coppell 21 | jhu 25 | they/she | vishalsivamani9@gmail.com
active coaching conflicts 23-24: lc anderson, chs9, coppell, clear lake mk, barrington ac, heritage wt, oak ridge aa, jordan vs, wolf independent cw
please call me vaish or vaishali! i did ld/cx at coppell. qualified to tfa state 2x + caught a bid round my senior year. my students have been in outrounds of toc bid tournaments and have bid/qualified to the toc. if you have any questions about stuff below.
some debate influences include patrick fox, blake andrews, jo barquin, sunhee simon, and holden bukowsky in no particular order. if they have opinions on debate i probably agree with them and you can check their paradigms for the nitty gritty stuff because i probably err a similar way.
hella serious about this --- don't misgender people. even if it's an accident if it happens more than once its an L0. same goes for identity checking in cx --- "are you a woman/man/x" is a question no one should be asking. please, please, please check ppl's wiki for pronouns or straight up just say "aff/neg" or wtv there are so many good alternatives to gendering people if you don't know their positionality. use them.
amended thoughts about nonblack afropess - i think similarly to holden about this - here's an excerpt:
"a note on non-black engagement with afropessimism, I will watch your execution of this argument like a hawk if you decide to go for it. This also means that if you are disingenuous to the literature at all, your speaks are tanked and the ballot may be given away as well depending on how annoyed I'm feeling. This is your first and final warning."
ld
arg prefs
1 - k + larp
1/2 - topicality + theory + phil
3 - tricks
honestly of the opinion that the stuff i had in my paradigm previously was sorta vapid and kind of worthless because it doesn't really get the gist of how i evaluate debates. i'm not really terribly dogmatic -- i'm definitely able to evaluate whatever debate you give me with a lens of objectivity and careand have voted for things i'm less knowledgable about vs. things i've written papers on. make good strategic decisions, focus on making arguments that have a claim/warrant/impact, and do NOT do things that are racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist. these things will probably cause you to win lots of debates in front of me and will make my life easy.
i also tend to be slower to the uptake on spreading super blippy / fast analytics esp if they're not on the doc -- i promise im trying to keep up with you but if it gets to a point where my flow is incoherent jumble you should anticipate that the rfd won't be to your liking. sorry.
i've been reading a lot of continental/analytic philosophy as of late and i really enjoy clash based interactions between the phil and other arg styles. however, i'm not reading it from a debate standpoint and so although i may get what you're saying, the context for me may be something i need abridged. however, i want to hear more of these debates and have amended my paradigm to adjust for this. please do what what you will w that info!
cx
same as ld stuff - i like this event more but i think y'all should anticipate me being more receptive to theory than the average policy judge since i have to evaluate it much much more frequently. heads up.
speaks
i had a lot of stuff here but again it was verbose and annoying and i assume none of y'all really gleaned much from it. here's how i assign speaks:
1. strategy/decision making + round vision
2. efficiency + knowledge
3. funny stuff you say and do + thing that make the debate more interesting
that's about it. a 29 from me means i think you should be doing good work in elims of a bid tournament and i think i cap at about a 27.5 although i have gotten trigger happy and given 26.(high) for pf debates that make my head hurt. i don't really give out 30s a ton and i definitely regret a lot of the 29.5+ speaks i've given out but its all good.