I'm a fourth-year debater at Wichita East where I've mainly debated Open. I'll honestly listen and vote on any argument that's well-made and extended throughout the round. When it comes to speed, goes as fast as you want just be clear. Keep in mind, speed doesn't make your arguments any more valid. I'm looking for more than who can talk the prettiest when I make my decision. Focus on development of arguments and complexity rather than presentation.

Be nice. Any racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or anything of the likes will not be tolerated and will lose you the round. Use common sense.

With that said, have fun!

Debate: I debated four years in high school (1977-1981), and one year at university (1981-1982). I am a tabula rasa judge. I generally accept any arguments regarding the aims and methods of academic debate. Absent such arguments, I assume the point is decide whether or not to adopt the resolution.

I do believe, however, that debate is an educational activity. I therefore construe good speaking to be that which will work later in life. The law courts and the political stump, the classical models for debate, still frame my view of the activity.

I do not read speeches. I only listen, although I may ask to look at evidence after a round. The speeches should therefore be intelligible.

Finally, I base my understanding of debate rules on the published KSHSAA rules. I do not see how rules informally promulgated by the debate community can bind contrary to the official rules. Absent cogent arguments to the contrary, I therefore believe that each team has two constructive speeches, meaning new arguments can be raised in 2AC and 2NC; that rebuttals are a place for new evidence on points already raised; and that the Affirmative bears the burden of proof and the Negative enjoys a presumption.

Forensics: I did not compete in forensics, but I have served as an assistant forensics coach. I have judged at about a dozen tournaments. There are still some events I have not judged. I look for clear, articulate presentation, convincing acting in events stressing that, and good organization of material. In the more rhetorical events, such as Impromptu, Original Oration, and Extemporaneous Speaking, I listen for distinct thesis statements and good topic sentences, with effective transitions between topics.

I'm Dan, I'm a senior at Derby, this is my 4th year debating. I do a lot of open competition because I play football. I will understand all your arguments unless they just don't make sense. Feel free to go however fast or slow you desire, just talk about it before round with your opponent. If they can't go super fast I will allow you to spread for the constructives but don't be a jerk because it makes me uncomfortable when people cry. I like case arguments and solid DA's on Neg. On Aff you better answer solvency properly, because I'm not one of those guys that even if there is a chance that we help we should do it.

T- You have a novice case list, but I understand if someone runs something weird like reducing finger pistol sales from Saudi Arabia, otherwise good luck with T

CP- Sure but be competitive

Jerk- I understand there are some rounds when the other team drops everything, if something like that happens you have probably already won, no need to berate them just tell me why you won

RFD- Tell me why you win, I won't figure it out for you

I am a fourth-year Assistant Debate Coach at Garden City High School. I did not debate in high school or college, but I teach History and Government. I expect for debaters to understand how government works, especially in regards to how their plan works (How is the plan passed? What powers/functions do each of the branches of government have? What government entities are regulatory agencies?)

I do flow debates. However, please don't take this to mean that I only want to hear tags, and then given a demonstration of speed reading. I would much rather see a concise argument with evidence that directly applies to the case, and a demonstration of your understanding of said evidence.

I'm not a big fan of extreme impacts (I find it relatively unlikely that a plan conceived by a high school student will lead to global warming or nuclear holocaust). There had better be a pretty strong, direct link for me to vote on those kinds of impacts. Be reasonable.

Topicality is not typically a voting factor for me - if you choose to take that route, it should be clear-cut that the plan is not topical.

Beyond that, please be civil to your partner and opponents. If you are rude to, or condescending to a competitor (or myself) that will likely affect my decision in the round, and definitely speaking points.

I'll vote for whatever you tell me to vote for, but I will default to policymaker if not held to any framework. I'm good with pretty much every argument y'all throw out – if you want to go hard in the paint on something weird, whether that's stock issues or game theory, win the framework discussion and I will vote for it. except aspec and other bad-faith arguments. for these, use your better judgment. if something is clearly BS, don't run it and pretend that it's not, please.

speed is cool. please signpost/keep the flow clean. it makes everyone's life easier. I know this year is weird because everything is online & due to connection issues I might not be able to catch everything you say – if this happens, I will fill in the best that I can off of the speech doc. if I still have holes, I will ask both teams after the speech for what was said in the hope that at least some of the competitors were able to hear it. be honest, please. if I figure out that you lied about what was said (either by you or an opponent) during an internet lapse, you WILL lose. no questions asked. if only the team giving the speech was able to hear, I'm not sure what I'll do. we can hash that out in round. just know that if you end up dropping/undercovering something because of connection issues, I will give you *some* leeway in the very next speech to address it. I know that probably isn’t perfectly fair, but I think it's the best that can be made out of a bad situation.

finally, I know next to nothing about this year's topic, so please be cognizant of that. throwing around acronyms is probably going to confuse me if no one ever tells me what they stand for. during the immigration year, some teams would talk about H-1B visas for an entire round without ever explaining what they actually were. I don't need you to hold my hand, just tell me what stuff means the first time you say it and I'll catch on. the same goes for Ks, although in a different form. I'll piece together the argument the best that I can off of the speech doc, but a little 15 second elevator pitch at the end of the 1NC giving me the basics in layman's terms will be good for everyone.

feel free to ask me any questions before the round.

High School Debate/Forensics – Shawnee Heights (2014-2018)

College Policy Debate (NDT/CEDA) – Wichita State (2018-2022)

Previous Assistant Debate and Forensics Coach at W. East and W. Southeast

Current Head Debate/Forensics Coach at Wichita Southeast High School

Email: kaylab222@gmail.com

I like clean, organized, and well thought out debates that focus more on the depth of the arguments. I also value and reward teams that engage in high levels of clash and attack the warrants of the evidence. I am a policy centric judge, that has coached all types of debate styles. That being said, do what you are comfortable with. However, I am best in debates that revolve around some sort of policy or plan. The best way to win my ballot is doing clean line-by-line and explain why the weight of your arguments matter more than that of the opposing team.

