Policy Debate History:

1 Semester at Kansas State University- Fall 2009

1 Year at the University of Iowa- 2016

I would prefer to be on the email chain it makes life simpler: AndersonAudi16@gmail.com

In regards to speed generally I can keep up, I sped when I debated. With that being said if you do plan to speed read please do speak up. However if you do decide to spread and are unclear I will stop flowing and it will fall on your shoulders to make sure I am following along with what is happening. If you see me stop typing it generally means I can't follow along and have stopped flowing. If you want me to really remember something in the round slow down and make it known.

Style Preferences:

T: I don't have a problem voting on T, especially if one team does a poor job answering it or completely bypasses it. It's a good way to make sure there hasn't been any abuse in the round, make sure you convince me why your interpretation and your standards are better for debate.

DisAds and CPs: I have no problem with either. With Disads explain why your disadvantage outweighs the advantages of the 1AC, impact calculus is important.

Theory: 99.9% of the time I stick with reject the argument and not the team but there is a .01% that I will vote the other way if a team out argues that the larger debate has been made biased.

K: I'm not against a K debate, I was mainly a policy debater myself. Take the time to explain the alt to me. Real world impacts are much more persuasive to me. I will listen to the off the wall arguments but you may have a harder time convincing me to vote for them. Don't expect me to know everything I was not a philosophy major.If all you are reading are post modern buzzwords the round is not going to go well for you. K debates are not my favorite.

Case debate: I enjoy a good case debate. With that being said. I have seen a fair share of rounds where I have voted Aff because the negative has conceded the aff in the 2NR. Don't do this, no matter what you are trying to hammer home as your final point(s) extend your best case argument(s) over.

Really when it comes down to each round I am fine with all arguments, and try to come in with a blank page. If you are the better debaters you are going to win the round. I will vote on what I hear in that round and that round alone.

Tell me how to evaluate the round and justify it, I take the role of the ballot under consideration when voting.

Open CX is fine, flashing, and off-time roadmaps are alright with me. Don't be disrespectful, debate isn't a space for that, I won't vote against your team for it but it will go against your individual speaker points.

If you have any other questions or need clarification don't hesitate to ask before the round.

Email: sblosser11@gmail.com

Judging Hx- HS/College - policy/LD 1994-2004

Asst-97-04

I typically judge more than 12 rounds -varsity per year. HS

1-2 college tournaments per year

Speed is as speed does.

Tabula Rasa.

I will vote on offcase, K, CP, DA

Delivery is important - but does not outweigh logic

Quality of arguments >quantity

I will not intervene on the ballot for you.

My biggest pet peeve is bullying the other team, your partner, or being disrespectful.

I’m not a fan of parody or spoof cases. I will not vote for them! Be respectful and professional.

Spring Hill Tournament: This is my first time judging online so please be patient. Additionally, this is my first tournament on this topic so please don't assume I'm in the topic literature like you are. Please explain acronyms, etc.

Background: I did four years of policy in HS in Missouri. I then did mostly parli in college for SIU

then Washburn.

General: I hate it when people don't start with a strategy. I'm ok with people initially deploying two or

three potential strategies but the collapse has to happen and happen early. Likewise I enjoy the aff

building offensive answers into the aff and using them. Argument interaction has to happen. Clash is

good. I probably shouldn't have to say that, but I do. I am open to any argument, but as with anyone

else I do have particular biases.

Specifics:

Counterplans- pretty much the only thing that should be said here is that I prefer unconditional

counterplans, but if nobody checks the status, feel free to kick it. If you do go for condi good, you

better be damn good on theory. However, this does not mean I want to hear you say condi bad as some sort of pre-empt

Kritiks/performance- I am down. Biggest problem I have with these debates is when someone just tries

to buzz through the debate. This means I probably won't give much weight to “x leads to dehum”

unless you explain the process in which a person is stripped of human status, and why that is likely to

outweigh something. Dehum justifies all violence isn't good enough. Also, I believe if someone reads a

procedural that says you should not have access to your K you should not be able to justify the K using

the K. If you want to k the procedural on different grounds, that’s fine but I am very very very

susceptible to “your answers to our procedural are illogical and beg the question”.

T- I default competing interps, but I'm open for anything. Please impact your standards debate.

Disads- please explain interaction between the disad and case. Be strategic. Read the disad to get

somewhere more than just an impact.

Case debates that actually clash on a warrant level (not just the tags)are the key to my heart.

Don't be rude. Your speaks will be dramatically affected.

I know this philosophy doesn't really give a super amount of insight. If you have questions, please ask.

I would rather let you know I'm not a fan of an argument instead of listening to too much of it. Once

again, do anything you want to in the debate round. Its just a game.

Thomas Cox - BVW Assistant Coach

Rounds judged on the topic - 18

**KCKCC elims update**

The more I judge the more I realize I don't know anything. This level of debate is higher than what I typically debated and higher than what I typically judge. I can work with advanced policymaker args, but like the rest of my paradigm says, you'll have to do a phenomenal job on the K to pick me up. A good rule for me, as well as in life, is assume the person you're talking to knows less than you do. Although I'm an assistant coach, my duties don't really extend beyond making sure kids don't die on the weekends and judging rounds. I don't have time to do topic research and familiarize myself with all the common args on this topic. You'll have two other judges who are probably way more qualified than me. You can ignore me or you can try to cater parts of the debate to what I can handle. Either way, good luck and have fun.

**

I debated for Blue Valley West from 2010-2014. I have just began working for them as an assistant coach. I was not active with debate while I was in college, so I am sort of reentering the community and space. I likely can't handle the speed that the veteran coaches and judges can on this circuit, but you can still be quick.

Policymaker

It's all about impact framing and calculus.

Topicality - I've seen a few T debates but am still not entirely familiar with the topic literature. I default competing interps but will not rule out reasonability if the aff is doing a better job debating it.

Counterplans - if your CP text is longer than your solvency card and you spread the text to the point that I can't understand it, I will probably kick your CP for you. I've found that I tend to give the aff a little more leeway on CP debates. I personally never once had a CP in my 2NR. My gut tells me most of the "cheating CPs" are actually cheating, but that's up for the aff to prove.

Kritiks - I did not debate the K and I have not seen any critical debates in the past four years. Proceed cautiously. But don't let me dissuade you from giving it a spot in the 1NC if it's your bread and butter. You'll probably be able to tell from my facial reactions what I think of it.

Theory - typically a reason to reject the arg not the team, then the theory debate just turns into a battle of the blocks. If you want to win a round on a theory arg, be ready to really engage the flow and step away from your blocks by the last rebuttal.

Disads - read them. Give overviews. Tell me why it turns the case, not just that it does. Same goes for the aff - I should be hearing why your advantage turns the disad. Engage each other's impact calc. Your impact won't likely win on all three of timefram, prob, mag. So you need to tell me why what you do win is most important.

Other notes

When you all have fun, I have fun. Nothing beats a competitive debate with lots of clash and competitors who are generally respectful towards each other. Don't be too much of a jerk.

