Policy Debate experience: Novice, JV, Varsity, for 2 years now start of my 3rd year,

Truth over Tech

Can't win on just defense for example: neg can't win on just solvency

Slow Spreading (I know that's a contradiction) is fine as I cant follow your 82 page K but I'm not a parent judge. If too fast or not clear speaking, I"ll say "clear".

If you throw out T in the begging of every 1NC in case they don't answer it, and they do answer just kick it otherwise you are wasting your time unless they are legitimately not topical.

Don't like K affs, but neg can have a K

anjali singh - she her

wichita east '22

fourth-year debater

have fun and try your best!

add me to the email chain anjalizsingh17@gmail.com

Evidence and analysis is important.

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.

I am a Stock Issues judge first and foremost. That means that I hold all four (4) Stock Issues at an equal and high regard in a debate round. Inherency, Harms, Solvency, and Topicality are the biggest voting issues for me. However, that does not mean that I won't listen to DisAds, Ks, Advantages, CPs or any other argument, they just hold spots within the different Stock Issues.

Disadvantages and Advantages deal with Solvency and Harms to me as they talk about how the plan will make everything better or worse. Counter Plans deal with Solvency and Inherency, and should clash against the plan itself. As for Ks, I am not that familiar with them, however I will listen to them, and take them into consideration. The central issue is the AFFs plan, if it solves the problem (stated in the Inherency), fixes the issues caused by the Status Quo (Harms), and makes the world a better place (Solvency).

I have no problem with Topicality at all, and will listen to all T arguments. However, I do have an issue with restatement of KSHSAA rules. Unless there is an actual infraction of KSHSAA rules, please don't recite them to me. I am a coach, and I am aware of KSHSAA's debate and forensics rules.

As for Forensics. I have a history in Theatre, and will view each performance as a performance. Entertain me. Lead me into the world of the piece. The more you make me look up, and the less I'm holding my pen as a judge, the better your chances are in hitting a 1 ranking.

If it's a speech event (Extemp, Impromptu, Oration or Info), then I will listen to the presentation as if I'm judging a speech in my classroom (I am also a Speech teacher), but more because I expect more than what my Freshmen do.

Email: wcornett@trinityacademy.org

Lincoln-Douglas

I am a pretty traditional LD judge. I want a focus on the moral obligations and the value/criterion framing. Make sure that your framing connects to the contention level. Any questions, feel free to ask.

Policy

Warrants: Whichever arguments are being read, whether evidence-based or analytical, the ability to clearly explain your warrants instead of just asserting stuff is what gets you ahead on my ballot and in speaker points. This should be obvious, but it doesn't always play out that way.

Aff burden: Defend the resolution. My bias is towards a policy plan, but if you can provide a clear and compelling framework for another way to support the resolution, you can certainly do so. If you do want to get creative, however, you will have to do work explaining your framing and why/how I should evaluate the round.

DA's & CP's: Core negative positions. Case specific links are preferable, but I'll vote on generic links if the neg explains how it applies to the aff and the aff doesn't give a good reason why the link is either untrue across the board, or there is something unique about their position that disproves the link.

It's going to take some work to show me that conditionality is abusive, but I'm willing to listen to the argument. As is true across the board, abuse claims are strongest if they are specific to what happened within the round in question.

T: I'll vote on T, but it's not my preference to do so. I try to strike a balance between competing interpretations and reasonability (i.e. it is good to explore multiple definitions and why some may be better than others, but if in the absence of the debate clearly demonstrating that one definition is preferable and the aff meets their own interp, I'm going to lean aff on T).

K: Don't trust that I will automatically know your literature. In addition, just because a literature base exist to claim something, I will need clear analysis from the neg as to why I should buy that literature base. Framework is generally going to be important for me. Is the K presenting an alternative policy action to be evaluated like a CP? Is it proposing an individual action on my part? Something else? Let me know. Framework debates will vary depending on the answers to those questions, but affirmatives have options to contest the viability of the alt, either based on the specific action being suggested or on the way debate rounds function and whether I should buy that accepting or rejecting ideas on my ballot has any real world impact (e.g. does policymaking or the k have more educational value/skill development; if neither have out of round impact, is there benefit to game playing or not?). I am more likely to buy an alt if it actually gives me a different policy or mindset to adopt instead of just telling me to reject a mindset.

