1st time judging

not familiar with debate lingo

I present topics requiring a high level of decision analysis professionally.

I understand there may be conflict and disagreements, be respectful and don’t make it personal.

Thanks,

Penn

My name is Dave, and I'm a parent of 2 debaters at Shawnee Mission East. I did not participate in debate when in school, and am not familiar with its intricacies. I do appreciate a well-reasoned argument, and prefer that the speaking pace not be extremely fast. I do not respond well to cocky presentations that fail to recognize the nuances of arguments, and the fact that there are likely viable pros and cons on both sides. Analytics will be very important - I want you to present cogently and convincingly in oral arguments, not just reading pre-created evidence. Given my lack of formal debate experience, if you intend to utilize theory, it will need to be well-explained. I want to learn and be engaged, not lectured to.

This will be my first time judging a debate tournament. I did complete debate in high school, however that was awhile ago. I currently serve as the Chief Innovation Officer for a midsize company in the KC metro. This means considering large pools of data, often from conflicting sources, and drawing conclusions that don’t have a black and white answer.

Hello, I'm Dav Bettenhausen a volunteer judge with Shawnee Mission East, and have a few preferences for rounds I judge.

• While I understand speed is a tool used by certain debaters, I do not appreciate spreading. To obtain optimal speaker points, ensure your speed and tone are understandable.
• Brevity is key – don't overcomplicate arguments. If the only way you can explain your points is through niche terminology and overwrought diction, your arguments fail to engage the audience.
• Please be respectful of your opponents and all volunteers in the tournament. If you use hateful language in round or afterwards I will drop your speaker ranking and it will influence my final decision on the ballot.

I can't wait to hear some good arguments in this tournament and hope you all have a good time participating!

Hi! I'm Jess Bettenhausen, a volunteer judge with Shawnee Mission East

• While I understand speed is a tool certain debaters use, I do not appreciate spreading. I believe effective communication is key, so keeping your speed at a conversational pace is essential for securing my ballot. If I can't understand your speech, I will not weigh the arguments.
• I believe that you should fully explain your arguments. If the only way you can explain your positions is through niche terminology and jargon, I'm led to believe it's less plausible. Again, communication is vital, and if I don't end up understanding your arguments, I'm less likely to weigh them in round.
• On that note, judge instruction is key! Clearly outlining the reasons that I should value your arguments, and why I should sign my ballot for you will help convince me greatly.
• I judge truth over tech -- though I will listen to impact calculus. I think that attacking links is an underutilized strategy for debaters and can be very convincing.
• Please be respectful of your opponents and all volunteers in the tournament. If you use rude or harmful language in the round or afterward, I will drop your speaker ranking, and such activities will influence my final decision on the ballot.

I can't wait to hear some good arguments in this tournament and hope you all have a good time participating!

Please make sure you speak clearly, with a reasonable tone, and do not spread.

Clearly outline why I should value your arguments over your appoints and why I should sign my ballot for you.

Keep arguments concise and avoid making them overly complex with elaborate phrasing and really specialized language.

Be respectful towards opponents.

I debated in high school and college — a long time ago.

I like clash and reason. Explain to me why your position is better than theirs. If all everyone has provided me at the end of the round is a bunch of evidence, with no reason, I’ll just make up my own mind based on what I know.

Listening to people read to me bores me.

Pick a fight and have fun!!

I debated at Blue Valley High School all four years and now I'm an assistant coach.

I'm open to any kind of argument. Debate how you want to debate, and if you want me to evaluate the round in a certain way make sure to tell me why.

Kritiks: If you run a K that's not generic don't expect me to know everything and make sure to spend time explaining the link and alt.

Topicality: Your standards and voters should justify spending time here.

Speed: Speed is fine. I can flow fast. I'll clear if I can't understand you.

Email: julia.denny@ku.edu

Hi, I am Libby Dodderidge, an experienced real estate agent who has no previous experience judging debate. I would very much prefer you to talk slowly and enunciate everything. I don't understand much of the debate jargon, so using as little of that as possible or clearly explaining what it means would be great! As the debate progresses, please make sure to explain your arguments and how they're related to the topic. I will do my very best to be an unbiased and fair judge and I look forward to the experience.

Debated 4 years at Dowling HS in Des Moines, Iowa (09-12, Energy, Poverty, Military, Space)
Debated at KU (13-15, Energy, War Powers, Legalization)
Previously Coached: Ast. Coach Shawnee Mission Northwest, Lansing High School.
Currently Coaching: Ast. Coach Washburn Rural High School

UPDATE 10/1: CX is closed and lasts three minutes after constructive. I won't listen to questions or answers outside of those three minutes or made by people that aren't designated for that CX. I think it's a bummer that a lot of CXs get taken over by one person on each team. It doesn't give me the opportunity to evaluate debaters or for debaters to grow in areas where they might struggle. I'm going to start using my rounds to curb that.