I am a Policymaker judge that also pays attention to the Stock issues. I believe that I can handle a faster rate of delivery as long as it is articulated well. I debated in high school and have been an assistant debate coach for over a decade. If most everyone else understands the delivery, odds are that I will also. If you fear you might be going too fast or not certain that you are being clear you are probably correct and I would suggest slowing down. If I can't understand you I will not say "clear" I will only understand less. Fast delivery does not mean stronger arguments.

I expect the 1AC to present a plan text. I also prefer case-specific evidence for links to DA's. I'm fine with Counterplans but I am not an advocate or fan of Kritiks or theoretical debate.

I expect everyone to be polite, courteous and professional. I genuinely care about this event and everyone involved.

Debated through high school and for one year at the University of Kansas.

I would say that I'm a hybrid stock issues/policy maker but with a strong policy-maker lean. However, I'm also there to arbitrate your arguments, so if you want me to apply another paradigm, as long as you can cogently argue it and convince me why I should change, I'm flexible and willing to change for the round.

I will accept the K, provided you capably understand it and can demonstrate that understanding to me and translate your understanding to a compelling rationale for voting for it. I tend to flow Kritikal arguments similarly to disads. Seriously. Spoon feed me the K and I will happily vote on it, but you should assume my understanding is, um, "not advanced." Here is where I blatantly steal a line from the paradigm of Jeff Plinsky: My policy maker lens is difficult for me to put down here, so you had better be able to tell me how your advocacy can actually solve something. In a K v K debate, this still applies - you need to prove you actually solve something.

I will accept generic disads, but try to have them link. Specific disads are always better and with what seems like functionally all affs available via wiki, there's no reason not to do the research to find a specific link. In evaluating disads, my natural inclination (which you can overcome) is to prefer realistic impacts even if they are small, to enormous but highly attenuated impacts such as multiple extinction events/cannibalism/nuke wars/etc. I don't like to count who has the highest number of nuclear exchanges at the end of the round, but if I have to, I will.

I am a dinosaur and, as such, value topicality. I will almost certainly not make topicality a "reverse voter" and give the aff a win if the only thing they've accomplished is to beat neg's T arguments. However, I will vote neg on T only, assuming neg wins it. In line with my feelings on T, before you run a PIC, ask if the aff is topical. Please note: I am not telling negative teams that I want them to run topicality. That is your decision. I am just telling you that I will vote on it if you win it.

Speed is fine and I can usually follow and flow very fast debaters. If I am holding a pen, even if I'm not writing at any given moment, I am following you. If I have put down my pen, it means you've lost me and should probably back up or make some other effort to get me back. I greatly prefer closed cross; my view is that you should be able to spend three minutes defending the speech you just delivered. While speed is fine, in my position as a dinosaur, I still value rhetoric and persuasion. If you're a compelling speaker, let that shine. Group the other side's arguments and go slower and compel me to vote for you.

Again indulging my prerogative: I not only accept, I encourage new in the two. It's called a "constructive" speech for a reason. Go ahead and construct. Similarly, I will accept add-on advantages from the aff and internally inconsistent arguments from the neg as long as they have kicked out of whatever makes them inconsistent and still allows the affirmative a chance to respond by the end of the round. Do not abuse this. If I think that you're purposely spreading them with inconsistent arguments just to force them into a time suck and not running the argument in good faith, I will not be happy about it and you will bear the consequences of my unhappiness. For example: I once watched a team run the thinnest of topicality shells in the 1NC. They basically did little more than say "topicality" and read one definition and that was it. No voters, no standards, no warrants. That forced the aff to answer in the 2AC and left the neg in a position to have forced the timesuck or blow up topicality in the 2NC. That, to me, was faithless argumentation by the neg. Don't do that.

As befitting a Gen X'er, I value courtesy and think you can absolutely hammer someone and not be a d**k about it. Play nice. Being a jerk probably won't earn you the loss, but I will punish you on speaks if your conduct warrants it. This is intended to be a very strong warning against racism, ableism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia. Engaging in those things will get you an L even if you might have otherwise won the round. My politics lean left, but I consciously try to monitor and check my biases. If your best argument is something that I would not support in real life, you can run it and know that I will make every effort to fairly consider the argument, the way you argue it and its merits in the debate.

On vagueness and topicality: I have noticed a trend where the aff's plan text is essentially the text of the resolution but with a specific "whatever" (country, program, etc.,) stated within the "plan." This is not a plan. It is vague and if the aff is not willing to specify what they are or are not doing/curtailing/removing/adding/replacing, then I will absolutely be open to the argument that they are unfairly claiming and denying territory necessary to allow a fair debate. I won't vote on this if no one brings it up, but I think it's fair to expect an affirmative case to actually specify what it will do. Edited to add: I REALLY MEAN THIS ONE. I find it very frustrating when an aff not only doesn't say in the 1AC what it is exactly that they're doing, but then refuse to answer (or not know the answer) when asked about it on cross. Affs should not do this and negs should beat the snot out of any aff that tries this.

Thoughts on the email chain: I do not want to be on it. This is still a verbal activity. If you say something clearly and intelligibly enough for me to hear it, I will hear it and flow it. From time to time I might ask you (during prep, for example) to give me your tag or the name of the person cited. But if you say something so unintelligible that I can't understand it, I won't credit you for having said it and the fact that it might be on the email chain isn't going to change my mind. I might ask you to show me a card or cards at the end of the round so that I can make sure it says what I think it says or what you say it says. But I don't like the notion of crediting a verbal statement because I read it in an email.

Bottom line: I'm the arbiter of your arguments. While the above is a statement of my preferences, I'm more than happy to judge a debate outside those boundaries and you should feel free to argue your best stuff if I'm your only judge. If you find me on your panel, you should consider going for the other judges as I consider myself to be highly adaptable and can judge a round geared for lay judges and I can also judge one geared to impress college judges.

Thank you for allowing me the privilege of watching and judging your debate.

42fryguy@gmail.com

I debated at KU and Blue Valley Southwest, I am currently coaching at Glenbrook North

FW

I am heavily persuaded by arguments about why the affirmative should read a topical plan. One of the main reasons for this is that I am persuaded by a lot of framing arguments which nullify aff offense. The best way to deal with these things is to more directly impact turn common impacts like procedural fairness. Counter interpretations can be useful, but the goal of establishing a new model sometimes exacerbates core neg offense (limits).

K

I'm not great for the K. In most instances this is because I believe the alternative solves the links to the aff or can't solve it's own impacts. This can be resolved by narrowing the scope of the K or strengthening the link explanation (too often negative teams do not explain the links in the context of the permutation). The simpler solution to this is a robust framework press.

T

I really enjoy good T debates. Fairness is the best (and maybe the only) impact. Education is very easily turned by fairness. Evidence quality is important, but only in so far as it improves the predictability/reduces the arbitrariness of the interpretation.

CP

CPs are fun. I generally think that the negative doing non-plan action with the USfg is justified. Everything else is up for debate, but well developed aff arguments are dangerous on other questions.