Impact Framing: I find arguments that say "any chance of the link means you vote" to be rather weak. First, I find that debaters tend to describe the probability of their scenarios in terms that are not only not realistic, but have no objective basis whatsoever. It often feels like arbitrarily pulling a statistical percentage out of a hat. This isn't just about debaters overstating the odds of big impacts like extinction happening. The same problem exists (in either the aff or the k) in claiming that you have 100% solvency for racism or sexual violence. This probably puts me more in a probability first camp, less because I won't look at big impacts than because I want clear warranted reasons that your impact will happen before I look at anything else.

Voters: Assume that I will take you seriously about what you go for at the end of the round. What you go for in the 2NC will be what I focus my decision on, even if I thought you were ahead elsewhere. Importantly, even if you extend a card in the 2NC, but don't give me any analysis of why that is something I should be voting on, it probably won't be part of my decisions. Don't expect me to do the work of framing your voters for you.

Argument Interaction: Give me clear direction as to the way that your arguments interact with one another. If you are running arguments that contradict one another, give me explanation of why doing so makes sense. If you are running T and saying that the aff gives you no DA ground, how does that interact with any DAs you are running? Are you going to just simultaneous ask me to believe that your links are trash when I am looking at the T flow and awesome when I'm looking at the DA flow? Running both of these arguments together can be strategic in a number of directions, but I'm going to need you to clarify that by the end of the round rather than just leaving it unresolved.

Speed: I'm not the fastest at flowing, so give me clear tag lines. If the tournament allows it, I appreciate being on the email chain/receiving the flash of the speech.

Experience: Head coach for 8 years at Wichita Northwest. Assistant coach for 3 years at Topeka High. Debated 4 years in high school. I have judged at nationals in debate/speech events 15+ years.

Speed: Okay with moderate to quick pace. Spreading okay on evidence BUT, I prefer slower and more deliberate pace with analysis.

Paradigm: I default to policymaker. Please tell me how YOU would like me to weigh the round.

Positions: I evaluate Topicality roughly on par with other issues in the round. I am fine with generic DA's as long as the links are explained clearly. CP’s and K’s are acceptable as long as text/links are well explained and maintain competition in the round. I evaluate the round pretty evenly between argumentation and communication skills. You have to have both the winning arguments and the ability to communicate them clearly and persuasively.

Novice Rounds: If this is a novice round, I expect to hear case debate and explanations. Please do more than read evidence. Explain what you are reading, what it relates to in the round, and how it advances your position. You should avoid arguing a disadvantage/counterplan/K if you have never read it before or haven't at least talked to your coach about what it means. Overall, I want to see clash and a debate about substantive issues rather than about how the other side debated. Focus on the arguments not on the opponents themselves.

I am an assistant debate coach at a 6A school. I don't mind a fast pace if it is articulate. I follow the arguments that are carried through the whole round and those that are logical are the issues I care about. I am comfortable with topicality arguments if well-structured, generic disadvantages as long as there is a link.

I’m a head coach.

My priorities as a judge are based on equal amounts of communication and resolution of substantive issues.

My paradigm is based on skill, and I’m closer to a Tabula Rasa judge than anything else.

Fairly rapid delivery is okay, but if I don’t understand you, I will not flow your argument. It must be articulate, include tonal differences/variation, and have clear points. Tag lines should be short and to the point. I can’t flow a whole paragraph if you’re moving fast. You should keep an eye on me to make certain I am keeping up. If not, I strongly sugges you adjust.

I dislike spreading during Rebuttals. I do NOT find that persuasive at all.

Rudeness or condescension toward your competitors is never welcome. Part of what you're supposed to learn from Debate is collegiality, professionalism, and decorum.

