pfd peeps:

I have only judges pfd a handful of times, but I did qualify for nats in public forum in high school. I also competed in public forum for three years in high school. I should be good with anything you decide to do, but let me know if you have any questions at all.

Policy peeps:

You don't lose until I sign the ballot - if you know you are way too behind then it's time to shoot for the moon; condo, dispo turns, try and sell a new link turn, whatever. I appreciate not giving up and being risky on a mid round strat change if executed well and justified.

Voted aff on the policy topic: 13

Voted neg on the policy topic: 19

email: trinityb@ksu.edu

she/her/hers

Four years at @ Manhattan High School

Assistant Coach @ Lawrence High

Everything is up for debate.

I am a heavy flow critic. I find myself looking towards the arguments and how they function in the debate over the inherent “truth” of an argument. I will vote on an argument I know is not true (many economy arguments, for example) if this is not refuted. Basically, I am tech over truth in most instances...

However, I will not vote on arguments such as racism good, patriarchy good, transphobia good, ableism good, colonialism good, etc. Give content warnings for graphic content (I will vote you down) If there are any of the aforementioned violence practiced theoretically or materially in round I will vote against your team immediately. These types of injustices kill education and means that no ethical pedagogy can occur. Zero tolerance here. Debate space should be a space to act without fear of oppression - I will make sure that is reflected in my judgments and comments.

I am fine with any speed you choose, you will not go too fast for me. However, do not spread just to push the other team out. That is an accessibility issue and if they are pushed out of the round and make an abuse argument or criticism of your practices I will most likely vote against you. I see way too many debaters push other teams out just because they think they are better than the other team. Don't be a dick.

Topicality: I love it. A good T debate is my favorite debate to judge and was my favorite argument to run. T is always a voter because it taps into the performative aspects of debate and how this education can be effective. They are always about competing interpretations and the reasons as to why that interpretation is more beneficial than others. You must weigh the offense based on your standards/voters vs. the C/I and their subsequent standards/voters. You have to win your interpretation is the best for the debate. This applies to all theory arguments.

***Topicality is just an agreement between two teams on what is to be debated.*** If there is/are more pertinent issue(s) that the teams wish to discuss (e.g. anti-blackness, transphobia, colonialism, ableism) of a particular event that is proximal to the debaters then that is okay. Do not think you are stuck to the topic if there is a general consensus on what should be debated.

Counterplans: Read one, please. If you don’t, you need status quo solves. If you read a perm text, please give SOME explanation on how the perm functions. I don’t view perms as advocacies (no one does anymore) because the CP is just opportunity cost to the affirmative, so don’t act like you suddenly have an amazing new net-benefit because you permutated the CP. Presumption never flips aff. Presumption, simply put, is that the existing state of affairs, policies, programs should continue unless adequate reasons are given for change. I believe condo is good, I'm going to have a hard time listening to anything else.

Criticisms/Performances: I do run Ks as a debater. (I have argued neolib, cap, security, fem, gender, set col, and queer kritiks) It should be an advocacy. Additionally, I do not think white debaters should run anti-blackness. I do not think non-queer individuals should run queer theory. This runs the line of commodification and you cannot work within that position if you do not belong to it, meaning that you will never truly understand what you are running and operating form a position of privilege to do so. I am okay with whatever criticism or performance you so choose to run, just make sure you can explain it and how it solves the aff.

Case: haha you should do it, literally aff's are so bad and not well designed anymore. I could have lost on presumption so many times my senior year but people are too afraid to give that 2NR. If that is your best 2nr option, do it.

***BOTTOM LINE***

It is much more important to me that you find an educational gain from this activity and adequately express the things you care about greatly than hitting all the stock issues or being a policy maker. Debate is about the debaters, make the round what you want. ANY attempt to push the other team out of the debate will result in a dropped ballot.

fiat is fake and the debate round should be ethically and strategically centered in the contact between the bodies in the space (me and the debaters). that doesn't mean i don't buy your ptx da or shady i/l link chain, but that i want to see a politely conducted, complex debate with four people who know a lot more about what they are talking about than me. at the end of the day, we all leave the round and what we take away from it is knowledge, empathy and experience. if you prove to me that you are best for the production of those three things in this space, then it is likely you have won. (Sam took this from me)

Attack the argument, not the debater. As a woman in debate, I have experienced forms of sexism, if I see any of this, you will be voted down. microaggressions, racism, homophobia, or xenophobia will not be tolerated by me. If I encounter this, I will stop flowing and vote you down. CX is a time for understanding, not for coming after the other team. Don’t be a jerk. If you are, you will be voted down. Debate is a place for fun and learning, not for being mean to people for the sake of “winning.”