I generally think conditionality is good. I think the best example of my hesitation with conditionality is multi-plank counter plans which combine later in the debate to become something else entirely.

If in cross x you say the status quo is always an option I will kick the counter plan if no further argumentation is made (you can also obviously just say conditional and clarify that judge kick is an option). If you say conditional and then tell me to kick in the 2NR and there is a 2AR press on the question I will be very uncomfortable and try to resolve the debate some other way. To resolve this, the 2AC should make an argument about judge kick.

Experience:

Former Policy Debater, Shawnee Mission East

Former University of Kansas Mock Trial Competitor

Former Policy and Mock Trial Coach, Shawnee Mission East

Former Policy and Mock Trial Coach, Blue Valley Northwest

Former Policy, LD, PF and Mock Trial Coach, Olathe North

Former Policy, LD, and PF Coach, Louisburg

Current Policy, LD, and PF Coach, Piper

POLICY

Style Preferences:

I have no speed preferences, debate to the style you are best at. I have heard only a few people too fast for me to understand, but if you choose to spread and you are unclear I will stop flowing.

A few tips to prevent this from happening:

Slowing down on tags, dates, authors, important lines in evidence and important analysis. Higher speed is more appropriate for cards and less so for analysis and theory. If you speed through your 8 one-line points on condo I probably won't get them all (this also happens a lot on perm theory). If it's super important it's worth slowing down. It is you and your partner's responsibility to make sure I am following what's happening. If you're stumbling, slow down and then speed back up when you're back on track instead of trying to push through, which just makes everything messy.

Open CX, flashing, off-time roadmaps (this is much prefered for me to flow) are all fine if both teams are ok with it.

There is a line you can cross of disrespect. What you say and how you say it matters. Although I do not consider this a voting issue unless the other teams argues that it should be, it's harder for me to vote for you if I think you're a jerk. Wit is great, rudeness is not.

Argumentation Preferences for Policy:

I'm fine with any and all forms of argumentation. Just justify why I should vote on it. Be the better debaters in the round and you will win. I vote on what I hear in the round and what is persuasive. Substance is much more important than style.

I generally default policy maker and will need offense to vote, however, if you argue framework and win it I am happy to change the roll of the ballot. Please do not leave it up to me what impacts are most important, if you don't weigh the round for me it is at your own peril.

K debate is fine, but do not assume I have read the philosopher/theorist you are using in depth. It's your responsibility to explain the theory to me. I am much more persuaded by alts that solve the K or have real world impacts.

CP debate is fine, topical CPs are a very very hard sell for me, but if the other team doesn't tell me it's abusive and should be rejected or does not effectively answer Topical CPs good theory I will still vote for it. Generally advocating for the CP is severance and abusive (although I'm open to being persuaded otherwise), but again I need to hear the argument and be told it's a voting issue to vote on it.

I generally view T as an abuse check. If there's no in-round abuse I will rarely vote on it, however if it's answered poorly I'll vote on the better augmentation. Again if you argue that I should change my evaluation to competing interp, etc. and win that argument I will vote accordingly.

Realistic impacts are more effective. I don't mind long chain link stories to get there as long as they are well explained.

New in the 2 is only abusive if teams are spreading

I've tried to cover everything here, but if there is something else you would like to know or need clarification please ask before the round.

LD

Please don't lose focus of the round being about a position on a moral issue. While policy and realistic results of a moral position are important for showing the impact of the value, this is not a policy round. Please choose a value and criterion that you can explain and that work well with your contentions.

The line by line argumentation is important, but don't get so caught up in it that you lose sight of your overriding position. One dropped point won't lose you the round if you access the value the best.

I don't need you to win the value to win the round, but you do need to access the winning value best to win the round.

Please please please engage with the other team's arguments. Don't just say it didn't make sense or didn't apply or that your previous card answers it. Explain why what they say is incorrect. Substance is much more important than style.

PF

You need to have a warrant that supports your claims effectively. Pretty talking will not be enough to win my ballot. The team that best utilizes empirical examples, logic, and (most effectively) evidence to support their claims is typically the winner. At the same time, reading a bunch of cards and providing no analysis will also not serve you well. I'm not a huge fan of emotional personal examples, because they cannot be verified they feel manipulative so I would avoid them.

In my experience sometimes PF rounds get a little snarky. There is a line, and like I said above your demeanor is not a determining factor unless the other team argues that it should be and justifies why you should lose the round over it. But because I am a person, it's hard for me to vote for you if you're a jerk. Wit is appreciated, rudeness is not.

jacobhegna+debate at gmail dot com

University of Kansas 2019

I will keep my paradigm brief because I believe most paradigms are a normative description of how a judge wishes they judged debates rather than a descriptive one.

I am happy (or at least willing) to judge most kinds of debates. My favorite kinds of arguments are:

- affirmatives with large, truth-over-tech impacts with try-or-die framing

- resource disads (e.g. the oil disad)

- topicality

- technical Ks with specific topic and/or aff links

My least favorite kinds of arguments are:

- process, delay, etc counterplans (any counterplan which requires reading a definition to compete)

- theory debates on either side, unless it is used to reject one of the aforementioned arguments

- generic Ks of the government/etc

However, please do not significantly adjust your plans for the debate for me. I would much prefer to see a good debate on an argument I enjoy relatively less compared to a bad debate on an argument I love.

I debated policy for three years in high school. I am a policymaker and expect you to weigh the round. Tell me why you win and/or outweigh the other team. I believe topicality is important and, if blatantly nontopical, I will vote for it. I have debated in fast rounds and judged fast rounds but I PREFER a more slow to moderate speed round. Case debate is important and more clash/turns the better. Kritiks and CPs are fine but convince me why you win it. Have not judged a lot of Ks so please be very concise in explaining it to me. Be clear on your sign posting. I love and will listen to your CX - I don’t mind open CX. I value your arguments equally with your passion and speaking skills. Your final rebuttal should tell me why you win! Reading a bunch of pre-written arguments or analytics doesn’t do much for me. You can impress me if you do line by line. cmhund@hotmail.com

Experience: placed top 32 in policy debate at NCFL nationals, was Kansas 4-speaker state debate champion, was Kansas 2 speaker debate state champion class 4A

I was an assistant forensics coach for 10+ years in Kansas at Blue Valley Southwest. Placed top three in sweeps in class 5A twice.

I debated at Blue Valley North in high school and at UMKC in college. I’ve been an assistant coach at BVN for three years now, led a lab last summer, and have judged about 50 debates on this topic. I don't have much of an ideological preference, and will evaluate all arguments. Here are some thoughts I have:

Evidence quality, comparative impact calc, and technical proficiency are important regardless of your arguments’ content. I dislike embedded clash.

Email chain: minhajutt1 @ gmail

Case/DA

Impact turning DAs/advantages is fine but you still have to do impact calc and evidence comparison for the turn, else the debate becomes difficult to objectively judge.