When debating on the affirmative, what I look for is a team that can articulate a story about what the plan is, how the plan solves, and what the advantage of the plan is. I am noticing more and more in debate rounds that teams are not extending each part of the AFF, with explanations of all the moving parts. Even if the neg does not respond to a part of the aff, your job as the aff is to still extend that argument if you want to keep it viable.

If you are going to read topicality, there are a few things to consider. First, I am a judge that is a sucker for in round abuse. Even if you have to bait them into giving you the link on your ground/limit’s arguments, it is something that I am willing to vote on.

I love a good CP/Net Ben/DA Debate. This is the debate I am probably the most comfortable in, and the best judge for. The only thing I ask for in this type of debate is for the negative to explain how the CP solves the link on the DA/Net Ben, I am not going to be this gracious and do the work for you.

I don’t have a preference on whether teams go for theory or topicality. The biggest thing I look for in these types of debates are 3 things: 1. Proven in-round abuse, I don’t really care for the hypotheticals of “well this could happen” I want to know why the other team violated the rules so egregiously that it made this debate impossible for you to win. 2. Voters, this is something that is being overlooked and I am not sure why. Tell me how and why I should evaluate this argument in the context of the debate. 3. On topicality, I am more apt to vote for T if there is some version of a TVA – especially if you make an argument as to how the tva solves the advantages.

I don’t have much thought on K Debate, well-articulated links and solvency is what I look for in a K debate. I am not the most familiar with K literature, so please make sure to articulate any complex components of solvency or any buzz words.

Other niche thoughts, be nice to people, don’t steal prep, please signpost, analytics is not a part of a roadmap (what are the analytics about?), and have fun.

Questions? Ask me before the round.

Debate Experience:
Current 4-year debater at Derby High School

Email: calebcarterdebate@gmail.com put me on the chain.

Speed: Clear>speed. if you're clear, go as fast as you can

CX: good CX gets good speaks. If you get an argument of CX EX: there is no link to a politics DA. PLEASE PUT IT IN THE SPEECH. Also, don't be mean :).

T

I default to competing interps. Please clash instead of just extending your argument. I will evaluate it based off of the debate and think it is a great way to secure links.

DA

They're cool obviously. if used with the CP clearly the debate moves more to if the cp solves the aff and how much compared to risk of the NB. Spec link are nice.

CP

aff should explain the perm and what it looks like if they go for it. NEG: The CP needs a net benefit, and it isn't we solve better. I'm lenient to aff when it comes to PIC, I'm open to all CP as long as it is competitive, this will probably change after I have enough bad CP.

K

I'm cool with the K, please don't say the K-word. Explain what that means. same goes for the alt, explain how it happens. well warranted links will go far.

K aff/FW

FW - As policy kiddo, I will probably lean closer to FW then I should however don't assume I will vote for you just because you say they aren't topical. you should clash with the aff. I need why topic edu is key and preferably, includes their edu (TVA, SSD, etc) or why their edu is bad.

K affs - they're okay, I prefer topical aff, but do what you do best and I will judge as fairly as I can.

for me to vote I need a reason for why topic edu is bad and/or what edu it causes to leave out. please explain the k words you use as I am small brain.

Theory

I think most theory except condo and T is good enough for rejecting the arg not the team.

Preferred pronouns are she/her but I won't make a fuss out of it. But if you don't give your opponents the respect of using their pronouns, then we may have an issue.

Experience: I've gone to nationals three times so far, have done debate since my freshman year. I understand debate terms, arguments, and how to utilize arguments. My favorite argument was always the cap k, and my least favorite argument is T, but I understand its utility and will vote on it if the argument is presented well enough.

If an argument is presented poorly and I can't understand where it stands on the flow, there is a good chance I just won't even consider it in the round. Literally just say, "Advantage one is ___" and I understand how to flow. Failing to do that will definitely result in poor speaker points. Or at the least share your documents with me so I can flow with you.

I like my debates to be fun with well-developed arguments. Have a good time and respect one another. That's all I really ask from you.

I have been debating for about 3 years and have mainly been debating in the open division but I have been to a few varsity tournaments.

T- I do like competing interpretations and believe that if you run topicality then you should go for it in the 2NR and nothing else or else not enough work has been done in my opinion. Put it at the top of every flow

K- I don't mind the K debate. Please explain your alt clearly and what the criticism is. You must also explain why I should vote for the alt.

CP- I love counterplans because they cause competition and I believe that they are good for education. Remember POST. DON'T FORGET THEORY ON THE CP. Condo is fine with me.

DAs- Explain the link

Impact turns- These are fine with but if you run them you must prove that outweighs the competing impact

If have any questions you can email me at dilloleg@usd260.com and yes I would like to be on the email chain if possible

Former political candidate. Campaign worker, director of outreach. Advocate. Leader. Reporter. Former debate student.

I place a high priority on speech delivery - eye contact, poise, etc.

Stock issues matter.

Evidence is the key.

