Experience: I did policy debate all four years at Garden City High School, However I graduated in 2016. I have yet to judge this year.

Paradigm: I will default to policy making. I want debaters to clash with each other's arguments. I like the 2NR and the 2AR to tell me why they won, and how I should vote for the round. Don't just tell me, explain it to me.

Speed: I really like a debate where both sides aren't speeding through and just reading pointless cards. To me it's always quality over quantity. I don't mind a fast speed, However I better understand you and hear you well. I also find that I can flow much faster rate if you are making tonal differences between tags and evidence.

CX: Open CX is fine with me, as long as one partner isn't controlling the debate and both sides agree to it.

Disadvantages: I vote on the way that advantages and disadvantages interact more than I vote on anything else. I don't mind generic DAs, but I prefer that Neg take the time to articulate a specific link. I'm also a big fan of turns from the affirmative (or from the negative on advantages). I really enjoy a case specific DA, but they just don't happen very often. I like buried 1NC links that blow up into impacts in the block. I like impact extension/blow up in the block.

Kritikal Arguments: I'm not a fan of K's. In fact, I prefer policy over it. If you are going to run it, I need you to fully explain it to me and help me keep up with it.

T- I will vote on T, and I don't think 2NR has to go all in in the 2NR to win it. I believe topicality is, first and foremost, an argument about fairness, and I think that it's an important mechanism for narrowing the topic.

Counterplans- I'm a policy maker. I'm fine with a CP. I'm not a big fan of the theory that often gets run against a CP. I just don't find it very persuasive.

Side Notes: I still think that persuasiveness matters- especially in CX and rebuttals. It's still a communication activity. Professionalism also matters to me.

Fundamentals are important. The team that is most clearly prepared and has the most compelling arguments will win. However decorum and civility will be taken into strong consideration as well. You are representatives for your team and school, so carry yourself well.

I tend to favor voting based on stock issues, however any and all well prepared arguments will be considered. If you pull something crazy out of your hat, just make it easy for me to flow and we’ll all be okay.

If you decide to gnash, you will most likely lose me, but I will give my honest effort in trying to keep up. Vowels are very dear to me, and being witness to individuals speaking without them tends to make me cry. Remember, ballots are easier to read without tear stains. Did I mention I don’t care for gnashing?

Overview: I competed for Western Kentucky University in NPDA/NPTE Parli and NFA LD until 2010.

Paradigm: I will default policy maker if a voting criteria is not established. Tell me where to vote and how to vote and it should be fairly simple. Furthermore, tell me where to flow your arguments. If you leave it up to me you might not agree with where I decide to flow it.

Speed: I enjoy a fast debate. Make sure your tags are clear and you understand the warrants of your evidence. If there is no change between your tags and card text I'm probably missing some critical arguments, which is bad for you. To me, speed can be a strategic decision that you should utilize as long as you understand how to do it effectively.

The K: Critical debates are fine and I enjoy them when the link is not generic and the framework is specified. I’ve voted on a number of critical/performance debates in the past and view them to be just as legitimate as traditional policy rounds. Understand your literature. If you can’t explain it well outside the evidence, then you shouldn’t be running it.

T: Love me a good T debate. In fact, I love a debate about debate. There are so many ways to run T and I feel like it’s often underutilized. You can (and should) do impact calculus on the standards line by line – otherwise what’s the point? That being said, I really dislike a bad T debate so I suppose run it wisely. I should also note that I don’t think the 2NR has to go all in on T to win the argument.

Miscellaneous:

Cross-X is your time to clarify positions and evidence. I don’t flow it and really don’t even listen to it. It’s not a time to make arguments. Ask your question, and make your argument during your speech time.

Theory: Yes. Use it. I flow it and have voted on it before. See above where I enjoy debates about debate. HOWEVER, tag lines are not arguments. “Perm: Do Both” is not an argument because there is no justification and explanation why it captures the net benefit while avoiding the DA. I also prefer to flow Framework on a separate sheet as it sets the stage for the ballot.

I will vote on anything I'm told to vote on. I prefer and default to policy maker.

Stock Issues- Not typically something I weigh very much. Topicality is only a voter for me if it's made clear that there was abuse and standards/voters are carried through the round. For the aff side of topicality counter definitions need to have independent standards/voters. 

K- I don't keep up on any current Kritiks, therefore do not expect me to automatically understand the basis, links or alt. I will need you to break it down for me. 

CPs/DAs- I don't care if they're generic or if they're specifically case linked. If the mpx of the DA merit an alternative or down-vote for the plan I will vote on it. CPs are similar, if's generic but still an acceptable or preferable alternative to the aff plan I will vote on it. CPs do require a calculated impact analysis.

Theory- I find it to be mundane. It should only be ran if the round needs to be "rule based" or framed in some light. 

Spec/Abuse- Similar to theory. I probably won't vote on it. 

Speed- I'm good with moderate to somewhat rapid. The faster you go the better you need to signpost. I haven't judged in a few years, so good signposting and emphasis would be greatly appreciated. 

I will most likely not give an oral critique. If you have any specific questions about the round I will answer those. 

Lay judge

I’m a Tab judge. Debated with Newton HS for three years; CX, PF, Congress & LD. I haven’t debated nor watched any rounds since 2016 when securitization was big (my fave).

You can run whatever you’re feeling. I’ll listen to whatever just tell me how to vote & don’t drop things. :)

I can hang with speed, I’ll just day clear if I can’t understand you. I’ll give you two chances & probably give up flowing.

If you have any questions feel free to ask!

Experience: 4 years high school debate policy debate, 1year college policy debate, 3 years college parliamentary debate, several years of assistant coaching, sponsoring, and judging.

Paradigm: I typically am a stock issues judge. That being said, I am not afraid to ignore poorly-made arguments from either side. I will listen to speed, but not if it's muddled or sloppy. The important thing is for you to get your points across. If that means speaking at a standard rate, great. If that means speed-speaking and you're clear, great. I love the line by line debate; that is what I want to see.

T: I would prefer them to not be just a time-suck. Make them an integral part of your strategy.

DAs and Advs: Make the story coherent; get all your links straightened out.

CPs: That's fine. Again - integral part, not just an arg on the table for the other team to respond to during the round.

K: It had better be amazing for you to run it in front of me. I am completely unafraid to vote a team down because of a K.

Don't the afraid of analytical arguments. If you've got a great argument but can't find or don't have the exact card you need, go ahead and make the argument. I'd rather listen to coherent, logical, compelling analytics then cards that don't apply.

I am a mom of a four year debater. I usually judge once a year this will be my fifth time judging.