Offensive language (curse words, slurs, etc.) is unnecessary and in most contexts, repugnant. There are a few, very limited instances where they might be ok, but would need to have a point far beyond the shock factor or emphasis.

Prep time is 8 minutes. You should be tracking your opponents prep time. If they are stealing prep, call them on it.

Counterplans are just another argument but should be consistent in the overall Negative approach.

Topicality is an argument that I will vote on if it’s ignored or dropped by the Affirmative, but it has to be pretty blatant for me to vote on it otherwise. I particularly dislike T args that use an obviously disingenuous interpretation.

Generic disadvantages are fine so long as specific links are clearly analyzed.

Kritiks are just another argument, though I prefer that links are clearly analyzed. Simply linking the other team to the kritik is not enough for me to vote on. There has to be a clear alternative. I am not well versed in Krit lit, so explanation is welcome. Aff Ks are tough because the topic exists for a reason and ignoring it entirely is outside the bounds of fairness. Somewhere in the argument should be an alt or explanation as to why we should a. Ignore the topic and b. That it is fair and reasonable for a negative team to be prepared for doing so in this context. Framing is crucial to this end.

Narratives/Story-telling/Performative/Poetry/etc. Is interesting, as my background is in Forensics and it’s where I began my coaching career, but Debatel has structure and norms. I believe these things have their place in Debate as they are all potentially persuasive, I would also need to know why you’re using your precious few minutes on something that is not an argument.

Debate is primarily about education and partly about fun. Try your best but don't take things too seriously, as we won't implement any of the plans based on how a high school Debate round goes.

Feel free to ask me questions for clarity or specifics on any of this.

Keeping track of your time and opponents' time is your job and part of Debate's challenge.

Please add me to your email chain: dunlap_johnny@443mail.org.

Hi my name is Bennett, I’m a sophomore in college and did debate all four years in highschool. My dad is also a coach and district head so I’ve been around it my whole life. I expect to be included in email chains unless I say otherwise. Feel free to run things like k’s, cp’s, or anything technical. If you run T I expect you to fully run it as a main argument with all necessary components, I will not vote on a half hearted T argument. Finally, let’s have fun! I’m all for embracing the spirit of policy so please feel free to run weird or abstract arguments - I love them!

Oh also don’t be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. I will not tolerate these behaviors - whether In an argument or demonstrated in the behavior of either teams.

Debate Experience:

4 years at Derby High School

currently at KU but not debating & I have not judged any rounds on this years topic

Email: cejohnson2022@gmail.com

General Notes:

Speed: go as fast as you want, as long as you are clear.

CX: please don't be rude during cx. I think that making your point is good, but being rude to your opponents or interrupting your partner will decrease your speaks.

T

Most likely to default to competing interps, but you have to do the work for this. Extend standards and voters, but also clash.

DA

Politics DAs are awesome! I love DA debate, make sure to do the work on the i/l and impact level. Neg, explain how the DA o/w and turns the case, don't just say those words. The more specific the link, the better. If you have a crafty DA then make sure to have a really strong link explanation.

CP

The CP needs a net benefit and explain how it doesn't link. Aff, make solvency deficits and explain how the perm solves. POST the CP. Offense is important. Neg, explain how the CP solves the aff and their advantages.

K

I've gone for Queer Theory, Fem & Cap, but don't let that deter you from running what you want. Just make sure to explain your alt.

K Aff/ FW

f/w - clash and impacts are important. TVAs are cool. Make sure to answer all the little DAs aff will put on f/w.

K Aff - explain to me what your aff does and how it solves, I feel that a lot of K aff teams just say words and no one else really knows what they mean.

Debate is a competitive, educational activity that supports speech, argumentation and research skills. I expect you to address stock issues and have clear, well-connected and relevant off case arguments. I will vote primarily on the quality of evidence and argumentation and secondarily on the speech skills displayed. Whatever arguments you run, be organized on the flow, be clear on your arguments, and be persuasive in your speaking.