Make me believe what your facts are.

ammeriahya gonzalez (they/them)

- debated at wichita east 2016- 2020 (china, education, immigration, arms sales)

- please put me on the email chain: adorismae@gmail.com

- speed is good but wont win you the round if ur incoherent

here down i took from quan nguyen, someone a lot smarter than me who i agree with -----

- impact turns + case debate :))

- evidence comparison + clash :)

- condo :)

- clipping :(

- more than 6-7 off :(

- 3 card advantage + long ass framing contention :(((

- i'm most likely a bad judge for k's and k affs but ill try my best

diads:

- turns/solves case args get you a lot

- links are almost always the most important part

- i like clever block spin and contextualization but good evidence matters too

- for the aff- i hate affs with a 3 card advantage and then framing contentions that dont interact with the disad but just say probability first!!!!- those debates are boring and always get nowhere

counterplans:

- i liked stealing the aff

- there's no such thing as a cheating cp if you win theory

- perms need to be more than "perm do both" in the 2ac- explain what the perm looks like, the earlier the better

kritik:

- not much experience w any lit base

- the aff should probably get to weigh the 1ac

I am a senior with three years of experience with policy debate. I primarily debated in open and PFD, but I do have varsity experience. I will understand your argument if well put together and is presented clearly. Run any arguments you want, but they must pertain the round and you must have proper reasoning for running the argument. Feel free to speak at whatever speed, just make sure that you are clear with your words and arguments. I will not try to figure out who won, it is your job as debaters to present why you won and why I should vote for you unless you are in a circumstance where the other team dropped everything, then in that case I know who has won the round. Frankly, just have fun with the round and be respectful towards your opponents, partners, and your judge. I do not tolerate unnecessary rude behavior, it’s a huge ethos kill. Don’t be a jerk.

If you have questions email me at haleell@usd260.com

Name: Andrew Halverson

School: Currently, I am not actively coaching, but in recent years I was the Assistant Director of Speech & Debate at Kapaun Mount Carmel High School & Wichita East High School (Wichita, KS). I have moved to work in the real world full-time, but I still keep involved with debate as a Board Member of a local non-profit that promotes debate in the Wichita area - Ad Astra Debate.

Experience: 20+ years. As a competitor, 4 years in high school and 3 years in college @ Fort Hays and Wichita State in the mid-late 90's and early 2000's.

Up to March, I have judged 88 rounds this season - mostly LD and Policy. I only have judged PF at the UK Opener.

**ONLINE DEBATING ADDENDUM - updated 3/4/2022**

In my experience, most tournaments are more than gracious with their prep and tech time leading up the start of a round. Please make sure that all of your tech stuff is sorted before beginning AND that you use pre-round prep for disclosure as well. I'm pretty chill about most things, but these two things are my biggest online debating pet peeves.

ALL Online tournament have pre-round tech time built in. Please be in the room for it. It doesn't take long. If it's something that's no fault of your own that is preventing you from tech time, fair. However, if one of the members of your team isn't in the room during pre-round tech time, it's a 0.5-1 speaker point deduction.

Public Forum Section - Updated as of 3/1/2022

As an FYI, I've coached PFD, but by and large, I'm a Policy and Congress coach. If there is anything that isn't answered in this short section, I advise that you take a look the Policy section of my paradigm or ask questions.

I'm going to assume that I don't know the in and outs of your current topic. Please make sure that you explain concepts that I might not know. I've coached a lot of different debate topics over the years. I know a lot, but I don't know everything.

The typical PF norms for evidence/speech docs sharing are terrible. You must put your evidence/speech docs in the Speech Drop, email chain, or whatever BEFORE your speech starts. Don't do it after your speech or in the chat. Also, don't just put a cite in the chat and tell someone to CTRL+F what they are looking for. This is non-negotiable. Other PFD norms, I'm honestly unfamiliar with. I assume there is disclosure and other things, but I don't know for sure.

I'm probably going to evaluate most debates like I would a Policy debate - without all of the mumbo-jumbo that is usually associated with that activity. In brief, that will probably be an offense/defense paradigm with a heavy dose of policymaking sprinkled in. I like good, smart arguments. Make them and clash with your opponents and you will be at a good place at the end of the day.

Policy/LD Debate Section - Changed as of 6/30/2022

++Since most LD has a policy tilt nowadays, this is a pretty accurate representation on how I would view an LD round. Actual value debate and my thoughts on RVI's, you probably should ask me.

++I do want to add something about the penchant to go for RVI's and other random theory cheap shots in front of me in LD. Just saying something is an RVI or that you get one isn't an argument - it's just describing a thing that you might get access to as an argument. There has to be a reason behind your theory gripe or whatever it is. FYI, usually I have a high threshold for voting on these arguments - unless it's a complete drop (which it won't be the case all of the time). Refer to where I talk about blippy theory debates down below if you want any other insight.

This is the first time in a long time that I have engaged in rewriting my judging paradigm. I thought it was warranted – given that debates and performances will be all done virtually in the immediate future. My last iteration of one of these might have been too long, so I will attempt to be as brief as possible.

Some non-negotiables:

**If you send a PDF as a speech doc, I instantly start docking speaker points. Send a Google doc or nearly anything else but no PDFs.

**I want to be on the email chain (halverson.andrew [at] gmail.com). Don’t send your speech doc after your speech. Do it before (unless there are extra cards read, etc.). There are a few reasons I would like this to happen: a) I'm checking as you are going along if you are clipping; b) since I am reading along, I'm making note of what is said in your evidence to see if it becomes an issue in the debate OR a part of my decision – most tournaments put a heavy premium on quick decisions, so having that to look at before just makes the trains run on-time and that makes the powers that be happy; c) because I'm checking your scholarship, it allows for me to make more specific comments about your evidence and how you are deploying it within a particular debate. If you refuse to email or flash before your speech for me, there will probably be consequences in terms of speaker points and anything else I determine to be relevant - since I'm the ultimate arbiter of my ballot in the debate which I'm judging.

**Send your analytics as much as possible. This platform for debate can sometimes be problematic with technical issues that can or can’t be controlled. I’ve judged some debate where the 2nc is in the middle of giving their speech and then their feed becomes frozen. Of course, we pause the debate until we can resolve the technical issues, but it’s helpful for everyone involved to have a doc to know where the debate stopped so we can pick up at that point once we resume.