I usually am a speaking skills or policy making judge.

I'm comfortable with moderate speed but don't talk too fast.

I prefer fewer but well devoloped arguments, don't just throw out arguments just to throw out arguments.

I believe that topicality is extremely important.

I don't like kritiks or counterplans I will be totally lost.

I enjoy disadvantages with specific links.

Theory is okay but I need it to be explained thoroughly.

Please make sure that your arguments make sense and are relevant to the debate at hand. If you're off in left field I will vote you down immediately.

My email is cam.cassil.ict@gmail.com and if my computer is charged and on me, I would like to be included on the email chain.

Experience: I debated three years in high school at Newton High School and 3 years in college at Wichita State University.

Paradigm: I have experience in Advantage vs Disadvantage debates, Kritik vs Kritik debates, and everything in between. If reading Baudrillard really fast is your thing, that's cool. If your strategy is usually a Politics DA and case at a speed that is comfortable for you, that's great. If you don't defend the resolution that is okay, but the 1AC should be topic directional. By this I mean: if there isn't any topic unique education, I will probably lean negative on framework.

Things that impact speaker position/points: Being rude or snobby towards teammates or opponents will negatively impact position/points. Any hostile or discriminatory comments/behavior will result in a round loss. Speeding through blocks that you didn't flash to the other team or myself will negatively impact position/points and increase the likelihood I miss something you say.

I look for well articulated arguments and a demonstration of understanding. Anyone can get up and read evidence, so show me that you understand how that evidence proves the point you are trying to make. I prefer good analysis of a few arguments rather than a large array of arguments. (Don't spread!)

Not everything leads to war.

Be nice to each other.

Experience - I debated for Garden City for four years in high school and qualified for nationals. But I haven't debated in almost a year, and have no experience on this topic.

Paradigm - I default to policy maker, if otherwise explain the role of the ballot clearly. Impact calc is important to my framing of the round. I NEED TO CLARIFY - I WANT COMPARATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS, please don't just say o/w on mag.

Speed - Fast, but clear tags.

Flash time - I prefer flash off prep, but if I think you are being ridiculous you will see it on my face. And I want a copy as well.

Email chains - please & thanks: alcurrie3@gmail.com

CX - Open

K - I did anthro in high school, but I was not serious serious with anything. I will listen to anything.

CP / DA - Love it, anything goes, but don't feel you need to add one if you're going in on the k.

Case - You should probably put something on case. At least explain why the k/da/whatever effects case.

T- I never found T to be really convincing. If they really aren't topical, run it, but stay on the flow, and I will vote on what you argue.

Spec / Stock Issues - please don't

I have been a coach for 13 years and most of those have been in a 3A school.  My paradigm is pretty straight forward for the Aff team.  The Aff should be able to uphold their burden of proof and respond to all Neg arguments.  I am also not a huge fan of K Affs.

The Neg side of the paradigm is a bit more in depth.  I believe every case is non-topical in some way shape or form.  I hate Generic DA’s and will not vote on them.  DA’s should be specific to the case if you want me to vote on them.  I like CP’s.  K’s are things I despise and loath if you run one I will not weigh it in the round.  Besides these things anything else is fair game on the Neg.

I prefer a moderate speed in the debate.  I should be able to understand you and be able to flow the round and see the clash of arguments.  I am not big on abuse arguments there is a time and a place for some of them but they should not be a go to argument.

I debated all four years of high school, I'm most comfortable with policy arguments, but I'm also pretty comfortable with Ks. Overall, I’ll listen to most arguments as long as you can explain them well. So tell me how to vote and why, prefer logical arguments.

T - I enjoy good T debates, but don’t feel like you have to run it. Abuse and reasonablity are the big factors for me. Voting issues need to be extended throughout the round for my vote.

DAs - Generics are fine as long as you can explain how the aff applies.

CPs - Don’t have a problem with them. I need to see a clear, stand-alone net benefit; better solvency isn’t enough for me.

Ks -Find these debates super interesting, but I don’t want to hear it unless you understand it. Explain your alt and what it means. If you're running it on the neg against a K aff, explain why it's different than the aff's alt.

CX/Roadmaps/Flashing/Etc. - Don’t care as long as you aren’t taking forever or stealing prep.

Delivery - I’m fine with anything up to a moderate/fast level, but don’t really care as long as your tags/cites are moderate and understandable.

Debated policy in high school, parliamentary in college. I have judged for 10+ years; I previously served as an assistant policy coach for 3 years and a head coach for four.

Fast rate of delivery is fine with me, as long as you are clear. I like to hear real clash in debates, including analysis about who is winning each issue and why. I like an organized flow and for you to tell me where to vote. If no voters (and justification for those voters) are given you're forcing me to intervene - and no one wants that. I will vote on mostly anything - as long as you justify it. Topicality is cool, CPs are cool, DAs obviously, etc. Kritiks are fine too, though I should note that I find it hard to believe that you can fully develop those kinds of arguments in the time given for a debate round. Additionally, I don't like the K to be used as a tool (i.e. you know that the other team doesn't debate them and you want an easy win).

Any further questions, feel free to ask.

You can run anything except I would prefer if you didn't run kritiks. I will listen to kritiks, but please make sure you understand them and will clearly explain it if you really want to run one. Otherwise, I won't vote on it.

I am a policy maker judge. Please have impact calc. I enjoy listening to disads. I suggest not running inherency and topicality arguments unless they are really good or it's your very last resort.

I debated four years in high school. I am four years out of high school though, so you can speed moderate pace, but please don't go super fast. I will tell you if you are going to fast.

The TL;DR version of my paradigm: Much like in life, in debate, just because you can, doesn't always mean you should. I default to policy maker. Make my job easier, and I'm more likely to vote for you.

General judging stuff: No handshakes please, germs are icky. Introducing yourself is fine and appreciated though. My concentration face is apparently very close to my angry face so please don't freak out if I look mad, I'm hopefully just concentrating hard. I'm not huge on oral kritiks outside of world schools debate, so unless there's something I think is absolutely necessary to discuss, I'm probably not going to for the sake of keeping the tournament running fast.

Semi-retired assistant coach for Hutch, been doing this forever. I'm pretty out of the loop this year due to lots of factors, I've only watched a handful of rounds this season, so please don't expect me to know everything about everything on this topic, making assumptions is probably going to make me grumpy. Seriously. Rank me above a lay judge, but I'm not as hip and with it as I used to be.