Email: alake@tps501.org

I debated 4 years in High School, and 4 years for Washburn University for parliamentary debate. I now coach at Topeka West High School (8th year). I am a flow centric judge and I am willing to vote on anything that is articulated well with a clear framework. I can handle most levels of speed so long as you are articulate. It is in your best interest to start relatively slow and speed up as the speech progresses (crescendo). The rest of this judge philosophy is how I will default in the event that you DON'T tell me how to evaluate a position (but why wouldn't you just tell me how I should evaluate the position?).

Lincoln Douglas Debate

I believe that an LD round is decided by both the aff and neg presenting a value, and a criterion that measures the achievement of that value. I vote aff/neg on the resolution by evaluating the contentions through the winning criterion to see if it achieves the winning value. I am very flow centric and will weigh arguments that aren't answered in favor of the other team. I am not a super fan of turning LD into policy debate but if you argue for that and win that position then I will play ball. I am fine with speed. If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round.

Policy Debate

Overall, net-benefits.

Theory: I love theory debates. Generally I will evaluate them through competing interpretations based on the standards and which standards I am told are most important.

Advantages/Disadvantages: Generally, uniqueness controls the direction of the link; extinction and "dehumanization" are terminal impacts. A 1% chance of a disad/adv occurring gives that team offense for the ballot.

CP: Counterplans should be competitive and switch presumption from the negative to the affirmative. Thus, the CP has to give me a net-benefit over the case or a perm to warrant a ballot. I am willing to vote on CP theory if those arguments are won.

K: I wasn't a big K debater, but I have argued them and judged them frequently. You should be able to explain your K, its framework, link, impx, alt and alt solvency. Buzz words, and name dropping are not a substitute for the former explanation. I am willing to vote on framework and similar arguments if those theory arguments are won.

Experience: I am a 4th year (senior) debater at Salina South High School. The main tournament format I have debated in is DCI/Varsity.

From my experience with debate so far this is how I judge (Preface: I am still constantly learning new things about debate, so how I judge has the possibility of changing at any time):

Criminal Justice Reform specifics- I will never vote on a no racial bias argument. Even if the other team drops it, I do not consider it in the debate. If you don't spend significant time explaining what the world of the alternative looks like on abolition, I won't vote on the alt (I'll consider other aspects of the K). Affirmatives on this topic are sometimes touchy so please be respectful and read arguments that are well thought out.

Case: I am comfortable with policy affs, as those are what I have had the most experience with. I believe that an aff must have advantages that have clear Internal Link scenarios and Framing (mainly telling me what to prioritize in the round- Extinction, dehumanization, etc).

Disadvantages- I will listen to every generic disadvantage you throw at me, but there needs to be a clear explanation of the Internal Link scenario, plus a specific link. I am willing to vote on a disad that does not have a specific link as long as it is explained well.

CP- Condo is good unless you give me a reason to believe otherwise (Another preface: If you are going for Conditionality it will be very hard for me to vote on it, unless you spend enough time explaining it in the 2AR). I never think that specific counterplans (Agent, Conditions, etc) are reasons to vote down the team, only to reject the argument. In summation, I'll listen to every CP you read.

Kritiks- I am not familiar with most Kritikal literature, but I am able to pick up on most pretty quick, as long as there are full explanations of Links and the Alt. My main knowledge is abolition, biopower, anti-blackness, security, and capitalism. Any other K will require you to give me some explanation.

Topicality- I enjoy topicality a lot. If you go for this argument it has to be all of the 2NR. T is not a reverse voting issue (however there is a chance I can be convinced otherwise). I default to competing interpretations. Neg- Flesh out the Standards in the block to help me evaluate it. I buy reasonability if fleshed out by the aff.

Email: tianamarion7@gmail.com

Despite the fact I have never been a debater, nor have I ever coached debate, I have been judging debate for 15 years.

As a judge, I value the following:

A logical stream of arguments that are tied to solid evidence and even stronger analysis.

Respect and professionalism between debaters.

Passion for the art of debate.

Insightfulness

Humility.

I do NOT appreciate the following:

Belittling your opponent

Speed-talking--I must be able to follow the argument.