**Don’t go super-duper, mega, ultra full speed (unless you are crystal bell clear). Slowing down a bit in this format is more beneficial to you and everyone else involved.

**For all of those Kansas traditional teams, yes to a off-time road map. Don’t make it harder than it needs to be.

**Be nice & have fun. If you don’t be nice, then you probably won’t like how I remedy if you aren’t nice. Racist and sexist language/behavior will not be tolerated. Debate is supposed to be a space where we get to get to test ideas in a safe environment.

**Stealing prep time. Don’t do it. After you send out the doc, you should have an idea of a speech order and be getting set to speak. Don't be super unorganized and take another 2-3 minutes to just stand up there getting stuff together. I don't mind taking a bit to get yourself together, but I find that debaters are abusing that now. When I judge by myself, I'm usually laid back about using the restroom, but I strongly suggest that you consider the other people in a paneled debate - not doing things like stopping prep and then going to the bathroom before you start to speak. I get emergencies, but this practice is really shady. Bottom-line: if you're stealing prep, I'll call you on it out loud and start the timer.

**Disclosure is something I can't stand when it's done wrong. If proper disclosure doesn't happen before a round, I'm way more likely to vote on a disclosure argument in this setting. If you have questions about my views on disclosure, please ask them before the debate occurs - so you know where you stand. Otherwise, I can easily vote on a disclosure argument. This whole “gotcha” thing with arguments that you have already read is so dumb.

**New in the 2nc is bad. What I mean by that is whole new DA's read - old school style - in the 2nc does not foster good debate OR only read off-case in the 1nc and then decide to read all new case arguments in the 2nc. I'm willing to listen to theory arguments on the matter (and have probably become way more AFF leaning on the theory justification of why new in the 2nc is bad), BUT they have to be impacted out. However, that's not the best answer to a NEG attempting this strategy. The best answer is for the 1ar to quickly straight turn whatever that argument is and then move on. Debaters that straight turn will be rewarded. Debaters that do new in the 2nc will either lose because of a theory argument or have their speaks tanked by me.

Now that’s out of the way, here are some insights on how I evaluate debates:

**What kind of argument and general preferences do I have? I will listen to everything and anything from either side of the debate. You can be a critical team or a straight-up team. It doesn’t matter to me. An argument is an argument. Answering arguments with good arguments is probably a good idea, if the competitive aspect of policy debate is important to you at all. If you need some examples: Wipeout? Sure, did it myself. Affirmatives without a plan? Did that too. Spark? You bet. Specific links are great, obviously. Of course, I prefer offense over defense too. I don’t believe that tabula rasa exists, but I do try to not have preconceived notions about arguments. Yet we all know this isn’t possible. If I ultimately have to do so, I will default to policymaker to make my decision easier for me.

**Don't debate off a script. Yes, blocks are nice. I like when debaters have blocks. They make answering arguments easier. HOWEVER, if you just read off your script going for whatever argument, I'm not going to be happy. Typically, this style of debate involves some clash and large portions of just being unresponsive to the other team's claims. More than likely, you are reading some prepared oration at a million miles per hour and expect me to write down every word. Guess what? I can't. In fact, there is not a judge in the world that can accomplish that feat. So use blocks, but be responsive to what's going on in the debate.

**Blippy theory debates really irk me. To paraphrase Mike Harris: if you are going as fast as possible on a theory debate at the end of a page and then start the next page with more theory, I'm going to inevitably miss some of it. Whether I flow on paper or on my computer, it takes a second for me to switch pages and get to the place you want me to be on the flow. Slow down a little bit when you want to go for theory - especially if you think it can be a round-winner. I promise you it'll be worth it for you in the end.

**I’m a decent flow, but I wouldn’t go completely crazy. That being said, I’m one of those critics (and I was the same way as a debater) that will attempt to write down almost everything you say as long as you make a valiant attempt to be clear. Super long overviews that aren't flowable make no sense to me. In other words, make what you say translate into what you want me to write down. I will not say or yell if you aren’t clear. You probably can figure it out – from my non-verbals – if you aren’t clear and if I’m not getting it. I will not say/yell "clear" and the debate will most definitely be impacted adversely for you. If I don’t “get it,” it’s probably your job to articulate/explain it to me.

**I want to make this abundantly clear. I won't do work for you unless the debate is completely messed up and I have to do some things to clean up the debate and write a ballot. So, if you drop a Perm, but have answers elsewhere that would answer it, unless you have made that cross-application I won't apply that for you. The debater answering said Perm needs to make the cross-application/answer(s) on their own.

Contact me if you have any questions. Hope this finds you well and healthy - have a great season!!

I am a varsity debater. I am not ok with speed reading in the novice division. I am also not ok with Ks. I am however very fond of counter plans. If arguments are ran incorrectly, I may decide to ignore that argument in my decision. I look forward to judging you and please keep this a civil educational debate round so that everyone has a great time. Make sure I can hear you. One of the biggest problems I see while judging novice is that I can’t hear them. Have confidence in your voice. I can’t give you a good score if I can’t hear you.

I am a "Stock Issues" paradigm meaning the affirmative team must present a prima facie case to win: Aff must prove their policy proposal will result in a significant advantage free from disadvantages. If the affirmative plan does not solve (produce the advantage), they lose. If the affirmative plan does result in the advantage but it is not significant, they lose. In other words, the negative has presumption and the aff the burden to prove.

Mike Harris
Wichita Southeast

Online norms - Be nice and have fun. Clean tech makes me happy. Fast is not always the best when it becomes unclear. I flow your speech, not your speech docs, especially after the 1AC/1NC.