Delivery stuff: Rate of speed preferred is Moderate. I don't need you to be so slow like you're talking to Grandma Ethel, but I really don't enjoy fast debates and don't have the energy for it. Rule of thumb: if you're gasping for air like a fish with asthma, you're going too fast. I need to be able to understand the words you're saying, and things like tags and cites are extremely important to make sure that they are clearly said. If I can't understand, I don't flow. I won't interrupt the round, but it will be painfully obvious if I'm not flowing. 1AR I have a little more sympathy towards rate of delivery, but it still needs to be understandable. Also, everyone needs to signpost arguments so I know where we're at on the flow, PLEASE.

When paneled with one or more lay judges, my paradigm should be treated like a lay judge. I believe in making debate accessible to all backgrounds and experience levels, and making less experienced judges feel intimidated or confused by the activity is bad for everyone, so when choosing your strategy, don't throw away the lay judge unless you're also throwing away my ballot.

Also! Roadmaps! I would like one, please, because I don't typically ask for a flash of your speech. Your roadmap should be a sentence, not a paragraph. "T, Federalism, Advantage 2" is a roadmap. "First, I'm going to start off attacking Topicality. Then, I will read a disadvantage on blahblahblah..." is a speech. I'll start the timer if your roadmap turns into a speech. Did I mention how I also love debaters who signpost?

Timing: PLEASE time your speeches. I'm usually running a timer or stopwatch but it may not always sound when you've hit the time limit so it would be super if you're responsible about that. Yes, you can use your phone as a timer if it's on airplane mode, if the tournament and your opponents are fine with it.

Arguments:

Affs: Affs should defend the resolution and be topical. Not a fan of performance/k affs. I'll listen but you're probably not getting my ballot. Please, for the love of the flying spaghetti monster, don't read me something you pulled directly from OpenEvidence with little to no modification, don't be that team.

On case/stock issues: I feel like too often, negative teams get too wrapped up in the off that the on case gets ignored and we're having generic boring arguments. I enjoy case debate, but there needs to be impacts in round by the negative, so don't expect me to vote neg because you focused on inherency and solvency the entire round with no case turns or any reason other than you attacked their stock issues and the table analogy.

T: I love good topicality arguments and some level of topicality theory. T ran for the sake of running T make me sad. If you understand topicality and have good interpretations that are more than fill in the blank on the shell, I will happily vote on topicality and will do so plenty of times this year.

DAs: The more specific the link, the better, but I also understand the nature of the topic means that there may not be specific links- so give me analysis to show why they apply. Meh on terminal impact scenarios.

Kritiks: Please don't, unless there is actual, legitimate in round abuse/impact that you can prove. Someone unapologetically using _____-ist language and you arguing why that's bad in the framework of the K and the real, actual impacts, and using understandable language is going to be more compelling than you reading "capitalism bad" without really understanding it. The amount of analysis and explanation that is given to me in rounds has never been enough for me to feel like I can understand your points. Generic link kritiks that implicate the topic or large areas and can be run in like, 99% of your rounds are not the kinds of arguments I am going to vote on. That being said, if your coach is okay with it and you want to concede the round to the other team to pursue your K position in your side's first speech and have a discussion about your position, I'm willing to sit and listen/participate in the discussion for a reasonable (45 minutes-1hr) amount of time.

Counterplans: CPs need to have a competitive purpose in round and have more to them than just a pointless timesuck. I'm okay with them, just expect me to be real grumpy if you're reading states CP with generic links you pulled off OpenEvidence. These days I'm neutral about condo/uncondo, but I'll listen to/vote on aff theory on conditionality if they run it. In general, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Generic spec arguments: ew.

Impacts: Everyone needs to emphasize them and everyone needs to have them. Without impacts, I have no reason to vote for you. Mehhhhh to terminal impact scenarios, rounds where I'm forced to vote based on body counts are lame. I see a lot a bad rounds where I have to default aff because the negative fails to have any substantial reason to not vote for plan. Also your rebuttals really really need impact calc.

Theory: I can enjoy a little bit of theory if it's well thought out and doesn't dominate the round.

And finally, don't be a jerk. It really upsets me and makes me try to find any reason to vote against you even if you're the best debater ever. There's no place for racism/sexism/ableism/all those other -isms in this activity.

Feel free to ask me specific questions if you have them, and good luck to all!

Speed: Moderate Speed/Conversational

Arguments: On case and off case not a fan of kritiks.

Experience: Four years of high school policy, for years forensics,one year of college speech.

Judging style: Stock Issues/Policy maker

Just make sure stuff links, makes sense, reasonable arguments.

I debated 4 years at Hutchinson High School and debated for a little bit in college at KCKCC 14-15; Currently assistant coaching for the 5th year.

Background: I ran exclusively policy arguments during high school, in college then I switched the arguments about identity, non traditional ("performance" if you want to call it that), I.E- Latina knowledge production, queerness,and womanism. I am familiar with lots of different arguments from all sides of the spectrum so feel free to run what you will in front of me I will listen to anything- Do you.. Like I said I've done debate on the policy and critical sides of the spectrum.

Yes! I want to be on the email chain: hhsjuarez14@gmail.com

T: As far as topicality, you need impacts. You're saying this team should lose the debate?? That seems like a pretty steep punishment. Give a reason and not just a generic basic reason prove to me that there's a real impact in the round

I expect you to make comparative impact claims, Don't just do a small extensions of cards and think that's good enough b/c more than likely it's not good enough to a/t the argument. I expect you to explain what your evidence (assuming you choose to read evidence/ if not explain why your argument is important to the debate.) and most importantly I want you to tell me what matters in the debate and what I should vote on or frame the debate on how the debate should be judged on.

Link work in general: if you have bad link stories- It will be hard for you to win the round, you will have to put in work on why your link matters and why it should be weighed in the debate but at the end of the day I like/ look for good link cards in the round.

CP: I think generic CP's without specific solvency evidence are bad and while and if you want to win on it you'll have to do more than just read your blocks.

DA: In terms of impact calc, I think probability is generally the most important weigh it out and remember good link cards

Kritiks: I’ll vote for it. In order for you to get the ballot, the K, like any other argument has to be well explained for me to vote for it. I also believe that in any good K debate their needs to be an obvious link to the case and the alternative of the K must be well explained.

Things you should know/ if you care:

Speed: I'm okay with speed just be clear or I'll yell out clear.

I will vote you down on speaks if you are blatantly offensive/ Rude for no reason I don't want to see/ hear it.

I like hearing historical examples are great ways to contextualize your arguments and show off your intelligence, it will impress me and help me get on board with your argument. Let me see what you know!