I have been an assistant coach for Andover for 15+ years and did debate in HS. I am fine with speed if you are very clear. Ks are fine, but you better make it relevant somehow. Otherwise, policy maker is my default.

If you run T, make it good. It is everything in a round and yes, grammar matters. Make it a voter and don’t drop it.

Have specific links to generic disads. If I start hearing the exact same DAs run over and over with literally zero changes from the last round, I know your arg has alt causes and I can't ignore that. Counterplans can be topical but don't have to be; also you must convince me that you absolutely cannot effectively perm. The more generic the counterplan, the less I will give it weight in the round. Convince me that this CP is actually the best alternative for the specific harms that Aff addresses.

Don’t try to run nonsense “rule violations” that aren’t actually violations, as a strat. And if you try to tell me that the other team is “violating the rules of debate” be prepared for me to ask if you actually want to bring a formal complaint and stop the round.

Lastly, as a policy maker, I will take a very, very, hard look at the plan text (yes, including grammar and word choice). I don’t expect you to have answers for every single nuanced thing, but at least have basics covered (specific AoA, answers to funding, timeframe…etc.).

I am an old school "Get off my lawn" kind of judge. I have been an assistant debate coach for 18 years and I was a high school debater but not college. I prefer real world arguments with normal impacts nuke war and extinction really annoy me. I hate spreading and will stop listening if you word vomit on me. I can handle speed but double clutching and not clearly reading tags will be a problem. I am being forced to do an electronic ballot but that DOES NOT mean I want a flash of your stuff. I HATE KRITIKS but will vote on it if it is the only thing in the round. I prefer nontopical counterplans and will tolerate generic DAs if the links are specific. I like stock issues and policy impact calculus. I like quality analytical arguments. Teams who read good evidence not just camp and wiki stuff will get my vote.

I am a debate coach at a 6A school. I can judge at any rate, but I believe that real world persuasiveness is actually enhanced with a more moderate rate and using effective emphasis and inflection. Most important part of the debate round is clash and resolution, so logical arguments carried all the way through are what really matters. I am comfortable with topicality arguments if well-structured, generic disadvantages if there is a verifiable link to the affirmative plan, and counterplans if they are non-topical and competitive with the affirmative plan. I am NOT a fan of Kritiks.

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

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.

Policymaker paradigm. Counterplans are acceptable. Never vote on kritiks, rarely vote on topicality arguments. Sportsmanship during the debate is important for speaker points.

I'm a 3rd Year Debater, new at judging. I consider myself a "Policy Maker" meaning that I weigh advantages and disadvantages.

I competed in policy debate for 3 years and have judged for two now. I can track arguments pretty well and semi fast paced talking should be fine if you are still speaking clearly.

Overall - Summaries and explanations are fantastic and greatly appreciated. I really feel they are great practice and can even help you as the debater better understand what you are talking about. DO NOT SPREAD please. I really do not care for spreading. If I can't understand what you are saying then your arguments are void to me. Speak clearly and you'll do great. I don't care for kritiques at this level of debating. You can run them but if you don't run them well I won't even consider them when choosing a winner.

Neg - I am in favor of topicality if and only if it is run properly with all four parts and makes sense. I don't really care for vague arguments. For the most part, as long as you can prove and show how your arguments links up and why it matters I'll take it seriously.

Aff - Make the harms clear and convince me. Tell me what's wrong and why I should care. Prove you solve and you'll do great.

As a final tip... take a deep breath. Trust yourself and you'll do great. Even if you don't win there is still a lot to learn and help you grow. Don't let it drag you down. 

Email Chain: brandons3333@outlook.com

Please add me to any email chain made in round because that will ultimately help me dissect your argumentation and relay that importance to round.