2020-2021 Update : One of my undergraduate degrees is criminal justice. I'm well versed in both theory and procedures. I've hosted guest lectures this season with speakers on Police militarization and the Use of Force, Death Penalty, and "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Color Blindness". I have a federal court judge scheduled to speak. My knowledge level is high, which means your arguments are going to have to be explained correctly to persuade me most effectively. Truth is important on this topic, especially when making claims to solve structural problems at a value level.

I have significant experience in the past 15 years judging many tournaments both in Kansas and around the nation. I am the Director of Debate at Wichita East in Wichita. I have multiple students currently competing in the NDT/CEDA, and Parli circuits in colleges across the country. We have had many national qualifiers in policy debate in recent years . I coached the 2nd and 3rd place teams at NCFL, had three teams in the top 30 at NSDA and coached the 7th place team and a top ten speaker, and had two teams qualified for the TOC. I have been exposed to many teams and styles from across the nation. Below is a brief explanation of some of my judging preferences. This is by no means a complete explanation, so feel free to ask specific question regarding my paradigm:

I'm a tabula rasa judge as much as that exists and you will need to address framing in this debate to win my ballot. DOn't care of it's K v K, clash of covs, or policy debates.

Speed - No preference as long as you are clear. I can keep up on the flow with any team although I do not believe that extreme speed is required to win. I prefer clarity and quality argumentation to speed. With that said, I most enjoy a quality high speed round that combines the above traits.

Kritik's - Literature is essential to quality kritik arguments. I do not have any problem with performance k's or kritikal aff's. I'm familiar with kritikal identity and postmodern lit. I am a glutton for solid evidence and I know that the literature exists. Be prepared to explain the literature clearly and succinctly. I have a philosophy degree although I am quite a few years removed from in-depth study of the literature.

CP's - If it solves the for the aff advantages and has a net benefit I'm good. I'm solid on theory. Not often do I reject a team on theory.

Topicality- My threshold for topicality is high. That said, I have voted on T in very significant out rounds when I don't feel it has been covered appropriately, and it is extended effectively. T must be impacted out and weighed to be a factor in my decision. I've judged a lot of debates for a long time, and seen debate go through a lot. Be specific and focus on t what would happen if this specific aff is allowed. I have interesting perspectives on the concept of fairness.

Disads - I am particularly interested in strong specific links and true internal link scenarios. I hate hearing internal links and impacts that are based on evidence from 2007. I am convinced at this level of debate evidence for disads should be updated every week to paint an accurate portrayal of the world. I will weigh a disad impact scenario without good specific links against case impacts in all cases, but the risk will probably be very low. I'm going to vote for whichever team (aff or neg) has the best and most true story.

Case - I love a good case debate. Above I mentioned I have a criminal justice and philosophy background, it is important to note my main degree area if study was political science (IR) and history.. I have found that specific and significant case turns by the negative can be very effective in undermining an aff case and being enough to win a round. Common sense analytics are important to accompany cards for both teams. Shadow extensions do little for me, I want warrant analysis with specific comparisons.

Theory and framework - Ask regarding specifics. Impact it out, ask for leeway, answer independent voters. I think this is an area of debate that is often under-covered and not understood by many advanced teams. I vote for kritikal affs and neg t/framework about evenly. I'll go either way. I don't like cheap theory (disclosure in round one of the first tournament of the year), but understand creative theory as part of the game.

All said, have fun and enjoy yourselves. Please signpost appropriately! I don't always catch the authors and sometimes it gets interesting in rebuttals when all I keep hearing is the "Brown 11' card" over and over. I can usually figure it out, but is annoying and a waste of time. I am very open-minded and will listen to anything, however teams need to explain both claims and their appropriate warrants. [mailto:devadvmike@gmail.com]

I've debated four years at Derby High School.

If you have any questions: hassebri05@gmail.com

Overall: Speed is fine. Please put me on the email chain. Please be clear. I lean policy but critical arguments are great too. What ever you do just make sure you give good explanation and impact calc. The debate will go a lot faster if early on you make it clear on what I should be voting on. Don't just read mass amounts of evidence and make sure your line by line is clear. CX is basically a speech so treat it as such, it's 3 min where you could poking holes in your opponents case or making key arguments, I highly value CX.

Case: Case debate is very important and clearly undervalued. Case turns are great. Make sure you have ink on all pieces of the case, don't just grant them an advantage at least give your self some options going into the block or else you're just talking in circles.

DA: Specific links are always better than generics. Obviously how I evaluate the impact depends on who does the impact calc and prove to me that the link will trigger the impact before the aff can solve for their advantages.

CP: Counter plans that focus on the agency of the affirmative and or the immediacy of the affirmative are probably cheating, but that is your job to call out. Don't just spout off a bunch of perms without explanation. Perm theory is fine but it is more of reason to reject the perm rather than a reason to reject the team.

Topicality: There is room for a good T debate especially if there is proof of in round abuse through the aff no linking out of the DA base on substantiality Obviously make sure you impact out T and explain your voters, please do not just say "this is a voter for fairness and education" and then move on. I will vote for T but if you are going to go for T then just go for T not the buffet.

K: I am fine with critical affirmatives or Kritiks. Please explain your links and impacts, don't assume I know the literature because I most likely don't. I have gone for the K before. K's I have either ran or read about: Set Col, Nietzsche, University, Anthro, Cap and Derrida, but please explain what your alt does or why it doesn't have to do anything. I think Frame Work is definitely a good answer to the K because in the end a K v K debate gets very messy.

MSU '24 (Alliances, Antitrust, Legal Personhood, and Nukes)

Trinity Academy '20 (State champion and 7th at NSDA's in LD)

daviddebate20@gmail.com

TLDR: Do what you do best and I will evaluate what happens in the round as best as I can. PERSUADE ME! I love evidence debates and in-depth clash. Interact with the other team's arguments rather than rely exclusively on your pre-written blocks and your speaks will show it. If no framework is articulated I will default to offense/defense since it is the fairest and applies most consistently to all kinds of debates. Speaks will start at 28.5 and either go up or down from there.