Arguments I don't like/want to hear is racism good/ not real, rape good, etc. Just being honest. It will also largely implicate your speaker points.

If you have any questions just ask me!

I have only judged policy debate for a couple of rounds at the Newton High School invitational. I don't know very much about judging or even debate. My daughter is a novice debater at Newton High School. I like slower but fluent speakers who talk clearly. NO MUMBLING. I like arguments that are strong and I prefer a few good arguments over a lot of weak ones. I also support communication with me as a judge, and it makes it easier for me to understand what you are arguing. I do not support people who give only their opinion. I need facts and for debaters to be realistic. I enjoy when debaters are aggressive with their cases. Speak up and show how you case will help don't just read whats on the paper. Other than that continue debating how you would with any other judge. Make the rounds fun and enjoyable as well as competitive.

Email: kumk5835@gmail.com

I would call myself tab but there is no such thing as tab and everyone who says so is a liar, they're all offense/defense judges because there is no such thing as a blank state everyone has their preconceptions about policy already.

Mine are as follows:

T is incredibly important and I will pull the trigger on this arg as long as you A. win your standards, B. explain the internal to your voter, C. win that your voters outweigh, and D. do the work on reasonability. In terms of voters I definitely lean towards fairness, I'm still willing to vote on education but if thats you all-in in the 2ar/2nr be warned. For me to vote on reasonability you probably have to win race to the bottom, and you have to have a pretty solid we meet. I evaluate reasonability like a perm. Ask if this is unclear in any way.

Das are cool, most of them are bullshit and if you're just shotgunning args onto the flow to outspread people, you have to do the work and if I dont understand your I/L story I'm not going to vote here if they have any decent ink on the flow. I also believe in terminal link deficits, meaning I dont care if they concede 8 extinction impacts if they can realistically prove that there just isn't a probable link. 1% risk is pretty bad for debate tbh.

K's are awesome, I love cap and state an bio-politics, I have a pretty solid grasp on most k lit present on the high school circuit, but if you're doing something wacky, just be clear why im voting for the alternative. Ex: if you read an unintelligibility alt, and don't say its an unintelligibility alt, you just are unintelligible, I'm not going to vote for you.

"pre/post fiat": Stolen from my homie Kenton Fox: I think the terms "pre-fiat" and "post-fiat" misconceptualize the function of an alt. Explain the alt as a methodology that can resolve the links and impacts of the k/1AC instead (this in no way means you shouldn't make in-round claims. Example - if you're reading psychoanalysis most of the analysis you do will likely be contingent upon the ballot, whereas if you're reading histomat most of the analysis you do will likely be contingent upon plan action proper. Most of the time when you talk about the "post-fiat" level of the alt you're just describing the world of the alt, which should be accessible (at some level) through the judges endorsement of the alternative

Perf con: I prefer the term ped con or pedagogical contradiction but w/e idc. I will vote on perf con if the alt is epistemic or pedagogical analysis. I believe these alts are best as 1-off or at least with DA's that are not morally contradictory. If you read a "counter-reformist reform" (silly term) 1ac with a indicts of the negs DA impacts, the DA doesn't even necessarily have to be morally contradictory at its core as long as you win the indicts. This does not mean I will always vote on perf con dont assume that you don't have to do the work.

K affs are fine, just have a warrant why its ok to be non-topical in the 1ac and you should still be tangentially connected to the topic. If you arent that cool but you're going to have to do a lot more work on the framework page or I'll just vote neg on fairness.

FW is just a way to evaluate the structure of debate, including the pedagogical and epistemic benefits of the activity. Framing is how the judge should evaluate impacts. This distinction will just make my flow clearer, and make it a lot easier for you to extend your framing/FW as my RFD in the 2ar/2nr.

Condo. I will vote on it if you win the standards/voters debate. I will not vote on one or two conditional advocacies, but past that you hit the point I'm willing to pull the trigger. Multi-plank CP's where each plank is condo is incredibly abusive and I will vote on this near 100% of the time as long as you do the work. I dont like these dont read them please.

CPs are fine, just not delay or multi-plank.

Disclosure: I hate this arg. Im liable to just toss it out because large schools with access to resources benefit the absolute most from things like wiki disclosure, and if you're a small school having disclosure read against you I will vote on an RVI; call it hacking, I don't care.

I want to be on the email chain/flashed any shared files - mattlamunyon@gmail.com

I debated throughout high school and for a year at Emporia State. I'm most comfortable with policy arguments, but I have ran some Ks and read some literature. Overall, I’ll listen to most arguments as long as you can explain them well. Tell me how to vote and why. Don't assume that since you said it, you won it. I want clash. Prefer truth over tech unless told otherwise. If you don't extend warrants with your authors I'll assume you've dropped it. Please extend more than just an impact.

I really don't like nuclear war impacts, but I'll vote on them if you win them. Don't let this turn you away from running them if they're already built into your argument.

T - I enjoy good T debates, but don’t feel like you have to run it. Abuse and reasonability are big factors for me. Not a big fan of brightline. I think model for debate is a good reason as to why certain interps are bad. Voting issues need to be extended throughout the round for my vote. This is probably where my bias shows through most in the debate.

FW/Theory/Etc. - Enjoy these debates. Most things from T-specific analysis apply here. Real-world/logical explanations will usually win me over. RoB arguments are really intriguing to me and I’ll follow the role I’m given. I'll vote either way on most arguments. Examples of why you're right are useful. TVAs help. I'm willing to vote on most theory arguments as long as you can prove that something the other team has done is abusive in-round or creates a bad model for debate overall. I'll vote on presumption. I've started to enjoy reps debates and am willing to vote either way solely based on representations as long as it is a significant part of the debate and not just something that you tack on at the end of the 2N/AR (preferably start in the 2A/NC. Will vote on narratives and/or un-T affs if you win your reasoning.

DAs - Generics are fine as long as you can explain how the aff generally applies. I will vote for aff even if the DAs are won if the aff proves that their impacts outweigh.

CPs - Don’t have a problem with them. I need to see a clear, stand-alone net benefit; better solvency isn’t enough for me. I'm starting to dislike PICs, but I'll vote for them.

Ks - Like stated before, didn’t run many Ks, but have done a decent amount of reading/research over various arguments. Find these debates super interesting, but I don’t want to hear it unless you understand it. Explain your alt and what it means. If you're running it on the neg against a K aff, explain why it's different than the aff's alt. I ran Cap with a rejection alt, so my understanding is going to be best over that area, but I don't really care what you do. I also ran a nuclearism aff, so my knowledge of that has transferred over to the neg side. If you want to read a K based on language/action, please do it because of some legitimately derogatory, offensive, etc. language either from the debaters or from their authors. Reading these types of Ks will lead to more judge intervention because I will have to determine whether I believe there was any significant action/language that violated the K's thesis.