I am the South High School assistant debate coach and I did policy debate for 4 years at Salina High School South. I did KDC and DCI circuits in high school so I'm well versed in most styles of debate. In regards to round etiquette , first rule is to make a safe environment for every debater in the room. No one wants to walk into a round that is filled with hostility. Use the correct pronouns for people...point blank, please be respectful to others. When it comes to argumentation I am open to listen to anything. I flow the round and will be in tune with everyone debating so please make sure to extend and have a clear direction of where you want to take your argumentation in the round. When it comes to my judging style I tend to vote on stock issues, but again I am completely open to anyway the round goes so be critical but also make sense. When it comes to speed I can handle spreading as long as you are clear with your taglines and please make sure to signpost. On a line by line basis slow down to articulate your argumentation. I'm not a fan of time sucks, if you're reading an argument tell my why it's important in the round or I won't vote on it. I love theory and K's as long as they clearly relate to the debate. I read Fem and Queer theory in high school but am willing to listen to anything. If there are any other questions please feel free to ask before round.

Background: debated for 3 years in high school.

Speed: Fine if you're clear and I can understand you.

I'm a mix between stock issues and policy. However, I will also go with the flow, especially in a panel situation.

If you run Topicality it has to be really good. REALLY good.

Love DAs and CPs.

If you have specific questions, please ask.

Name: Jessica Trudell

Experience: (Competitor) Four years HS and four years college (parli, LD, speech, and policy). (Asst. Coach) Six years (Oklahoma and Kansas). (Mentor) Two years (Hawaii). I have judged off and on for 18 years.

I would like to be a part of the email chain please. Foreignpolicyjess82@yahoo.com *This allows a quicker decision at the end. I can follow along for clipping. I also can read along and quickly pull up a piece of evidence that comes into question or becomes a premium target in the round. It protects both sides and allows me to make the best decision possible.

I am pretty decent at the flow, but there is no speed debate on these islands, so I’m a bit rusty. Go full speed if you are crystal clear. Besides that, decent speed. If I don’t hear it, I don’t flow it. I know COVID has change the dynamics of debate. I’ll say “CLEAR” once to give you a heads up to slow down.

To be honest, I will listen to anything and everything. With this topic, I’ve been using the policy judge paradigm mentality. But, you set up the debate and let me know, I’m down. I love a good off case debate any day, but I thrive on that on case debate as well. You debate how you debate. Judge adaptation is important, but to me this is a learning experience, “you do you boo-boo”.

Off time road map is fine. Open crossx is fine as long as the tournament rules permit it and both teams agree.

Disclosure- do it right and before round. This is for fun and learning. Not trying to be sneaky.

Feel free to ask me any questions prior to the debate.

Have fun and enjoy yourselves!

I debated for four years in high school and did forensics in College.

I am currently the assistant coach at Moundridge High School in Moundridge Kansas.

Policy Debate:

I tend to vote policymaker, if there are no policy options in the round I will vote stock issues.

Individual Issues:

Counter Plans: I will vote for a counter plan both nontopical and topical.

Disadvantages: I will vote for a generic DA. Saying the DA is generic is not an answer that will win.

Topicality: Topically must be argued more than just in a 1NC Shell. If you drop standards and voter I no longer care about your Topicality.

Theory: I will vote on theory arguments if you have evidence along with standards and voters.

Kritik: I will vote on a K. I prefer ones that are in a policy framework but will consider any alt as long as the team defends the position.

I will not vote on just defensive arguments as a policymaker, if there is no reason not to try the plan then I will vote for the plan.

Lincoln Douglas:

I will consider the value and criterion debate first when weighing the round.

Your criterion should logically support your value.

Speed- LD is intended to go deeper rather than broader and more philosophical, your debating about interpretations, not plans. I don't think speed supports this kind of debate. Don't lose depth for the sake of speed.

Evidence- I think that evidence is important, however, a lack of evidence does not mean a loss. Empirical examples can be just as weighty as traditional evidence.

Both debaters are responsible for clashes, don't ignore your opposition's value or criterion. I don't want to hear a debate in a vacuum.

I tend to be a stock issue judge, but I also want solid policy.

I am not the biggest fan of counter plans or K's but I recognize that some resolutions lend themselves to them but please don't run one if you don't know how to do it well.