Longer version:

Tech----X----------------Truth

Infinite Condo---X-----------------1 conditional cp

Plans-----X--------------Planless

Debate has value-X------------------Debate is bad

All Cards-----X---------------No cards

Super long framing contentions-----------------X--Several good cards

Evidence Quality--X------------------No evidence standards

All theory is a reason to reject the team-------------------X--Just Condo

I used to have a long list on different things that I have included below, but I am convinced that free speech is immensely important and as such believe ideas (even if radical or unpopular) should be expressed and tested against one another so truth can win out. If you want to read policy arguments, great! If you would rather debate critically, go for it, just know I have less experience and most of my college experience with these was in clash spots not KvK.

Even though I stand by the statement expressed above and will do my best to have an open mind, I know people need to do prefs so here are some other thoughts about my beliefs you might like to know:

Case Debate: Case debate is very important; don't forget it! I love in-depth clash on the case. Most impact turns are fine with me, but DO NOT read spark or wipeout. Impact framing plays a role in my decision.

Topicality: I lean towards competing interps and will read your evidence after the debate. Organization in T debates is really important---the better you signpost and stay organized the easier it makes my job. Standard comparison and impact calc are quintessential to strong T debate. If you go for T it needs to be most of, preferable all, the 2NR.T is NOT an RVI---please don't make this argument!

Disads: I think the link level is the most important part of a disad and where most disads are either won or lost. Give me good impact and turns case analysis about why to weigh the disad before the other team's impacts and I will have an easier time voting on them.

CP's: Open to most categories of counterplan (consult cp's are probably bad). Judge kick is a logical extension of condo and I will judge kick unless the aff wins I should not. I would prefer if counterplans have a solvency advocate/explanation. Basically, don't make me have to do tons of work to figure out what the cp does/is supposed to solve for after the debate. Conditionality is good.

Kritiks: For the most part run them. I have experience with lots of literature bases, especially settler colonialism and security, but don't assume I have read your literature as much as you have. I don't think you need an alt for me to vote on the K but would prefer if you have one. Links can be disads to the aff but I need an explanation why. NOTE: In order to go for the K without an alt you need to prove/have non-status quo links that outweigh the aff. PIKs are probably bad

K-affs: I am not opposed to these arguments. If you run a k-aff, make sure you solve/accomplish something. I have become more policy-leaning in these debates because I feel that lots of K affs seek auto-wins. Having a clear role of the ballet and an explanation of your advocacy and how it resolves your impacts will help clarify the debate and significantly help your cause.

T vs Nontraditional affs: I believe that debate is better when there is some inherent fairness and set ground conditions to facilitate the discussion. I do not implicitly think the aff outweighs topicality and I do think topicality is a valid argument. I will not be convinced by arguments that one side is not allowed to debate. Clash, testing, and procedural fairness are all persuasive to me. A set topic is valuable.

Your reward for reading to the bottom is some things to boost speaks:

- Great cross-examination

- Excellent argumentation and off the flow debating

- Being funny [joke about me = +0.3, joke about sports= +0.1]

- Being strategic

- Not just filling speech time, but accomplishing something in every speech you give

Name: Tony Nation

School – Kapaun Mt. Carmel HS, Wichita, KS – Assistant Coach

Debated at Emporia State and Wichita State – Been coaching pretty much ever since.

Email: antonynation@gmail.com – add me to the chain

If you’re looking for LD specific, it’s at the bottom. I’d still suggest reading the whole thing.

Prep time ends when you remove the flash drive, stand up and start approaching the other team. Once they have the files, you should be ready to speak. Speech time starts after you have given me the roadmap and begin the actual speech.

I would consider myself a pretty decent flow since I use my laptop, but don’t go crazy. If you’re not clear or I’m behind I’ll let you know. The only thing that confuses me is when you don’t tell me where you are and/or are giving some super long overview and haven’t told me that’s what’s going on. So, if you’re giving an overview up top, tell me that’s what you’re going to do.

As far as argument types and preferences, I really don’t care what you run as long as you’re not advocating something offensive (racism/sexism). Spark, wipeout, de-dev, etc. are all ok. Generally, I’m looking for offense. I can’t remember one time I’ve voted for someone with only defensive arguments. I’m generally not going to agree that your defensive cards are a 100% takeout unless there’s a really, really, really, really, really good reason. That being said, I can definitely tell you I’m not a “stock issues” judge. I’d say that if not given direction, I would be best described as a policy-maker.

Notes about specific arguments:

All arguments have a claim and at least one warrant.

I don’t have a pre-conceived notion about conditional arguments. You probably should be prepared to debate that when necessary.

Without a very specific link, I have a hard time believing that your generic criticism means a case won’t solve at all. If you argue that there isn’t any version of the affirmative that will ever work, that’s fair. But you should probably be able to conjure up at least one similar historical example. The worst critical debates are where people just read long card after long card and then only refer back to the author/date. We’ve seen policy actions work in the past, right?

This doesn’t mean I won’t vote for “generic” arguments. I ran them when I debated and coach my teams to run them.

My best advice is to do whatever you need to do to win the round. I’m open to anything.