Top Level
Do whatever you need to win rounds. I have arguments that I like / don't like, but I'd rather see you do whatever you do best, than do what I like badly. Have fun. I love this activity, and I hope that everyone in it does as well. Don't be unnecessarily rude, I get that some rudeness happens, but you don't want me to not like you. Last top level note. If you lose my ballot, it's your fault as a debater for not convincing me that you won. Both teams walk into the room with an equal chance to win, and if you disagree with my decision, it's because you didn't do enough to take the debate out of my hands.

Carrot and Stick
Carrot - every correctly identified dropped argument will be rewarded with .1 speaks (max .5 boost)
Stick - every incorrectly identified dropped argument will be punished with -.2 speaks (no max, do not do this)

General
DAs - please. Impact calc/ turns case stuff great, and I've seen plenty of debates (read *bad debates) where that analysis is dropped by the 1ar. Make sure to answer these args if you're aff.

Impact turns - love these debates. I'll even go so far as to reward these debates with an extra .2 speaker points. By impact turns I mean heg bag to answer heg good, not wipeout. Wipeout will not be rewarded. It will make me sad.

CPs - I ran a lot of the CPs that get a bad rep like consult. I see these as strategically beneficial. I also see them as unfair. The aff will not beat a consult/ condition CP without a perm and/or theory. That's not to say that by extending those the aff autowins, but it's likely the only way to win. I lean neg on most questions of CP competition and legitimacy, but that doesn't mean you can't win things like aff doesn't need to be immediate and unconditional, or that something like international actors are illegit.

Theory - Almost always a reason to reject the arg, not the team. Obviously conditionality is the exception to that rule.

T - Default competing interps. Will vote on potential abuse. Topical version of the aff is good and case lists are must haves. "X" o.w. T args are silly to me.

Ks - dropping k tricks will lose you the debate. I'm fine with Ks, do what you want to. Make sure that what you're running is relevant for that round. If you only run security every round, if you hit a structural violence aff, your security K will not compel me. Make sure to challenge the alternative on the aff. Make sure to have a defense of your epistemology/ontology/reps or that these things aren't important, losing this will usually result in you losing the round.

K affs - a fiat'd aff with critical advantages is obviously fine. A plan text you don't defend: less fine, but still viable. Forget the topic affs are a hard sell in front of me. It can happen, but odds are you're going to want someone else higher up on your sheet. I believe debate is good, not perfect, but getting better. I don't think the debate round is the best place to resolve the issues in the community.

Speaker points.
I don't really have a set system. Obviously the carrot and stick above apply. It's mostly based on how well you did technically, with modifications for style and presentation. If you do something that upsets me (you're unnecessarily rude, offensive, do something shady), your points will reflect that.

Hello, my name is Neal Gagen (he/him). I am a Lay judge with no experience.

1. Speak slowly and annunciation. I want to understand what you are saying.
2. The most important thing is your analytics, your evidence should support your argument, not be how you make it.
3. Explain all of your arguments, don’t assume I know what you are saying or arguing based on your evidence alone.
4. Don’t run K’s or theory, I won’t understand what I need to vote on.
5. You should underestimate what I know and over-explain.
6. I will appreciate you summarizing your arguments…clarity is helpful.

Former three year debater at Olathe South High School and current assistant coach there as well.

I've debated in both KDC and DCI divisions so I'm down for any style of debate.

Big Picture:

Tech>Truth

Judge instruction is very important to me. I want to flow the round with minimal judge intervention, this means that I want you to explain to me why I should prefer your arguments, what I should vote for in the round, etc.

This means that you should run with what you feel the most confident and comfortable with. However, if you don't provide me with a way to vote in the round I will just default policy maker.

Personally, I believe that debate is a game of offense and defense. Offense for both teams is very important to win the round for me.

Impact Calc is a must.

A team is much more likely to win my ballot if they have a clean flow. This means having great signposting, line by line, and clash.

Extending and explaining warrants would be nice.

I understand that this is a competitive activity and for me it's cool to be laid back but I request that the debaters are still respectful to each other inside or outside the round.

If you have any questions about my paradigm or my decision, please feel free to ask me anything.

Disadvantages: While it is true that the more recent your uniqueness is, the more likely I am to weigh your argument and the DA but old-ish ones work fine too. That being said, I hate when a team just says that I should prefer their evidence because the opponent's card is "outdated". The team must explain to me in context as to why it matters that one card is newer then the other (what about the more recent world has changed?). Obviously the more specific your link, the more likely I am to weigh the DA but generic links work too if you make them. I feel that lately debaters have been treating these types of debates as separate piece from the case flow. Both teams should articulate how/why the DA interacts with the case. This includes impact calc which is severely under utilized. I'm most likely to vote on this flow if its connected to the aff case instead of being a floating argument for me to evaluate. Aff teams should also be looking to turn disads into advantages for the case instead of only playing defense. I am also a huge fans of both link and impact turns on disads and take them very seriously if the aff plans on running them in the round. If the aff does end up going for or winning on a link or impact turn, just make sure to fully explain to me what means for the debate round as a whole. I want you to treat it as if you have just won a new free advantage for your case.