Responding to terrible internal links with impact defense seems less strategic to me than beating the internal link with alt causes/etc.

CP

Conditionality is good, but the neg has to say judge kick is an option. Most cheating counterplans are fine if you can beat the aff on theory.

Topicality

Impact calc still matters in T debates! Have defense to the other side’s standards, and explain why your offense outweighs/turns theirs. Be sure your interpretation resolves the offense you extend.

Your standards should be specific and impacted – list arguments their interpretation excludes and why they are good, explain which affirmatives their interpretation justifies and why including them in the topic is bad.

Critical Affs

Everything I’ve said about topicality applies here. I also think the aff typically has to win that debating the resolution is bad and that good debates would occur under their model to beat framework. Negatives need defense to aff impact turns to topic education and fairness. Fairness is an impact, but you need warrants explaining why it is.

You can win that critical affs shouldn’t be allowed perms with nuanced, impacted standards like you would in a standard theory debate

K

Each link should have an impact. Critiques of plan focus/consequentialism seem more strategic to me than critiques with causal links, but I'll vote for any argument if you win it. Winning framework lets you determine the threshold for the negative to disprove the aff. Explain why your interpretation provides the best model for debate and compare their offense to yours. Explain why you should still win under their interpretation. ROB arguments are arbitrary and usually deployed to avoid clash – do impact framing instead.

Kendall Kaut

Olathe North (KS)- 2006-2009; Assistant Debate Coach 2021-present

Baylor- 2009-2013

I want emails. kendallkaut@gmail.com

Having been in the activity for a while--with a break in the middle of the last decade--debate goes through cycles on the major questions that make up good philosophies. Debate is in an excellent place in terms of people having answers to arguments, and the top teams are exceptional and make it worth the long hours we spend at tournaments.

Here are some areas that may be helpful if you get me, and some areas I may deviate from the consensus. These are also thoughts on a debate that features two teams of similar ability. Some of this will seem, "Old man yells about where kids today have gone wrong," but I'm just trying to be as upfront as possible about what I think.

*Frame the ballot more-I know we're in a cycle where overviews--at least in the 2NR/2AR--have gone out of vogue. It would behoove both sides to spend the first 20 seconds or so explaining why the one or two issues you might lose on are outweighed by the one or two issues you're winning the debate on. It's also probably more valuable to forego one argument you might want to extend to also frame key segments of the debate. So if someone reads biz con, and the 2AR is going for "biz con is not key to the economy," the 2NR should probably explain, "Look, even if it's normally not key to the economy, the affirmative links so much that their models that say it's fake shouldn't be relied upon," or the 2AR should explain, "The negative may be crushing us that we collapse confidence, but given there's never been any correlation between it--businesses will keep spending money even when they're upset/uncertain because they know they'll lose money if they don't--you should not buy the voodo science of biz con." I've been frustrated some that I feel like recently--especially in good elim debates--the panels I'm on feature all of us having to intervene to a greater degree than we'd like, or decide to line up certain arguments while maybe not lining up arguments one side might want us to line up, because there's little framing of how arguments interact.

*Topic thoughts-It seems pretty clear this is a bad topic to be affirmative. Last year seemed quite difficult to be negative (though we let the negative get away with a lot on some goofy process CPs). There aren't that many affirmatives. Uniqueness for the economy DA seems to be trending toward the negative. That means I am more sympathetic that you don't have to write the longest plan text ever, but I still think affirmative vagueness is an issue. If you read six words or so as a plan text, I will look toward your solvency evidence for what you do. Teams have been honest in debates I've judged, but yes, I think you need to answer how the plan is funded, and that is CP ground for the negative.

*Truth continues to set the baseline for tech-There are indeed better arguments and claims than others. If you say, "The United States federal government is the states," and go for "perm do the CP" to answer the states CP, you better hope your opponent dropped the argument. If you say, "Taxation is genocide," you once again are probably not winning that argument unless it's conceded.

*Affirmatives need to go for theory more-I don't think there's any real reason the negative needs CPs that are not competitive under any real notion of theory. Big advantage CPs, states or PICs leave the aff in a dire position on this topic. Certainty/immediacy are not great legs to stand on for competition. CPs that result in 100% of the affirmative are also not great for debate. Agent CPs--unless the affirmative has specified or read an advantage tied to the agent--also make it difficult for the affirmative. But I continue to see teams decide to stake 2ARs on substance against these CPs. You can--but maybe won't--beat uncooperative federalism on substance. You are far more likely to dig-in and win on theory or competition.

*Conditionality probably needs to be reigned in soon-Two has always seemed fine to me. Once you get to four or so, it seems super dicey to me. Affirmatives should spend more time discussing why a 2AC against that many worlds is perilous, in particular for that debate. Negatives should spend time discussing why the affirmative had real arguments to make/go for in that debate that were not foreclosed by the number of advocacies/alternatives it read. Judging a 2NR/2AR that's solely, "2AC strat skew vs. negative flexibility," is far less persuasive than teams digging in on what did/could happen, and why a 2NR/2AR would be terminally screwed with the other's interpretation.

*I have yet to judge a T debate this topic-I think Medicare is almost assuredly not topical. The implications of reasonability need to be discussed more if that's what you plan to go for. Like theory, you're much better off describing why the affirmatives included/excluded are good, than having a generic, "Education or predictability," are better terminal impacts to T.

*The state of alternative debates has gotten terrible-I truly have no idea what it means in the debates I've judged this year when someone says, "We fiat the alternative." I can imagine a variety of things that means, which necessitates some explanation. The K is 50-50 in front of me this year. Too many K debaters are spending too much time on the link. The link is important. Some teams truly don't link, so it makes sense to spend time there. But too often, K debaters know that's the best part of the K, so they spend time where they're already ahead. It's much more valuable to explain the alt, or why you don't need an alt, or have a plan for what happens if you lose framework. K teams also rely way too often on "this is severance if we win our framwork," on permutations, but don't have a backup plan if I'm considering the affirmative. It's valuable to say a permutation is severance. It's especially valuable to say why it would also be bad to do if I allow the affirmative to weigh the plan.

*More Affirmative teams need to just defend what they've done is good against many Kritiks-Messy framework debates are the recipe for 2-1 decisions in elims. You can get around those by just saying capitalism or security logic/realism are good. You can certainly lose the debate on those things being bad, but you're likely to be in a better spot defending the thing you link to than relying upon framework to get the victory.

*Planless debates: Affirmatives need more defense to limits explosion; negatives need more impact explanation-In my heart, I think you should read a plan. I vote for plenty of no plan teams, just like I vote for plenty of process CPs. Affirmatives are basically spotting the link to giant limits DAs, or they're relying too much on defense/arguments about limits being a false concept. Planless affirmatives are much better explaining what the negative can say against you. This should also go beyond, "method debates," or "We have K v. K. debate." Explain what happens in those debates or people who would write answers to your arguments. Negatives need to spend more time explaining the terminal impact to framework. Fairness can be an impact.