Speed doesn't bother me. If I can't keep up for some reason, I will let you know. Spreading as a tactic to avoid clash is not going to be in your best interest with me.

I have been a coach for 5 years.

I don't put up with rudeness. Period. I will give you the loss on a 7 if you are awful to an opponent or your partner.

As a former forensics competitor and coach, I pay a good deal of attention to delivery (you need to speak at a rate such that I can understand you!). Just rattling off info without emphasis or proper inflection damages your credibility for me. Logical arguments are important. Finally, professional and courteous conduct is always appreciated!

Hello, I am Ava, and I am very excited to be judging your round!

I debated for 4 years at Salina South high school (KS) doing mostly traditional policy. I also am an assistant coach at Manhattan High School (KS).

I use she/her pronouns, but you can just call me Ava or judge, whichever you prefer.

Would love to be on the email chain: ava.m.williamson05@gmail.com

Awards:

4 year state qualifier in debate

Top 10 @state debate in 2023, 2022 and 2021

Won KDC in 2022

2 year state qualifier in forensics

National qualifier in info and extemp

The Short Version:

I am here for whatever you want to do. I love debate because of the freedom you have with your arguments, and I do not wish to stifle that in any way. So long as you are clean on the flow and explaining things clearly to me, I do not care what you do so long as it is appropriate. If you break that by being racist, sexist, homophobic, overly aggressive, or making the space unsafe, you will not be happy. I like debaters that have fun, laugh, and smile during a debate. I am also fine with speed only if your opponents are, I'm probably a 7/10 for speed on a bad day, 8.5/10 on a good day. I do prefer tags and author to be read at normal speed and the rest you can spread. For the rest of the paradigm, like all judges, I have some biases with arguments and deficiencies in some areas, this paradigm will hopefully be able to answer a majority of your questions, but if I am unclear or you want more clarification on something, please ask me!

T/Theory-

You're going to want to slow down here, especially if you are going down the line by line.

I like to see T as if I am voting for the best model of debate. This means that you need to clearly explain what your interp looks like for debate, and why that is preferable. I really like impact work on T, sure exploding limits is bad for debate, but why? Doing that work for me puts you way ahead.

I've debated at small schools all my career, so I love those impacts especially and I am a huge fan of brightlines. Other than those, I don't have a massive preference on your standards/voters so long as you explain them.

I don't know what the popular T arguments are or what T debates look like on this topic, so if it's a really weird interp or something like that, probably explain it a bit more than you would for me.

I vote neg on T when they establish that the affirmative does not fit their model of debate, and allowing affirmatives like that leads to a much worse debate outcome than not allowing it. I vote aff on T when they establish a better model of debate that includes at least their affirmative, if they meet the negative interpretation, or if the negatives model harms debate more.

T-FW-

I don't have much experience with this debate personally, but I can still evaluate it well, I just don't read it personally.

Much like regular T, don't have many preferences here, just do the impact work and show why your model is the best.

For the aff, I like counter-interps and impact turns. For the neg I like TVAs and SSD. This doesn't mean these are the only arguments I like or the only things you should be going for in the 2NR/AR, just that I like these arguments.

I'll evaluate just about any impact as long as it is clearly articulated and warranted as to why the other sides interp causes it.

C/A the voting explanation from regular T

DAs-

I love when teams use the DA strategically across multiple sheets. Link turns solvency, internal link turns solvency, timeframe impact calc, use the DA to act as multiple arguments.

Do impact calc, the earlier the better

I vote neg on the DA if they explain to me how the DA creates a worse world than the status quo or if they avoid the DA through a different action. I vote aff on the DA if they show that it should have happened, it has happened, they don't link, they turn the DA, solve the DA themselves, or just outweigh.

Counter Plans-

Counter plans can have a little logical reasoning, as a treat. I like seeing specific solvency, but don't need it, though I would like an explanation on how your mechanism specifically solves for the aff.

I need offense with a counter plan, solving better isn't reason enough for me to vote for it.

Explain your perms and your answers to the perms and we will all be happier.