Impact Framing - I default to deontology, but I am willing to vote for util if you prove it's better. More willing to vote on probability, but again will vote on whatever if you prove that timeframe or magnitude is more important.

Case - Important. At the least, I want to see debate over the impacts. Neg case debate makes me much more willing to vote neg. I want to see the affs knowledge on their case and the resolution. I want the evidence and warrants extended or I'll assumed it's dropped. I've voted against multiple teams for not extending case.

CX/Roadmaps/Flashing/Etc. - Don’t care as long as you aren’t taking forever or blatantly stealing prep.

Delivery - I prefer anything up to a moderate/fast level, but don’t really care as long as your tags/cites are moderate and understandable.

Miscellaneous - Impact calc is necessary to get my ballot and I love good impact framing. Turns should be explained. If you claim abuse, I want examples. I prefer depth over breadth but will vote on whichever is won in the debate. I probably won’t vote on an argument if it’s most important pieces of evidence aren’t extended throughout the debate. I really hate when neither team does the important extensions because then I have the burden of deciding whether something was dropped or not. Analytics are fine. I don't evaluate any new arguments made after the 1AR. Don’t be rude. Ask me at the end of the debate if you want any comments on certain arguments and I'll be happy to give them, assuming it won't hold the tournament up. You can also find or email me post-round and I'll be happy to explain anything. (It's best to do this sooner rather than later because I will probably forget what happened in the debate.)

This is a work in progress, so ask me any other questions you might have and I’ll do my best to answer them.

Debate Experience//

• Competitively debated at Hutch High in the champ (DCI) division in the late 90’s

• Competitively debated at K-State on the national circuit in the early 2000’s

Coaching/Judging Experience//

• Coached policy debate at Arizona State while obtaining my masters in critical/women’s rhetoric

• Coached policy debate at K-State as the assistant director

• Coached at McPherson High School, Valley Center, and Nickerson

• Currently the Director of Debate and Forensics at Hutch High

Recent Edit:

E-mail chain: yes please: SalthawkDebateChain@gmail.com, please label the subject line with tournament, team, and round #.

Stylistics Preferences//

I was a traditional policy debater in college who ran lots of counter-plans and K’s. My specialty was language/feminism krytiques, which were popular in my era. We always read a plan, but often conceded the plan caused nuclear war, but argued some form of oppression/morality outweighed. While judging college policy, I tended to judge performance based debates, as well as policy. “Academic” research can come from a variety of spaces. I cannot emphasize enough that I have very few predispositions as to what a “good” debate should look like. However, I am interested in well warranted arguments that justify your approach. So, aff’s can justify why they shouldn’t need to support the res, and neg’s can run cheater counter-plans, so long as you justify your approach with more than repetitive tag lines. Also noteworthy: if you do not argue for a particular paradigm, then I will default to a policy maker who weighs the pros/cons of the affirmative proposal/performance. As for the truth vs tech debate, sigh, I go back and forth. As a communication scholar I genuinely value the truth, but as a techy debater, I appreciate the nuances of line by line and well calculated risks. While it's un-likely you'll win by ballot on a topicality RVI, if you put enough work into it and it's relationship to the rest of the debate, it's entirely possible .

Delivery//

I am not flowing from the speech doc, however, I will use the old school technique of flowing the audible speech, perhaps with two colors of pens. In columns. If you feel I should call for 2 or 3 cards after the debate, you better make sure they are good. You cannot talk too fast for me. Keep in mind, I’m flowing from the speech and not the doc, so clarity is important. I take a good flow, and I expect you to do so as well (unless you make an argument that convinces me otherwise). You only receive credit for arguments found on my flow. If I don't know where you are, or am confused, I will give you non-verbal cues, which requires you to pay attention to me. Clash and signposting is important to me. I am not a huge fan of the approach of reading a 10 card regional overview on each sheet of paper that was pre-prepared and then proceeding to cross apply all your cards underneath on the line by line. However, I am a fan of a short regional overview, followed by a nice healthy line by line debate where you signpost what you are answering, read carded responses, provide analysis, and are critical of the other teams evidence.

K’s//

I am familiar with a lot of the literature, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do the work to explain it. My familiarity shouldn’t win you the debate. Case specific links (carded or explanations) will get you better speaker points.

Language K’s//

Probably the one thing I have pre-dispositions about. We’re a communication based activity, so it will be hard to convince me that your language/representations don’t matter. It’s also 2020, I expect your evidence/tags/analysis to avoid racialized/sexist/trans-phobic language. Won’t automatically drop you, but I come from a less inclusive era and fought the good fight in debates, so supporting diversity via language/argument choices is important to me.

CP’s//

If you can justify it, do it. I wasn’t above reading a cheater CP as a debater, but I also wasn’t above going for no negative fiat in the 2AR. I have a high familiarity CP theory, but your explanations are still required.

DA’s//

Yep. Extra points if they go to extinction and/or turn back the case. I also love morality/ethics based impacts. Neg’s should be prepped to defend your internal link to nuclear war, and to defend your method of scenario building/representations vs the K. Aff’s should have new uniqueness for your link turn, or a high familiarity with your impact turns, or a K prepped.

Overall//

Debate is an academic testing ground for creativity, so be kind, be clear, and have fun!

I know the basics of debate. I am a mother of a debater at Newton Highschool. She has debated for three years. I would not consider myself a very experienced judge. I do not like speed. So please do not spread. If the other team is not spreading and you spread chances are you will be voted down. I understand T debate very well. Explain the story of your arguments I will not do the work on the ballot for you!! Remember to speak as clearly as possible.

I am a HUGE SpeechDrop truther, please do not use an email chain.

I am the head coach at De Soto (KS).

Tech/Truth, Ev Quality

For both of these things, I try to limit judge intervention as much as I possibly can. I'm probably 70/30 tech v truth and I think your evidence should actually say what you claim it says. That being said, because of my intervention philosophy, you need to call this out deliberately in the round for me to evaluate it. I will absolutely vote on "untruthful" arguments if there are no responses (or responses too late in the debate) claiming otherwise. However, I am increasingly realizing how much I dislike meme-y arguments in debates so at least make an attempt to say things that are moderately real, otherwise I might embrace my grumpy old man mentality and vote it down on truth claims.