*Partner prompting has gotten too wild-You kill ethos. If your partner truly doesn't know, or they are about to say the opposite of what the answer should be, or the argument should be, I get prompting. But points will suffer.

*Speaker point scale-30- I thought you were the best in the field. 29.9-29.6- You should get a speaker award. 29.5-29- You should clear; 28.9 and below- You did not debate like a team that deserved to clear in this debate. Points have gotten too high. I can't change that, and I will use the scale I must.

Former College Debater @ UM-Kansas City

ToC Qualifier, 2nd @ NSDA Nationals, NDT Qualifier

I read and tend to prefer critical arguments, but I am generally tech>truth so will vote for most debate arguments. I think debate is a space for knowledge production, and I tend to reward teams who use the debate space to educate themselves and others on important social issues. That said, if you win that Heg is good I'll vote for you even though Heg is objectively awful. I don't like framework vs K affs, but I'll give it fair and equal treatment when making my rfd because I recognize it's importance to negative strategies. Theory arguments are cool, but if you want me to reject the team and not just the argument you have to spend considerable time in the 1AR and the entirety of the 2AR going for the argument.

Hello - Is this thing on?

What did the Zen Buddhist say to the hot dog cart vendor?

Make me one with everything.

What do you call the wife of a hippy?

Mississippi

Do you know the last thing my grandfather said before he kicked the bucket?

"Grandson, watch how far I can kick this bucket."

For the person who stole my thesaurus, I have no words to express my anger.

I have been and English teacher for 30 years - I have judged debate (as an assistant Coach) for 6 years. Therefore I like reason and intelligent argument debaters who have researched enough to know what they are talking about.

I prefer actual conversational debate, but speak as fast as you like (as long as I have your speech/evidence in front of me) speechdrop, please

I am basically a TABULA RASA judge. Counterplans, kritiks, disadvantages, topicality - it is all possibly a winning move if it is done well.

I respect debaters who know their evidence well and can concisely clarify during cross-x.

A big plus for actually understanding how government works so that you can formulate a reasonable plan/counterplan - know what the IRS is actually responible for - know the powers ennumerated to the federal government and therefore what is relegated to the states

I generally do not enjoy nuclear annihilation arguments - unless they link clearly. Sometimes it does, but most of the time it does not.

I debated in high school 2008-2012 and competed in parliamentary debate in college 2012-2013.

The team that tells me how to vote and why to vote their way the best will normally win, it is not just about making the argument but making it convincing and not making me complete your thoughts for you. I do not normally vote on T unless it is a clear violation. I will listen to any and all arguments that a team wants to make as long as the argument is clear. Do not try to run something just because you think I will like it, run what you are comfortable with.

Speed is not normally an issue for me as long as you are clear. I do appreciate rebuttals being slowed down a little. Like I said, I like teams that verbally write the ballot for me and tell me why to vote for them, this normally requires you to slow down a little to make a convincing argument.

I do not want anyone to be rude in my rounds. There is a nice way to cross x someone and to try to interrupt them for another question without being rude. I will not vote on this, but it will affect your speaker points if you are rude to the opposing team.

If you have questions, please ask.

Email chain: lily.coaches.debate@gmail.com

About:

• Currently based in Taiwan and coaching debate for the ADL. That means I am staying up all night when I judge at US tournaments. Please pref accordingly
• Debated in college at the University of Kansas, 2017-2022 (Healthcare, Executive Authority, Space, Alliances, Antitrust). I majored in math and minored in Russian if that matters.
• Debated in high school at Shawnee Mission Northwest, 2013-2017 (Latin America, Oceans, Surveillance, China).

Top:

• If I can tell that you are not even trying to flow (eg you never take out a piece of paper the entire debate, you stand up to give your 2NC with just your laptop and no paper) your speaks are capped at 27.
• Please don't call me "judge." It's tacky. My name is Lily. Note that this does not apply to saying "the role of the judge."
• In the words of Allie Chase, "Cross-x isn't 'closed,' nobody ever 'closed' it... BUT each debater should be a primary participant in 2 cross-xes if your goal is to avoid speaker point penalties."
• I would prefer to not judge death/suffering/extinction good arguments or arguments about something that happened outside the debate.
• I might give you a 30 if I think you're the best debater at the tournament.
• High schoolers are too young to swear in debates.
• Don't just say words for no reason - not in cross-x and certainly not in speeches.
• If you are asking questions like "was x card read?" a timer should be running. Flowing is part of getting good speaker points.
• The word "nuclear" is not pronounced "nuke-yoo-ler." If you say this it makes you sound like George Bush.
• Shady disclosure practices are a scourge on the activity.

Framework:

• I judge a lot of clash debates. I'm more likely to vote aff on impact turns than most policy judges, but I do see a lot of value in the preservation of competition. Procedural fairness can be an impact but it takes a lot of work to explain it as such. Sometimes a clash impact is a cleaner kill.
• TVAs don't have to solve the whole aff. I like TVAs with solvency advocates. I think it's beneficial when the 2NC lays out some examples of neg strategies that could be read against the TVA, and why those strategies produce educational debates.

Topicality vs policy affs:

• Speaker point boost if your 2NC has a grammar argument (conditional on the argument making sense of course).
• If you're aff and going for reasonability, "race to the bottom" < debatability.
• Case lists are good.
• The presence of other negative positions is not defense to a ground argument. The aff being disclosed is not defense to a limits argument. This also goes for T-USFG.

Counterplans

• When people refer to counterplans by saying the letters "CP" out loud it makes me wish I were dead.
• As a human I think counterplans that advocate immediate, indefinite, non-plan action by the USFG are legit, but as a judge I'm chaotic neutral on all theory questions.
• Conditionality: I'll give you a speaker point boost if you can tell me how many 2NRs are possible given the number of counterplan planks in the 1NC.

Disads

• Read them
• Politics DAs are fun. Make arguments about polling methodology.

Ks

• I feel like I have a higher threshold for Ks on the neg than some. I'm not a hack and I will vote for your K if you do the better debating, but I also think arguments that rely on the ballot having some inherent meaning are corny unpersuasive.
• I dislike lazy link debating immensely, primarily because it makes my life harder. Affs hoping to capitalize on this REALLY ought to include a perm/link defense in the 2AR.
• Explain how the alt solves the links and why the perm doesn't.
• Affs should explain why mooting the 1AC means that the neg's framework is anti-educational. Negs should explain why the links justify mooting the aff.
• Case outweighs 2ARs can be very persuasive. The neg can beat this with discrete impacts to specific links+impact framing+framework.
• Speaker point penalty if the 1AR drops fiat is illusory - at the very least your framework extension needs an education impact.

Lincoln-Douglas:

• If there is no net benefit to a counterplan, presumption flips aff automatically.
• I do not think permutations are cheating.
• An argument is a claim and a warrant. If you say something that does not contain a warrant, I will not necessarily vote on it even if it's dropped. In the interest of preventing judge intervention, please say things that have warrants.
• Most neg theory arguments I've watched would go away instantly if affs said "counter interpretation: we have to be topical."
• RVIs are not persuasive to me. Being topical is never an independent reason to vote affirmative. The fact that a counterplan is conditional is never offense for the negative.