Any other questions just find me and ask.

I am a stock issues judge with a strong preference for communication skills. I'm not a fan of Ks or spreading, but you may still use them in round if you feel its necessary.

I need you to explain to me how your arguments link and why they matter as the round goes, explaining everything in the 2XR won't strongly affect my judgment compared to the 6 speeches before it.

Overall Paradigm: Tabula Rasa/ Policy Maker

TLDR: Do whatever you are most comfortable with. I am most familiar with good case debate and DA's. I am willing to vote on T, CP's or K's but they must be articulated, linked well and have a clear impact story. I would rather you be comfortable than completely adapt just to me. No spreading and no topic specific abbreviations please. Be nice to your opponent. If you have any questions whatsoever, do not hesitate to ask!

Email: nbelt250@gmail.com

Debate Experience: 4 years in high school (Surveillance, China, Education, Immigration). 1 year in college at Washburn University (Energy)

Judging Experience: N/A this year

T: I default to reasonability, but I will vote on competing interpretations or arguments if presented. Clear violation and abuse persuades me on T more than anything.

K: I don't have much experience with kritiks or K lit, but I can follow a well structured argument. The link and impact story must be solid. I am not a very good judge for K v. K debates.

DA: I love DA's. Specific evidence for link and impact are great, but generic ones can work. Case turns are also very persuasive.

CP: I mostly ran agent CP's in high school, however I am fairly familiar with most other CP's. Perm do both is not a sufficient argument without warrants for the aff. Not a big fan of delay CP's.

Case: This is my favorite part of debate. My favorite rounds are ones with lots of clash. Most of my strategic decisions in the rebuttal were case and DA's args. This is probably the easiest way to win the round for me.

Theory: Clear abuse is a must. Condo bad can be legitimate.

Speaks: I don't have a clear system for awarding them, but I am fairly generous. I like speeches that aren't blocks or just evidence.

Misc: Due to my lack of judging/recent debate experience I would prefer that rounds are conducted at a conversation/quick pace. I probably won't be able to keep up with spreading. I will try my best to get authors and dates with tags. When pulling evidence, you must pull the tag and warrant, not just the date and tag. Not familiar with the topic, nor the jargon. No abbreviations please. Signposting is a must. Don't be hostile towards your opponent. Most importantly, have fun and be relaxed! If you have any questions or concerns, please just ask :).

Experience: I debated policy for four years at Seaman High and three years at Washburn University. This includes one year of parli.

I'm fine with speed, but don't judge high school a lot. I'm not familiar with any topic-specific niches and prefer you slow down on tags and authors.

Arg Prefs:

T - Generally my threshold is pretty high - I'll entertain T if there is clear proven abuse. If neg decides to go for it, commit to it. I won't vote for T if it's only shadow extended in the 2NR. I'll vote for an RVI if it's well-articulated and goes conceded.

DAs - I went for politics almost every round in high school & college. I don't really care if the link is specific or not, and am willing to vote on generic links. Impact calc is important and I like DA outweighs & turns case arguments to frame the round.

CPs - Should be competitive with a clear net benefit. I flow CP theory on a separate sheet so please clearly signpost any arguments like "PICs bad," "condo bad," etc.

K - I didn't go for the K much in high school or college. That said, I'm unfamiliar with a lot of the lit, so if you feel you have to go for it, the link story and alt solvency need to be very clear. There should be a clear perm text beyond "do both," "do the aff then the K," etc.

As a general note, I like direct clash. Uniqueness overwhelms the link, link turn arguments, etc. are good. Feel free to ask me any questions before the round.