K

I will listen to and evaluate critical positions. I have become a lot more K-friendly over time, but please don't interpret that statement as a green light to read something just because you can. Accessibility is a very important (and, in my opinion, undervalued) part of any kritik. As such, be very explicit on what the role of the ballot is and what the intended impact of the alt and/or performance is. I will vote on no link to the K and I will default to policy impacts if told to do so. Don't be a moving target or change advocacy stances between speeches (obviously you can kick out of the K but some of those things might haunt you on other flows). Perf con arguments are very persuasive to me.

CPs

Competition > nearly everything else. For this reason, I really have a hard time voting for advantage CPs. I am typically persuaded by PICs bad arguments unless the neg can prove competition/lack of abuse in round. Be sure to have a clear net ben (internal or external) and articulate what it is: I've seen far too many CPs without them gone for. For the aff, I don't love hearing a laundry list of every perm you can think of. Read and articulate perms that actually test competitiveness (i.e. "perm do the aff" isn't a thing) and explain how the actions can coexist.

DAs

DAs should be unique. Generics are good but link quality is important.

Condo

I have no threshold for the amount of conditional CPs or Ks or whatever the neg wants to run. However, if the aff wants to read abuse or condo bad I will certainly listen to it. Watch out for those pesky perf cons.

T

Explain your definitions and make sure the card you use has warrants that actually state (or strongly imply) your interp. Competing interps need to be evaluated in terms of both the definition's contextual value to the resolution as well as the warrants of the definition read. Explain your limits/ground. No laundry list here; articulate how exactly in-round abuse has occurred or how what the plan text justifies is bad. Explain your voters. If you want to read and actually go for T, I need to see contextual work done early and often.

Theory (General)

In terms of other theory arguments like spec, disclosure, etc. I need to have clear voters. Make sure to articulate the sequential order of evaluation when multiple theoretical stances are being taken. On this note, RVIs are a *silly* thing and I will *begrudgingly* vote for them but they need to be weighed against the initial theory claim well.

CX

I don't flow CX. I view CX mainly as a means to generate (or lose) ethos in the debate, not necessarily to win arguments on the flow. Don't make this a shouting match please, otherwise I'm just going to ignore both teams and nobody wants that. We're all friends here.

Speed

I am okay with speed. However, if your argument is 1) intricate and requiring significant analytical explanation 2) not in the speech doc or 3) rooted in accessibility literature slow it down. It will help you if I can understand what's going on. I'd prefer you be organized, clear, and slow instead of messy, unintelligible, and fast. I won't ever give up on your speech if you have a hard time with clarity, but just know I may not pick up all of your arguments (obviously a bad thing for you).

I do not like procedurals or kritiks. I do not want to hear debates about debate itself. Debate the actual policy and whether it is good or bad.

I am a parent/lay judge, but have judged several times before.

I hate spreading, speak around a conversation level.

My daughter is amazing I love her so much.

Experience: I debated for 4 years at Maize High and had a rather successful career there. Notable accomplishments would be breaking to out-rounds at Nationals and qualifying to DCI. I have not done college debate, but I do now coach for Maize.

Speed Preference: I'de prefer slow rounds, however, I know that people enjoy and rely on spreading. If you do spread then I really appreciate AND between cards and NEXT between flows. I will shout "clear" once per person. I expect to be able to distinguish words in both your tags and the body of your evidence. Even if it's a fast round, I don't want you to spread through theory because those types of arguments (T, Perms, Role of the Ballot, Condition theory, etc...) are won and lost on the strength of your own thoughts and argumentation. There generally isn't shorthand to flow on these arguments so I would like you to slow down here.

Argument Preference: There is not an argument (that I know of) that I won't listen to. I will never vote you down immediately or stop listening just because you decide to try something weird or something that I dislike. That being said, there are some arguments that I prefer over others. When I debated I ran counter-plans, disadvantages such as politics, and case arguments most frequently. In Theory I'm looking for you to think through and explain why one thing is bad and the other is good. For Kritiks I really want specific links and solid alt solvency explanations.

Additional Comments: I do not believe that evidence is necessary for every argument. I don't mind questions.

jimmieleenorman@yahoo.com - add me to the email chain

I did policy debate and forensics for most of high school at Newton High.

What I value most about debate is that it provides an open space for debaters to develop and test ideas.

There is some wisdom to the cliché of asking debaters to ‘write my ballot for me’. Since I think debate belongs to the debaters, I appreciate when a debater can tell me not just how a card relates to an argument but how the argument relates to the debate and the ballot as a whole. It is hard to evaluate a debate where both sides are winning something and no one compares the importance of those two things. If you do that comparison, you’ll definitely make it easier for me to be on your side of the issue.

I try not to arbitrarily reward or punish debaters for running specific arguments. If a disad is weak or if a counterplan is illegitimate, it is the job of the debaters to prove it and forward that argument. I try not to ‘lean’ on one side of an issue or the other, deferring instead to the analysis made.

On the issue of paperless debate, I do not believe flashing/emailing speeches counts as prep – within reason. If the amount of time it is taking you to flash speeches gets excessive I will change this policy.

Clarity > Speed

Dropped doesn’t mean you win. Dropped means that the other team has conceded that the premise of that argument is true. Your job is to explain the significance of that premise for the rest of the debate.

Being disrespectful is a one-way ticket to my bad side. BE GOOD HUMANS.

Years debate in high school: 4 at newton high school (Space topic, Transportation, Economic engagement, Oceans)

Years debate in college: I debated three years in college at the ndt-ceda level (Military reduction, Climate policy, healthcare)

Overview:

Debate is an educational space and i value learning above everything else. I value kritikal and policy arguments, especially when they have nuance. I look for in depth debates.

Counterplans are legit

Critiques are legit- i want to know what the aff does, why that's bad, and what the alt does different.

In theory arguments- i will not settle for blanket claims of unfairness, i need to know the specific in round abuse and how that held up education in the name of a W for the other team. If you go for theory- spend the entire 2nr on it

Dont know what else to put on here! Um, make my ballot for me. Tell me what you won, how you won it, and why that means you win the ballot. Im pretty tabula rasa

I haven’t debated for over 5 years, be nice to me please. :)

I prefer more moderate pace with regards to speaking.

I default policy maker.

I will vote on competitive counterplans, I am on the fence on topical counter plans, I mostly likely will not vote on them unless the theory is sound.

K- I hate generic kritiks. If you are going to run a K, make it have a legitimate link, that weighs against the aff. If I feel like you are running a K because the other team can't answer it (as a game), I won't vote on it.

DA - Huge voter with me.