Contact me with any questions, hate mail, or life advice: mason5855[at]gmail[dot]com

Debated 4 years in High school in the Shawnee Mission Area on the competitive local and national circuit
Currently debating @ KU
Rounds Judged on LA topic: 30+
Rounds Judged on Oceans: 10+
Rounds Judged on Surveillance: 9

TL;DR--Read a plan, don't read a plan, play music, read hundreds of cards - *how* you debate doesn't influence my decision unless implications of your method/performance are brought up in round. I rely on framing arguments to check my intervention in the debate, but intervention is probably inevitable to some degree. You can read things like Baudrillard and Heg advantages in front of me, but I won't encourage you to do so. email me if you have any questions

*Kansas Debate*

An argument = Claim + WARRANT + Impact. A lot of debates that I judge at regional tournaments involve debaters with relatively *good* understanding of techne and argumentative theory, but are really, really shallow when articulating why an argument is true or why a certain internal link chain makes sense. If you are tag-line or shaddow extending your arguments, you should expect my decision to be increasingly subjective, especially if I have no idea what your advocacy is/does (this goes for both critical and traditional policy arguments). Make framing arguments. Make permutations. Don't re-read evidence. Explain a dropped argument beyond "they dropped this so it flows Aff/Neg".

*Old Debate*

Aff:

Talk about the topic - this isn't a rule, but I think it's meaningful. It helps you contextualize your theoretical abstractions and/or policy discussions. We pick a new one every year, and there's a lot of creativity in tying your research to a prompt that won't always be available to you in educational environments.

I've been a 1A, and will give you leeway on extensions, but there has to be 2AC substance to back it up. Important things to make sure you highlight for me are framing arguments, the description/evaluation of permutations, and a clear articulation of your advocacy, interp, or whatever it is that you're defending. I'll also let the 1AR get away with embeded clash if it can be contextualized in a clearer fashion in the 2AR. 

I will vote on a plan-flaw. I hope you've appropriately capitalized the letters in your actor names. 

T:

I generally think reasonability means that your grounding in topical literature solves most of the Neg's offense, but you need to explain what reasonability is in the 1AR at minimum, preferably in the 2AC. "Be reasonable" is as vague as "vote for the team with the best argument". I default to competing interps because that's where most of the offense gets hashed out anyways. Intent to define and Author quals are a good way to frame how i evaluate each teams standards. When impacting out T, try to contextualize your argument to the Aff's interp. The Roland/People Quit type of impacts only get you so far if both teams agree that being topical is good.

T/Framework:

I think the second half of the rez is always easier to defend than the "USfg should", but I'll evaluate your interp regardless. I'm less swayed by the traditional "switch-side debate good, state good, limits/predictability, etc" impacts, but I do enjoy the nuance of deliberative democracy, stasis, and institutional competency. You will never win that ontological and epistemological inquiries are irrelevant to policy-making in front of me unless the other team drops it. You should have a defense of why your interp facilitates a better mechanism to discuss these rather than try to frame them away from the impact debate. I think it's also important to deliniate between role-playing/fiat and institutional competency or legal education if those are the types of arguments you're going for. 

Disads:

I don't have many thoughts on the substance of these debates, but i do think perception-based links give the neg some creativity in terms of impact calc. Don't expect me to be knowledgable about the uniqueness of these - i don't read politics or traditional disads anymore and haven't invested enough time in them to keep up with the lingo.

CPs:

They need to be competitive. They need to solve some part of the aff, everything else is up to the case debate. I'm open to whatever CP you want to read as well as the theory debates behind them. Like disads, i don't read traditional CPs much and won't be familiar with your tricks, so try and highlite these in the overview or whatever part of the debate you think they apply to. Object fiat is probably cheating and pedagogically unproductive.

Kritiks:

You need a clear articulation of not just what your Alt "is", but specifically what it does. you should articulate the relationship between my endorsement of your alt and your impacts. specific links aren't a rule for me, but they'll make the 1AR sand-bagging on the perm less messy and will help you control the case/impact debate. I'm more persuaded by Aff defenses of methodology/reps/epistemology/ontology rather than theoretical objections to prioritizing those. Both teams need to analyze the relationship between the link debate and the perm debate - this is where a lot of cheap-shots are won, and substantive argument is lost. Both teams need to give me a framework that either A) positions me to evaluate arguments in a given context or B) establishes what the function/role of the ballot is or should be. Absent this, my decision will be a forced arbitration that will be whatever makes sense to me. you might love or hate that depending on which flavor of koolaid you're sipping on. 

Theory:

I'm personally not experienced in either going for theory or evaluating it. that said, i won't tell you which theory interps to read/not read. you NEED to slow down when impacting out your argument - especially in your shells and especially if i don't have access to the analytic in the speech doc. I think identifying in-round strat skews helps offset the "reject the arg not the team", but i won't promise you a win for making it.

*New Debate*

Methodology

Methodology is important and I think that having a good understanding of both yours and your opponents makes for some really great debates. It's important that you highlite the difference in scholarship-production/pedegogy between the two. I also think this both complicates and redefines the attributes of the permutation. I don't think that you can necessarily "do both", especially when it comes to performing your method. I do think you can contest the mutual-exclusivity of a competing method. A lot of method debates that I've been in come down to questions of accessibility and knowledge production, so you should have a good defense of both in the context of your argument.

Performance

i think performative contradictions in more traditional K arguments give the Aff way more leeway towards perms and link evasions. I think your performance should account for how your performance is received and interpolated, as most discourse/affect theory tends to be grounded in the speaker/audience relationship and since my decision is ultimately my interpretation of your discourse/affect regardless of your style anyways. Also the more you do to explain how the permutation should be evaluated in this kind of debate, the better. 

*Technicalities* Speed

Clarity > Speed - especially in theory/analytic debates.

Prep time

Prep time ends when the flash-drive is pulled or when the doc is saved/is being emailed. I'm not harsh about this, but please don't take 5 minutes to save your speech or pretend that you're jumping when you're actually removing analytics.

Flowing

I flow whatever is said during the speech times with a grace period if the debate warrants it.  I think it's warranted to extend a little bit if something about the debate gets personal (see thoughts on micro-aggressions), but not if you're getting to the 4 perm disads that you forgot to extend in your 1NR or reading new ev, etc.

Speaks

Speaker points are still difficult for me - my largest issue is that my expectation of what a given debate looks like will change depending on where I'm judging. at regional/Kansas tournaments, i'm likely to reward debaters with 27.8-28.8 if they engage in minimal articulation of claims + warrants + impacts, whereas my expectations of debaters at national-circuit and competitive local tournaments will be much higher to get those kinds of speaks, or higher speaks respectively. The easier you make the debate for me to evaluate, the higher your speaks will be. i tend to reward things like awareness and articulation of conceded arguments, contextualization of your arguments to the round, clear speaking, and strategic choice when picking which arguments to extend. I tend to give lower speaks for inarticulate explanations of arguments, generic blocks that don't speak to the context of arguments made in the debate, rude behavior, and tooling your partner.