Other Notes: Humor helps your points. I've given a 30 only one time when I didn't laugh. I don't believe that 'cheating' counterplans are cheating. I think that it's a legitimate test of a policy to discuss when it should happen or why part of it should/should not happen. Legislatures consider both of those things, especially in committee. A clever Haiku is acceptable in the 2NR/2AR. I'd say its acceptable elsewhere, but I don't think your 1AR will have that kind of time. Impact turns? Go right ahead. If you want to tell me that it's cool for a million humans to die because it saves some rare form of slug that has cancer curing venom, go right ahead. I think it's important to weigh impacts. I have four cats. Do with that information what you will. Spec and advocate arguments work sometimes as well. It's part of critical thinking. Not all authors write with the exact same premise. Spending and politics uniqueness should probably be less than 48 hours old (well, newer than the last time we enacted new spending or a similar law.) If you're reading camp uniqueness for spending/politics, I'll be offended. Completely new arguments in the 2s will probably not win you the round. I'll give the 1AR tons of leeway since I remember that struggle. If there is a new DA in the 2 and the 1AR decides to give you a straight turn for Christmas, I'll probably give them a 30, even if they lose. At this point I'm just rambling, but you've gotten a deep insight into my mind. Make it worth your time. I'll leave you with this. If you don't do the work for me and I have to figure out everything for myself, you either won't like the outcome or I'll eventually vote on presumption.

LD – I don’t place any pre-conceived value on a particular model of LD debate. That means that someone doesn’t have a defined value or criterion. You can debate that model, you can advocate a policy, multiple policies, hypotest or run critical arguments. This means you should be prepared to answer those arguments if they are presented. I also have zero preference for speed in LD. If someone goes fast and they are capable of it, then so be it. The only rules I’m going to have you follow are speech times, speech order and prep time. I recently had a long conversation about the place of counterplans in LD. I came out with a couple of thoughts. 1: If the resolution defines an actor (eg: United States) I think the affirmative should be prepared debates about other actors. Example: If the affirmative is defending the USFG should implement a policy, but it's better done at a state/local level, that's a legitimate argument for the negative. You're not going to convince me that it isn't the negative's ground without a really good reason. 2: If while researching, the negative finds a better idea than what the resolution calls for to solve a specific problem, the affirmative should be able to defend their action in comparison. If you want an example, you'll have to wait until after May 5th because I'm not giving my debater's strategy away. My point being, if the affirmative says the US should do x because it will provide educational opportunities to people who don't give them now and the negative is able to say that x is a bad idea compared to y then I think that the affirmative chose the ground and the negative found something within that ground to argue.

Tabula Rasa

I've been in the debate community for 16 years. Please tell me how I should vote and why. I am open to any judging paradigm.

Clear links, signposting, and substantial impacts are critical. I enjoy good impact calc when weighing the round as a policymaker. If you want me to vote from a stock issues paradigm, please provide an excellent line-by-line debate.

D/A's - I expect clear and direct links to the AFF case when using generic D/A's.

K's - Welcomed if severe and authentic. If it's a joke about us living in the matrix, I will probably not vote for it unless the other team can't answer. 

Topicality - I don't care. I understand the strategy of T to cause commitment to an affirmative stance to provide stronger links. If proper T shells exist on both sides, it becomes neutral in my mind unless a team offers an excellent analysis that sells me.

Speed - I support spreading evidence at any pace. I do care about cadence and accuracy during spreading. However, I do prefer your analysis or warrant to be clearly articulated.

I debated for three years in high school, including at state and districts. I am fine with almost any argument (stock issues, advantage/disadvantage, counterplans, Ks), but you must explain why I should vote on a specific issue. If I do not have a specific reason to vote, then I will be forced to default to policymaker, where I vote for whichever policy (plan, CP, Squo, K) has the best DAs/advantages. I judged a fair amount (4 or 5 tournaments) during the arms sales topic, but do not have much experience with the 2020-2021 topic, so do not expect me to know the relevant case info by default.

Other stuff:

Errs: If the counterplan and the plan solve the case identically and neither have a net benefit, I will prefer the plan over the counterplan unless given some reason to do otherwise.

Err: If the plan and the status quo solve equally (i.e., the aff loses completely on solvency/harms/advantages), I will vote for the status quo.

I am fine with generic links, unless the aff can explain why the link is flawed.

I will generally not buy 'rule of the game' arguments.

I will generally weigh topicality and theory arguments over case, but if the neg runs T in the 2NR, it is highly recommended that they go all in.

I don't care one way or the other on condo.

Ks are fine, but I am more experienced with the generic Ks like cap compared to case-specific Ks.

Spreading is fine.

I will not consider new in the 2 to be problematic by default, but I will consider it to be a voting issue if the aff makes it an important issue.

If you have any specific questions, just ask before the round.

I vote mostly on if the aff can prove their policy proposal will result in a significant advantage free from disadvantages. If the affirmative plan does not solve (produce the advantage), they lose. If the affirmative plan does result in the advantage but it is not significant, they lose. In other words, the negative has presumption and the aff has the burden to prove. I do not like speed. I like the traditional style of debate.

I am a "Stock Issues" paradigm which means that the affirmative team must present a prima facie case to win: Aff must prove their policy proposal will result in a significant advantage free from disadvantages. If the affirmative plan does not solve (produce the advantage), they lose. If the affirmative plan does result in the advantage but it is not significant, they lose. In other words, the negative has presumption and the aff the burden to prove.

put me on the email chain: madeline.rowley@gmail.com

they/them

debated at kapaun mt carmel and wichita east in high school

tldr: do what you want. i was a policy debater in high school but have a general understanding of most k's. i was a 2a and 2n so i don't really feel a big bias.

Debate experience:
4 years nat circ / varsity policy at Derby High School in Derby, KS ????Formerly known as Jack Sallman

A little LD, world schools at nationals twice, basic understanding of PFD

MY PRONOUNS ARE HE/HIM

Put me on the email chain. Send docs before the speech, not after. Jacksallmandebate@gmail.com

Always feel free to email me with questions or feedback !

open cx is fine, off time flashing and road maps are fine idc

A few things:

Debate however you feel comfortable. I enjoy many different styles of argumentation and debate. If you're critical or policy, TOC or KDC, or literally any style of debating, my job as the judge is to adapt to your style.