Theory - Most of the time I hate theory. I feel it is infinitely regressive. Prove abuse if it exists. I hate multiple worlds theory. Strategies should be cohesive.

Topicality - Huge voter for me. Make it legit though. Generic T drives me nuts.

I occasionally judge policy debate with Newton High School. I have a daughter in debate but I still don't understand a lot of it. Try to keep it lighthearted, make it a little funny if you can. I have only judged this year, but for me personally I like when debaters speak loud and clearly. Not to fast but not really slow is a good talking speed for me. I didn't do debate in high school so I don't know much about debate, so try to keep it simple for me.

I want students to know that speed speaking is not something I am interested in hearing. Delivery style is going to be a significant part of my judging. Be memorable, persuasive, and effective. I don't get upset for people going to slowly, but it is frustrating for people going to quickly.

WEST KANSAS NFL POLICY DEBATE

JUDGES QUESTIONNAIRE

NAME _____Mariah Smith_________________________________________________________________________________

CIRCLE THE ROUNDS YOU ARE JUDGING: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Please indicate your policy debate judging experience and preferences to assist the debaters whom you will be judging.

1. Your experience with policy debate (check those that apply):

____ A. Coach of a team ____ D. Frequently judge policy debate

____ B. Policy debater in college __X__ E. Occasionally judge policy debate

__X__ C. Policy debater in high school ____ F. No policy debate experience

2. I have judged ____ years of policy debate. I have judged (circle one) …

[0-10] [11-20] [21-30] [31-40] [40+] … rounds of policy debate this season.

3. List any tournaments you have judged at this season:

Newton

4. Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate:

____A. Speaking skills ____D. Hypothesis tester

____B. Stock Issues ____E. Games-playing

____C. Policymaker __X__F. Tabula Rasa

Circle your attitudes concerning these policy debate practices:

5. RATE OF DELIVERY [No Preference]

[Slow] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [Rapid]

6. QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS [No Preference] Up to you, any good or interesting argument is fair game

[Few, Well Developed] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [the More the Better]

7. COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES

[Communication Skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [Resolving Issues

Most Important] Most Important]

8. TOPICALITY

[Important] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [Unimportant]

9. COUNTERPLANS

[Acceptable] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [Unacceptable]

12. CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS

[Acceptable] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [Unacceptable]

13. GENERIC DISADVANTAGES

[Acceptable] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [Unacceptable]

14. CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS

[Acceptable] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [Unacceptable]

15. DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS

[Acceptable] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [Unacceptable]

16. Optional: If you feel the need to clarify (or add to) your responses, add those comments in the space below:

5 - 15 is all up to you. I am fine with whatever you want to do as long as it makes sense and the arguments are complete. I don't love T, but if it is done well and is applicable I won't dismiss it just because it is T. Good Luck!

Name Joseph Tedder

# of years debated in HS:3

Currently a: College student who loved debate in highschool. Went to state multiple times, qualified to Nationals in Lincoln Douglas.

# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic: p

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?

Tabula Rasa

What do you think the Aff burdens should be?

I ran a lot of weird plans in highschool. Give me the reason why your impacts outweigh negs. Don't leave an argument unanswered, if there is no rebuttal to a negs stance, you concede the argument.

What do you think the Neg burdens should be?

You should explain to me what the voting issues should be, weigh the impacts. Tab Rasa

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?

I'm currently a philosophy major at WSU. Hit me with all the Kritiks you want.

I really prefer speechdrop. For email chain: rtidwell.gcea@outlook.com.

I have been the head coach at Garden City High School since 1994, and have been involved with judging or coaching debate since the mid-1980s. I have judged a LOT of debates over the years. I've judged a fair number of rounds on this topic, both at tournaments and in my classroom. I will do my very best to evaluate the round that happens in front of me as fairly as possible.

Paradigm-I will default to policy making if debaters don't specifically give me another way to evaluate the debate. I tend to default to truth over tech. I want debaters to clash with each other's arguments. I have come to dislike debates where both sides read pre-prepared blocks through the 1AR, and the arguments never actually interact.

You should probably watch me for feedback. I don't hide reactions very well...

I really want the 2NR and 2AR to tell me their stories. If you choose not to do that, I will absolutely sort the debate out for you, but then you should not complain about the decision. It's your job to frame the round for me. If you don't, you force me to intervene.

Speed- I like a quick debate, but I don't get to see those as much as I used to, so if you are incredibly fast, you may want to watch me a bit to see if I'm keeping up. You'll be able to tell. I also find that I can flow much faster rate if you are making tonal differences between tags and evidence. It also helps if your tags are not a full paragraph in length...

Style- I suspect that even adding this section makes me sound old, but these things matter to me:

I still think that persuasiveness matters- especially in CX and rebuttals. It's still a communication activity.

Professionalism also matters to me. I will (and have) intervened in a round and used the ballot to help a debater or a team understand that there are boundaries to the way you should interact with your opponents. This includes abusive or personally attacking language, attitude, and tone. At a minimum, it will cost you speaker ranks and points. I really do find offensive language (f***, racial slurs, etc.) to be truly offensive, and I don't find them less offensive in the context of critical arguments..

When everyone is in the room, I want to start the debate. I am not a fan of everyone arriving, asking me some clarifying questions, disclosing arguments to each other, and then taking another 10-20 minutes before we begin.

Prep time- I kind of despise prep time thieves, and I think that sharing evidence has allowed that practice to explode. If you say "I'm up", and then continue typing, that's prep. I will be reasonable about ev sharing time, in terms of moving the files between teams, but sharing it with your partner is part of your prep. You need to be reasonable, here, too. Again, this will affect speaker points and ranks.

CX- open CX is fine. In fact, I think it often makes for a better debate. That being said, if one partner does all the asking and answering, that debater is sending a pretty important, negative message to me about how much his/her colleague is valued.

Disadvantages- As I said, I'm a policymaker. I vote on the way that advantages and disadvantages interact more than I vote on anything else. I don't mind generic DAs, but I prefer that Neg take the time to articulate a specific link. I'm also a big fan of turns from the affirmative (or from the negative on advantages). I really enjoy a case-specific DA, but they just don't happen very often. I like buried 1NC links that blow up into impacts in the block. I like impact extension/blow-up in the block. I am not a fan of brand-new, full, offensive positions in the 2NC.