I'm currently a Third Year law student. I debated for four years in high school. Did KDC and DCI but did Oration for national tournaments. I'm on my fourth year coaching for Blue Valley.

I'm not picky on the arguments you run I'll vote on whatever you win on the flow.

In electronic debate, I prefer people to be as efficient in transitions as possible to account for technical difficulties and so I usually count prep until teams have pressed send on their documents in exchanging speeches.

I debated 4 years in high school from 2011-2015 at Blue Valley Southwest (KS) and 3 years in college from 2015-2018 at the University of Kansas. During college debate I also coached/judged at high school tournaments in the KC area. Currently I am a community coach at Chicago Bulls College Prep.

I read policy arguments, but am not opposed to k debate. Do whatever style you are most comfortable with. If you can convince me of an argument, then I'll vote for it (within reason).

General:
Do whatever you're good at, I don't care.
-Speed: Yes.
-Disclosure: Yes
-Open Cross-X: Yes

Policy Debate:
This is the style I am most familiar with.
-Topicality: I think team's should be topical, but I also believe that it's up to the other team to prove why.
-Counterplans: I enjoy counterplans a lot. Open to hearing theory on 'cheating' CPs, however I think CP theory is usually a reason to reject the arg and not the team.
-Disads: Remember to have impact calculus on both sides. Explain why your disadvantage outweighs the advantages of the 1ac.

K Debate:
I will listen to kritiks on both sides.
Top leveling framing is important (how do I evaluate the debate?).
Affirmative- I am a policy debater so I evaluate the K similar to how I would evaluate any other policy argument. Win your impacts/framing.
Negative- I think that kritik should try to have a specific link to the affirmative and do their best to engage it. Links of omission do not persuade me. Teams should explain how the alt interacts with the impacts of the 1ac otherwise the K just becomes a non-unq da.

Theory:
I'll vote on condo if that's what it comes down to.
For most other theory args, I am more likely to reject the argument instead of the team.

My Dog:

Lauren Carter, Assistant Coach at Olathe East High School

lncarter@olatheschools.org

I debated for three years in high school (two years as a policy debater and one year in public forum debate) at Liberty High School in Missouri. I didn't debate in college, but I have been coaching and judging since 2017.

General debate preferences:

Please be polite to each other! Being rude is not a good look if you want good speaker points.

I do my best to flow all arguments made in the round. That being said, if your argument isn't clear and/or I don't know where to flow it because you're jumping between points and aren't clearly sign-posting, it may not make it on my flow. Please stick to your roadmap as much as possible if you give one.

I'm not a huge fan of scripted/pre-typed speeches, aside from the first speech of the round. Going off-script shows me that you have a good handle of your arguments and will reflect well on the ballot. Being a good reader and a good debater are not one and the same.

I'm not comfortable giving oral critiques or round disclosure after the debate. I will put comments on my ballot.

Policy: I'm okay with some speed (not your top speed) but would prefer that you slow it down a bit during analytics and explanations of arguments/cards.

I learned a more traditional, stock issue oriented style of policy when I debated, so that is what I have the most experience with. However, you are the debaters and know which arguments work best for you. If you can teach me something new while in your round, go for it!

I especially love to hear good disads, but I also think that CPs and T are effective when argued well.

I don't mind kritiks and theory, but I don't have the background to follow them well without very clear explanations. Please don't throw around technical terms and arguments and assume that I know what you are talking about.

While you should respond to all arguments, I do believe that quality over quantity often comes into play when it comes to reading a bunch of evidence. A card isn't an argument, so please don't give me a laundry list of cards and taglines without taking some time to justify their purpose in the round.

I generally don't spend a lot of time looking at your speech docs. If I open your doc, I'll mostly look at it as a quick reference to help me keep track of my flow. If I have to continuously look at your doc to follow you, you aren't being clear or sign-posting enough. If a card is called into question I will look at it, but I don't take evidence credibility or inconsistencies with cards into consideration unless you as the debaters bring it up.

LD: I prefer a more traditional style of debate for LD and like to see rounds that bring out the distinct style of debate that represents LD. I would prefer to see debates centered on your case values, philosophy and logic.

Public Forum: I've judged PFD at local tournaments and prelim rounds at nationals.

You don't have to speak super slow for me but I don't enjoy hearing spreading during PF rounds. In this style of debate, I appreciate debaters who use their time well and know when to develop and expand on arguments and when to narrow the focus. You have longer speeches at the beginning so use this time wisely early on, especially for you second speakers.

Former college debater for UMKC for 3 years I like well researched arguments. I don't enjoy short cards that are poorly warranted and from bad sources (like newspapers). I will vote for whatever type of argument- I've read policy affs, K affs, pics on the neg, and a whole lot of the feminism K. I think k affs vs framework debates can go either way- I've been on both sides of this debate

Former KS High School Debater circa 1986-1990. Trial Attorney by profession.

Moderate speed is fine but I do like to track arguments and responses so if you see me stop writing you might be going too fast.

Not much experience with Kritiks but I have read up on them in case one comes up in a future round.

Like to see focus on the arguments and evidence and not personal attacks on the opponents.

Overview:

I enjoy a good debate. I dislike unnecessary rudeness (sometimes rudeness is called for) and I dislike lazy argumentation. Run whatever makes you feel comfortable and I’ll evaluate it in the context of the round to the best of my ability and not the context of my own personal preferences. Of course, removing all implicit bias is impossible but I encourage all forms of effective argumentation. As long as you are persuasive and educational, you’ve got a fair shot. That being said, I do enjoy a nice critical debate, just make sure you’re not lazy with it and clearly articulate the arguments. Otherwise, I love to see folks having a good time in a round. Don’t be so uptight! We gotta spend at least an hour with each other in a little room. If we’re not all relaxed it’s gonna be painful.

Arguments:

T- I never ran this so I don’t have much experience on the argument just like anything else flesh it out and articulate all areas like the definition, violation, voters etc. Overall, not something I default to reasonability unless you convince me otherwise.

DAs- Dope arguments, depending on how they’re framed can be super devastating or just ok.

CPs- Fine with me all the way.

K’s- Love ‘em but don’t be lazy just cuz you think you can win me over with one.

Condo- Up to the round, tell me what’s up and I’ll evaluate accordingly. However, if your strategy involves running a K and a traditional FW arg, then you're digging a deep hole for yourself.

Framework- I have a high threshold for a traditional FW argument. You really gotta go all in and be way better than your opponent to convince me that they should have stuck to traditional policy structure.

Experience: I debated for 4 years at Sumner Academy and have debated a few years at KCKCC. I believe that debate is a dope activity through which people can shape their own realities.

Updated 1/7/23 for clipping/ethics challenge policy (at bottom)

4 years in Kansas in high school, 4 years at Baylor University, now a grad student and coach at KU and Barstow.

