge kick if you tell me to.

Be nice to your opponents. I will tank your speaks if you're mean. That being said, I love a sassy CX so long as it's respectful.

Case:

Case is extremely important in the debate. Offense and defense are equally important on the case flow. If the negative doesn't provide me with a reason not to, I will err aff.

CPs:

Make sure it's either textually/functionally competitive. PICs, process, and actor CPs are all legitimate. Your CP needs to have a net benefit in order for me to vote on it. I tend to err neg on sufficiency framing.

DAs:

Prove you outweigh on timeframe, magnitude, or probability and I'll probably vote on it, but you need a clear link argument. PC args that aren't specific to the aff are probably insufficient. Show me why the plan is a bad idea. Ptx DAs need to have recent evidence or I won't vote on it. Defense and offense should be read on both sides.

Ks:

I will vote on FW. Tell me why your FW outweighs. I need to hear a clear link argument in order for me to vote on your K. Ideally, you should be reading more than one link. It's hard for me to buy a link of omission arg. If that's your only link, it will be an uphill battle for you. I will vote on a reps link, but if you're going for one, you better have rehighlighted aff cards. You also need to defend these links in your FW. I want to hear a clear, impacted-out root cause debate. I love an alt solves the case claim. That will make it easy to vote for your K, but I will vote on the K as a DA. With that being said, it will be hard for you to get my ballot without substantial case debate.

K affs:

Go for it. Ideally, you should have a clear connection to this year’s topic. You should have 1ar/2ar consistency. I need a clear explanation of your solvency mechanism. If you only solve for in round, fine, but don't claim to solve for more than you can reasonably affect. If you have a spill-up claim, I need a clear extrapolation of how my ballot will result in that.

K v K:

Love this debate. I will likely grant the aff a perm, but I can be persuaded otherwise. If you're going for the perm debate, your perm and link defense needs to demonstrate interactions between lit bases. Neg - I need a clear answer as to why the perm is impossible. A quick mutually exclusive is probably insufficient. Explain how the aff harms whatever you're going for. Obviously, specific links > links of omission.

K v FW:

Go for it. I need a clear extrapolation as to why the aff is uniquely violent. I think K affs are inevitable so you need to prove why it's cheating and impact out that debate.I want a clear explanation of why the W/M is insufficient and why the C/I explodes limits and harms ground.

T:

Note for packet-restricted rounds: I will not vote on a violation that is not in the NDCA packet

No interpretation = no win. You need to explain the impacts of topicality. I buy that T is a prerequisite to case, but you should say those words in the debate. Tell me why T is the most important voting issue. To win my ballot you need to prove why your interpretation is the best model of debate. There needs to be an internal link debate (ground, limits, etc.) and an impact debate (fairness, education). Aff you should have a W/M and a C/I in the 2ac. Explain why you're affirmative is reasonable, but most importantly explain why the negative doesn't lose ground.

Theory:

Explain why it is important with internal links and impacts. You need specific line by line. I have an equally high threshold for the aff and neg on fairness. Whoever does the better debating will get my ballot. If you are going for theory in the 2nr/2ar the whole speech should be theory.

I am the Assistant Debate Coach for Notre Dame High School in charge of World School Debate and IPPF (essay writing form of debate). I have extensive public speaking experience, presenting at multiple conferences in front of hundreds, sometimes thousands of people.

I competed in Policy Debate for 3 years in high school at Notre Dame, so my biases tend towards the quality of arguments. As such, most rounds will be won for me in Content, and sometimes in Strategy. Although I will grade Style as an important factor, there is almost no world where a team will win a World School debate round based on Style as the primary factor. Good speaking habits, flow, inflection, and use of creative language can only help you, but it will not determine the round for me. That will be decided primarily on Content and how you address the primary issues of the debate.

Although some judges may frown upon a framework debate (definitions, models, values, burdens, etc.), I welcome them. Give me the framework by which I should judge the round, give me a reason to prefer your overall framework/definitions/values/burdens, and most importantly, explicitly "connect the dots" and explain how you meet those burdens better than the other team. Even if you agree on burdens and definitions, you must still explain how you meet these burdens better than your opponents. Failing to do this (primarily in the 3rd and reply speeches, but can be helpful to begin this discussion as early as the 2nd speech) and leaving it up to me to connect the dots will cost you both Content and Strategy points in your speaker scores, and could lead to some flukey results when I'm left to determine how best to judge the round.

On framework: if you offer a "hard" model as the Prop, you need to make sure it's "topical" and fully meets the motion of the round. I think very few World School debates (especially for impromptu motions) specifically call for or need a "hard" model. This isn't policy debate. I'm willing to grant you a decent amount of leniency on the mechanism(s) for achieving the world of the motion, so a "soft" model will help you. But if you paint yourself into a corner with a "hard" model or "plan," and it doesn't fully meet the motion's requirements, I'm open to hearing that debate from the Opp if they call you out on it.

Additionally, I will apply a reasonable sense of “reality” when judging the debate. In other words, if you make a factually untrue argument or give an blatantly false or mischaracterized example, it’s not gonna hold a lot of water with me, regardless of whether or not the other team calls it out. That said, I will refrain as much as possible from applying any of my own personal opinions or values in the debate. That’s up to you to shape, but be careful about crossing any ethical lines that could be considered disparaging to another group.

On that note, "sportsmanship" is very important to me. Respect the competition, respect your teammates, and respect your opponents. Shake hands, congratulate people, and do not use disparaging language towards any person or group. If you do so, I will absolutely make a note of it in my RFD and you will likely lose speaker points. This is a bare minimum expectation.

That said, debate doesn’t need to be a “stuffy” activity. Feel free to smile, crack a joke, try to make me laugh. The best speeches are the ones that you enjoy delivering and people delight in having heard. At the end of the day, HAVE FUN!

Finally, my RFD notes are typically short. I prefer to give my decision directly to debaters after the round, offer individual notes and feedback, and break down why I came to the conclusion I did. This can take maybe 5-15 minutes, but this is where people can learn and grow the most. I know people are anxious to leave after a debate, but please take the time to learn and respect what I have to say for a few minutes after I listened to you and your team for an hour. I'm an open book, so take the opportunity to ask me questions, request feedback, and I'll do all I can to help.

Best of luck, Debaters!