Critical arguments- I don't mind a critical debate, but I think that needs to be more than "Aff links, so they lose". Critiques need to have a real, evidenced, articulated justification for my vote- either a clear alternative or some other reason that the argument is enough to win the debate. I am willing to entertain both real-world and policy-level impacts of the criticism. It is really important that you give me the framing for these arguments, and, specifically explain why the argument warrants my ballot. I am not well-read in very much of the critical literature, so it will be important for you to explain things pretty clearly. As with other arguments, I'm pretty willing to listen to turns on these arguments.

In terms of critical affs, I believe that aff should have a plan text, and that plan text should be topical. It's a big hurdle for the affirmative if they don't start there. That being said, I am perfectly ok with critical advantage stories. Again- framing matters.

Counterplans-I'm fine with a CP. I'm not a big fan of the theory that often gets run against a CP. I just don't find it very persuasive.

T- I will vote on T, and I don't think 2NR has to go all in in the 2NR to win it. I believe topicality is, first and foremost, an argument about fairness, and I think that it's an important mechanism for narrowing the topic. Again, I'm a truth-over-tech person, so I'm not very likely to vote on T simply because someone dropped the 4th answer to some specific standard. I'm not a fan of "resolved" or ":" T.

Narratives/Performance/etc- I'm not a huge fan, but I will absolutely listen and do my best to evaluate the debate. I specifically do not like any argument that attacks anyone in the room in a personal way. I would refer you to my notes about professionalism. As for the arguments themselves, I am not sure I am your best judge for evaluating this style of debate, but that might be because I have seen very few well handled debates in this style.

In the late 90's - early 2000's, I debated 4 years (then assistant coached 3 years) @ Hutch High, and coached 1 year at @ Hays High. I have judged a handful of times since then.

I have very few predispositions re: what a good debate should look like, but you should justify your approach with well warranted arguments. CP's and K's are fine. Assume just about everything is debatable.

Please do not cover your face with your laptop. It blocks your voice and makes it harder to hear you.

Please, for the love of God, the 1NC should label/name each off-case, then everyone should call it the SAME THING in other speeches. Otherwise with several off-case and everyone calling each one something different, it can be hard to follow.

I was introduced to "speech docs" and "e-mail chains" last year -- I will not engage in an e-mail chain or look at your speech doc. I'm flowing from your audible speech.

Line-by-line debate where you signpost what you're answering is important to me. For example, if you group all of the 2AC's answers to T or your DA in one big overview, and then read a bunch of cards and do nothing else, it is likely that it will appear that you conceded some/all of their arguments.

If you want me to flow it, be clear that you're going on to read another tag line or make a separate argument. If it sounds like your tagline is just part of the last card you read, and I only knew it was a new card because I heard an author's name... then I didn't flow it.

If you can hard number your arguments (e.g. saying "1"... "2"... "3"... in between cards/arguments) then you'll be much easier to flow, and have a good reference for everyone later when extending / answering / going line-by-line. At the very least, take a second to briefly pause and say "Next" between arguments so I know you're making a new argument that you want me to flow.

When jumping from one off-case to another one, give me 2 seconds to finish flowing the last thing you said.

Explain your evidence; I will not read it after the round unless it's to quickly verify a competing truth claim about what was read.

The 2NR and 2AR should aim to "write the ballot" (RFD) for me; "even if" statements will go a long way for you.

Please use jamielwelch95@gmail.com for any email chains.

I have not been involved with debate or argument design for a little over a year. I judge occasionally but that is about it. Please don't assume I know the ins and outs of your arguments. You should take from this that a little more explanation is needed for me.

Soft left affs: If your answer to disads is “but the framing page!” you will get very bad speaks and most likely lose. If you use your framing page and then also make specific arguments against the disad then you are in a better spot. Framing pages encourage lazy debating. Don’t be a lazy debater.

Theory – Conditionality is good. Lean neg on basically all theory.

Ks – I don't care which K you read, it can be whatever you are comfortable with. I don’t think the alt has to solve anything. Winning links to the plan is best but if you win a link to other things the aff has done and it has an impact then I will vote on it.

FW/T – Fairness is an impact. Limits matter. That doesn’t mean because you don’t read a plan I won’t vote for you but rather what it means to be topical is up for debate. Without a solid interp of what “your model of debate” would look like I am less likely to vote on your impact turns. Give judge direction on evaluating your arguments versus things like topical version, switch side, procedural fairness, limits, etc.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Williams%2C+David+J.

Name David J. WIlliams
School; Newton HS Kansas
# of years debated in HS_0 What School NOPE
# of years debated in College_0 What College/UniversityNope
Currently a (check all that apply) xHead HS Coach _Asst. HS Coach
College Coach _College Debater
Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate
# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic _10_
What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?
_xPolicy Maker _Stock Issues _Tabula Rasa
_Games Player _Hypothesis Tester ___Other (Explain)
What do you think the Aff burdens should be?
I think the aff should affirm the resolution and be topical and have the basic INH/PLAN/ADV/S structure.or something similar. I am willing to listen to any aff position but I am mainly a policy guy but a K aff is fine if you can explain it well enough. I won’t pretend to understand your position, aff or neg, so please prepare a presentation that balances a quicker than normal speech but not spewing and wheezing. Don’t speed through your 1ac and quit with 90 seconds to go.

What do you think the Neg burdens should be?
I think the neg may choose to debate the case or go with a generic position but I am going to vote on offense. I hate topicality and most theory arguments mainly because I hate flowing it. IF the aff is topical, even a little, then don’t run T. I wont flow it the way you want me to and I will default more to reasonability. If is reasonable then I wont vote against them on T. If the aff is not topical then run T. I will punish affirmatives who are non-topical. IF the aff is unreasonable then Neg will win even if I am terrible flowing the T.
How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?
Slow tags/authors and quicker on card content. If I cannot understand you I will say clear. I prefer a slower style of debate that still uses the flow. My flow will be accurate(if you let me) with a slower round. Faster rounds will be my best guess. I would say slow down and be persuasive and signpost for me.
How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?
Generics with good links are fine. I need to know the story of your arguments. If I cannot remember the story then I can’t voter for it.
How I feel about case debates?
I LOVE A GOOD CASE DEBATE…but I don’t require it.

Flashing is prep time. Flashing is not moving all your cards to a speech doc. THIS IS PREP TIME AND SPEECH PREP> IF you jump a speech to the other team please do so quickly. I believe the last step of every speech should be the flash. Once the flash drive is given to the other team..Prep starts for other team if the non speaking team wants to hold up speech to see if it is on jump drive. Prep is over for the non speaking team when they indicate they are ready. IF the speech did not make it or if the format is difficult to use. I will grant a grace period of 1 mintue to resolve the issue. Laptops are normal for me. I don’t want your face buried in your screen.