Email chains/flashing: If I (or the other team) ask you to flash/share your speech doc and you refuse, speaker points will face consequences.

Post-rounding: I don't mind providing feedback or answering questions. Any post rounding that gets out of hand/aggressive, I will shut down though. It's a genuine trigger for me, and I also feel like blowing up on your judge is not productive.

Speed: Go as fast as you want, but please be clear. With me, I don't care if you're slow or fast, because I think efficiency is more important than speed.

I start speaks at 28 and work my way up or down.

Manners? : I think being assertive is good. If you're a jerk though, I'll drop your speaks. Don't be a bigot.

T

Competing interps is probably better than reasonability, but you've got to do your work. Please do your impacts and standards work or I'll die on the inside. Crafty we meets are awesome. Tell me why I prefer your interp. Shot gun T isn't one of my favorites, but I'll still listen to it.

DA

I love DA debates, as long as the DA isn't entirely horrible or you can do the work for it (Flashback to no DA ground on CJR topic). I default more to magnitude and probability debates. Brink arguments can be important. Aff, turn the DA. Neg, explain WHY the DA outweighs and turns the case. Specific links are great. I don't default automatically to util or deontology, I will evaluate with the lenses that wins on the framing debate. I LOVE DAs for K affs or on FW.

CP

POST the cp, but I wouldn't spend too much time on theory unless if you're going for condo. I tend to lean towards reject arg not team unless if the aff proves I should reject the team. The CP needs a net benefit. Aff, explain the perm. DON'T FORGET TO PUT OFFENSE ON THE CP!!!! Neg, I won't judge kick the cp unless explicitly told to and I feel it is right. Also if you can prove the CP links to the net bens, mwah!!! Do it! Ngl tho, cp debate isn't my favorite but don't let that discourage you! I will still vote on CPs.

K

Hell yeah. I've run Queer Theory, Capitalism, Derrida, Militarism, Security, Abolition, Anthro, Disability, Biopower, Set Col, etc. Basically, I love K debate. Performance K's, Rep K's, Academic approach K's, etc. are all fine with me. I am not strongly familiar with Baudrillard or Deleuze, however. If you want to attempt that route, feel free, but buckle down to explain more than a judge who is a Baudrillard hack. TBH most K's I can grasp fairly quickly. If you have any questions about this or if I know anything about a specific area of literature, either shoot me an email or ask me before the round.

K aff/FW

FW - I think clash is the important part here. Prob should read state inev, convince me why your interp o/w. TBH I don't think Affs need a w/m here, just a counter interp. I think if you find crafty ways to turn the DAs the aff will inevitably put on FW, DO IT. On a side note, Affs, put good DAs on FW. Side note.... FW doesn't only have to be T-USFG...

K affs -hell yeah. I read a queer anarchism academia aff my senior year, if that says anything, and my teammates read a Foucault Will of the Sovereign k aff. If you can effectively explain your case and win FW, you're good. I don't care if your aff does or doesn't have an advocacy, but be prepared to have that debate. Also read "K" header for more info literature wise. I think that preempting FW and other args in the 1AC is smart, and while I don't require it with my approach, topic specific affs are good. If you're not topic specific, that's still aight. I'll listen to most things -- but be ready for that debate with the neg.

Theory

I think most theory except condo is good enough for rejecting the arg not the team. This doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't attempt theory debate -- go for it if that's your heart's desire. Please don't be blippy on these theory debates and sending those blocks could be good. Even the best flow out there won't catch all of your arguments if you spread full speed through theory blocks.

It's a Great Day to be a Panther

Debated all 4 years at Derby, I debated mostly open but I have experience with varsity rounds and arguments (like kritiks). I'm okay with pretty much any argument as long as you explain it well, you know how to run it correctly, and it relates to the debate at hand. With that said I still prefer a good policy debate over a K debate. Speak at whatever speed is comfortable for you, I'm not going to make you slow down and talk pretty like some open rounds, but if you're going to spread, please be clear and differentiate between the args, I'm not going to flow your arguments otherwise. (this still holds up with online debates but be smart, if you've had troubles with connection or lagging please do not try and push yourself to talk faster, you are not doing yourself any favors) There is a difference between being aggressive for your case/assertive on your arguments and purely being a jerk, be wise in how you carry yourself in a debate.

I'm a tabula rasa judge to the extent possible. I debated for four years in high school and continued to judge through college. Based on my own history of debating and work experience in federal policy, I will default to a combination of stock issues and policy maker if left to my own devices in a round. Leaving me to my own devices is not the optimal strategy; good framework is preferred.

I think that debate is a speech activity. Speeches should be a pleasure to listen to, not something to be endured, even if presented rapidly. Above 300 WPM my comprehension will decrease unless the speaker is exceptionally articulate.

In my ideal round there would be good clash between teams, strong analysis accompanying solid evidence, clear signposting, and respectful behavior.

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.

I judge on stock issues: Topicality, Solvency, Inherency, Significance, and Disadvantages.

Make sure you summarize your cards and points. Roadmaps, signposts, too. If you don't know what that is, feel free to ask me.

I like counterplans and I love kritiks, but only if you lay it out for me. Speedreading is fine, but help my flow out!

I generally ignore cross-ex (I personally believe that's just for your clarification, not for displaying superiority), but do whatever.

Please follow KSHAA rules: face me when you're speaking or doing cross-examination, no "open" cross-ex, no "splitting the negative block." "No new in the 2" isn't a rule, either.

Finally, please remember that prep time was increased in order to accommodate the technology. Prep time doesn't stop until you begin speaking.