I enjoy counterplan theory and think it needs to be utilized more. PICs and international fiat bad are some of my favs.

I also enjoy condo debates! I usually flow condo on the CP sheet, if you do not want me to do this make sure you tell me. I can be convinced that a team should not have any conditional advocacies, but that's pretty difficult. I don't really lean any side on condo, but if you read more than 5 conditional advocacies, the more I sympathize with the aff. I like arguments about why the certain number in the interpretation is necessary and time skew arguments.

I vote neg on the counterplan when the neg effectively shows me that the counterplan is mutually exclusive and they can solve for most of the affirmatives impacts and one of their own that the aff cannot solve. I vote aff on the counter plan when they show me the aff and CP can exist together, it has major solvency deficits, a DA of its own, or if you win the theory debate.

Ks-

I personally didn't run many K's but I am well informed over most lit. The lit bases I know strongly are queer/trans theory, capitalism, biopolitics, academy/university, and militarism/security. Lit bases I know but maybe not as much as you are Baudrillard, Set Col, and anti-blackness. Not a huge Fem IR or psychoanalysis fan, I'll still vote on it, but I find arguments about how those fields of thought are transphobic or problematic in other ways very persuasive.

I'd like to think if I am not super familiar with a lit base I can catch on quick in a debate, but if your K is like super complex and hard to understand, you may want to put it up. Feel free to ask how I feel about your K lit base and how much I know.

I like when the K is used as a way to make the 1AC irrelevant, whether it be through FW, impacts, or serial policy failure, making it so your alternative is the only option in the debate is what you should be trying to do.

I think the aff needs to do more than throw their blocks of state good, policy making good, and extinction outweighs. Doesn't mean you can't read those arguments, I just like when teams make smart analysis on how you don't link or in line with the alternative.

Explaining what your alt does, looks like, and how that solves for the impacts throughout the debate will put you very far ahead.

I vote neg on the K when they win it's mutually exclusive their framework and a link (a note for this, just because you are the only side that presents a framework and they don't read a we meet doesn't mean an auto win. If they can win an impact turn on the K that makes it not fit the framework then I won't vote for it.), or when they show how the aff makes a bad thing much worse and they win a way to avoid that. I vote aff on the K when they win their model of debate, they show they don't link or link turn, they win an impact turn (that is not morally egregious), the alt is bad, or a permutation that makes sense and is explained well.

K Affs-

I'd prefer it if the aff defends something, it makes your life much easier, but if you are not going to then you better be ready to defend that.

It is probably a good thing if your aff is connected to the topic, and especially your mechanism, but if you want to not even mention the topic then go for it.

I'm a big fan of presumption arguments, being able to take out solvency and turn the case is very good.

I really enjoy seeing the cap K against K Affs as I think most often it is the most important discussion, but also variety is cool. I think academy Ks are neat, or any other K you feel, just be confident with it. You should probably be saying "no perms in a methods debate" also.

I vote neg when they win an alternative model of debate is better and potentially includes the affirmative, the affirmative advocacy does not actually solve for their impacts, the aff advocacy creates more impacts than solvency, or if the neg wins a counter advocacy. I vote aff when they win their model of debate is preferable, the advocacy is able to create some solvency and not create impacts, or they win that they can exist with a counter advocacy or that advocacy is not preferable.

General Notes-

I will be flowing, and it is where most of my decisions will be based. So, line by line will be greatly appreciated!! It makes it easier for not only me but everyone in the debate understands what you are responding to.

I strongly believe in extensions. So, extend you affs, off cases, and any card you want to carry though the round. The extensions don't have to be elaborate just a quick author and date will do for me (you can even group them together). If the card is not brought up in your teams next speech, I will assume it has been dropped. You read the cards for reason, please use them throughout the debate and not just during one speech.

In the 2NR/2AR everything should be getting wrapped up and telling me why I should vote for you. Any loose ends I see as an incomplete job on either side. And may affect my decision. Note: if I have to do the work for you in the end of any debate is not good.

If you have any further questions feel free to ask! :)