Add me to the email chain please: aewalberg@gmail.com and rockchalkdebate@gmail.com (college only)

Top Level

Do what you do best, I will do my best to be unbiased when evaluating arguments. I tend to take a long time making decisions regardless of the round, so don't read into it.

Judge instruction/telling me how to write my ballot is really important, points will be higher and you'll be more likely to win if you put the pieces together in the 2NR/2AR, are honest about the parts of the debate you're winning and losing, actually make decisions about what to go for, etc.

As I continue to judge, I find myself prioritizing tech over truth more and more, exception being when arguments/debates are violent, unsafe, etc. This means that you might think an argument is totally nonsensical, nonresponsive, etc. and I might agree, but you have to make those arguments in a speech in order for me to consider them when making my decision. If you want me to evaluate the debate through a lens other than tech, you should say that and explain what that means/why that mode of evaluation is better.

I think you should probably have to read re-highlighted ev, not just insert it. Open to persuasion but debates where both teams are inserting re-highlightings without analysis or explanation are negative persuasive to me.

I am generally open to whatever arguments you want to run, the substantive exception is wipeout. More critical arguments about death are fine, but I am not particularly interested in listening to or voting on suffering outweighs any potential for pleasure/we are primed to be afraid afraid of death but should die anyway.

I will read along with you in the doc while you are reading cards but I will not read along with the analytics you send, that's not a substitute for clarity or slowing down to give pen time. I also don't generally re-read a ton of evidence at the end of the debate unless told to, your analysis/explanation in round is much more important to me. If I'm in a position at the end of the debate where I have to put things together myself by sorting through a lot of evidence that received very little explanation, neither of us will probably be particularly happy with the decision.

Pet peeves: talking over each other in CX excessively---I cannot hear or understand anyone when this happens especially online, asking what cards were/weren't read in a speech if it's not prep time or cx, not having the email chain ready or sent when round start time hits, stealing prep (if it's not speech, cx, or prep time you shouldn't be typing/talking), calling me by my first name when we don't know each other. They're small things and old grumpy judge complaints, but they'll give you a sizable speaker point boost.

Online Debate

Slow down, be clearer. Make sure you can hear judges/other people in the round so you don't miss people telling you to pause or repeat an order.

Theory

I will vote on it if you win it, but that probably means you need more than one sentence on it in the 2AC. Slow down on these debates. I lean condo being the only reason to reject the team.

T

Slow down some. Impact it out in the 2NR. Don't forget to explain what winning competing interps or reasonability actually means for you.

DAs and CPs

I don't do a lot of topic research, so it'll be helpful for both of us if you do a little more explanation on topic specific things like link stories/solvency mechanisms/etc.

Good analytics can definitely beat a crappy DA. Winning terminal defense/zero percent risk is possible.

Ks

Explain why winning framework matters for you and how you still win the debate even if you lose framework.

You don't necessarily need a material alt to win if you go for framework.

2ACs should explicitly answer each of the link arguments even if it's just by explaining that it's a link to the status quo, a block that can impact out a dropped link argument well is likely to get my ballot as long as they are somewhat ahead on the framework or impact framing debate.

K Affs

Good. I do think it is possible to vote neg on presumption, so specific analysis about aff solvency or method is important. I find myself voting overwhelmingly aff in debates where the negative concedes the aff in the 2NR, so I strongly recommend extending your best 1 or 2 case arguments regardless of what else you're going for.

Framework

Neg: Best neg args are usually about models but can be persuaded it's about this round. Explain why fairness, clash, etc. is an impact and how your model accesses the aff's impacts. A well-developed TVA is great. These debates are pretty hard to win in front of me if you fully concede case.

Aff: Explain what debate looks like under your counter interp or counter model of debate or explain why you don't need a counter model. I am not a huge fan of the 2AC strategy of saying as many disads to framework as possible without explaining or warranting any of them out, two well-developed disads are more powerful than seven one-line ones.

Debate Ethics

If I cannot follow along in the evidence as you're reading it due to clarity issues or I can see you're skipping words as I'm following along, I will clear you once. If you continue skipping words or clipping and the other team does not call it out, I will let the debate continue and give feedback for educational purposes but will drop the team clipping. If you're clipping and the other team does call it out and issues an ethics challenge or otherwise ends the debate, I will end the debate, drop the team clipping, and give feedback based on the debate thus far.

If there is an ethics challenge issued and the debate is stopped, the team who is correct (about the clipping, miscut evidence, citation problem, etc.) wins the debate. Arguments about evidence ethics can be made absent an ethics challenge and without stopping the debate; for example, when connected to a citational politics argument. However, if one team says to stop the round because something is an ethics challenge, the round will stop and the team who is correct about the issue will win.

Arguments that are racist, transphobic or queerphobic, sexist, or that otherwise make the debate violent or unsafe will result in contacting your adults/coaches and a response proportional to/appropriate given what is said.

E-mail: benrichwill@gmail.com

Hi y'all! My Tabroom name is Benjamin (he/him) but I also go by Ben. I am Graduate Assistant at Western Kentucky University in the second year of an MAE program. I debated for KCKCC in 2016 and 2017 where I competed in a variety of debate formats, including NDT/CEDA, NFA-LD, and NPDA.

Top level, I view debates through the lens of comparative advantages; put simply, you win if the world you are advocating for is better than the other team's. Tell me what your best arguments are and why they mean you should get the ballot.

Argumentative innovation will be rewarded. I tend to like teams who stretch the boundary of the resolutional question without abandoning topic education.

I would like the downtime time of debates (document sending, setting up stands, etc) to be minimized as possible.

Framework/Affirmative Kritiks: I never read affirmative kritiks while competing so if teams would give a good 2AC explainer that would be nice. I like framework debates because they display analytical skills of speakers; debaters who go beyond my expectations will get high speaks. While I primarily think that debate is a game and fairness is a voting issue, I am not fixed to that notion. For the nukes topic, almost all of my research has been policy arguments.

Disadvantages: Affirmatives should read offense against disadvantages. Negatives should apply the disadvantage to the case debate. Impact turn debates are fun for me.

Counterplans: The best 1NC's have case specific counterplans. I err negative on most theory arguments but I still can be convinced to vote aff on overly abusive counterplans, for example CP’s that have purely artificial competition. The best 2AC responses involve add-ons/new offense. Unless there is a reason otherwise, I view counterplans through the lens of sufficiency.

Negative Kritiks: I like negative teams that can adequately explain how their alternative resolves all of the links to the criticism. I like affirmative teams that effectively weigh the impacts of the 1AC against the K

Case debate: Negatives should engage with the scholarship of the 1AC. While generic impact defense is important, it does not suffice as a strategy. Affirmative teams should utilize their 1AC in the 2AC/1AR to hedge against offensive negative arguments.

Conditionality: I generally think that hard debate is good debate and that affirmatives teams should be able to defend the 1AC from all angles. However, I have become increasingly sympathetic to affirmative teams that have to defend against multiple counterplans with multiple conditional planks.