Topicality: I believe that the best style of T debate is one where the main focus of the debate is around the standards and voters of T. In order for me to vote on T, I would need a team to put a heavy amount of the debate on the standards or voters. For me, T is not an automatic voting issue, if a team does a well enough job on the voters flow, I can be convinced that it doesn't matter if the aff isn't topical since there is no reason to vote for T. Also, I fully believe that T is not a reverse voting issue. If nothing else is specified, I default competing interps over reasonability.

Counterplans: I think the best way to convince me whether to or not to vote on a counterplan is do compare the solvency of the aff to the solvency of the counterplan in order to prove which one solves the impacts better. I'm cool with all types of counterplans such as PICs, delay, consult, etc. I find myself leaning towards the negative's side on the argument of whether or not some counterplans are abusive or not. That being said, I'm willing to vote on any type of counterplan theory if done right. Perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy.

Kritiks: The Kritiks that I have a decent amount of knowledge or experience with are security, militarism, capitalism, set col, and anthro. Don't just expect me to know everything about the K and make sure to really go in depth in explaining how it works. My preference on links is pretty generic as I would prefer you to use specific links but generics are fine as long as you are prepared to defend them. For impact, I would want you to do lots of work on how that impact affects the case by doing case turns or impact calculus. Even though it is important to include some work on the alt by including some good comparative solvency in it, it is not the most important thing for me. While having a good alt would obviously make the K a lot stronger, I would be fine for voting for a K with a weak alt if the impact is fleshed out enough to completely outweigh or turn the aff case. If your impact is just destroying the other team, then I don't really think you need that good of an alt but just make sure you give me some kind of an alt such as reject the aff so I have some kind of alt to even vote on. Even though I am not that big on the alt, I do need some kind of an alt in order for me to vote for the K.

Kritikal Affirmatives: A lot of my thoughts here are similar to my thoughts on Kritiks as well. This does not mean that I won't vote on K-Affs as I have before. Overall, I think the most important thing to K-Affs to me is judge instruction. Specifically, the aff team needs to tell me what I am voting for and what my ballot does for the debate round and how that ballot or the 1AC solves. This means that role of the ballot is very important to my vote and should be clear what it is in the 1AC. I prefer that your K-Aff is related to the resolution somewhat instead of just debate as a whole and for the aff team to be fully explain what they are exactly rejecting or critiquing.

Framework: When I debated, this was my favorite part of the K debate so I do enjoy seeing a good FW round. How I feel about FW debates is pretty much the same way as I feel about T debates. While it is of course important to talk about all of FW, I believe that the majority of the debate should be on the standards/voters/impacts of FW. The debates of FW should be impacted out to not only this debate round, but also debate as a whole. I think the best way for teams to argue FW is for them to use their impacts on the flow as offense. Unless the neg can make a really compelling we meet argument, I find it extremely hard to see myself voting for the neg on K if they lose FW.

Theory: Unless the other team is obviously extremely abusive in the round for whatever the reason, for me theory is a hail mary. That means that if you go for it, you better go all the way and make it the voting issue in the round. For less abusive theory arguments, I generally default reject the argument over reject the team but I am willing to reject the team if I am convinced so. Specifically on condo, I do find that my threshold for condo is extremely high, I believe that debate is ultimately a game and the neg has every right to take advantage in this game and run as many off-case positions as they want. That doesn't mean I won't vote on condo though, the aff just needs to have an argument explaining why this model of the game is bad for debate as a whole.

On Case: The only real arguments for me for the on case are purely solvency based ones. Lately, I have been finding it very hard for me to vote for a negative team with no offense and their sole argument being that the case doesn't solve. If worst case scenario for passing the aff is simply that it doesn't solve while best case scenario is gaining X and Y impacts, then I'm gonna feel pretty comfortable voting aff. For me, solvency deficits mainly help you win your probability arguments on impact calc. Besides solvency, I think that case turns are very useful as on case arguments as well. Overall, solvency arguments can be effective, but offense is also needed as well in order to gain my ballot.

Speed: I'm cool with spreading or going as fast as you want as long as you're clear and slower on tags, authors, analytical arguments, and theory. I expect for debaters to slow down a bit if they are reading from a pre made block on their computer. That being said, I don't expect perfect clarity with spreading but I want at least to understand it somewhat so it's not just straight gibberish.

Speaks: I decide speaks based upon argumentation not necessarily presentation. Obviously some speaking ability is factored in, but I’ve gotta be fair to the 1As out there.

Nikola Helixon

Assistant Coach @ BVSW

Chain: helixon.niko@gmail.com

"Using cross-ex as prep" is not a thing that exists. I will not let you do that.

I don't know as much about the economy as you do.

I am very close to just saying everyone needs to debate slow in front of me. Clarity and efficiency matter. I will not clear you. There are some debaters who can be both very fast and clear. You are probably not that debater.

• I won't vote for arguments about a persons worth, or some drama between high school students. I don't think high school students should be coached to attack the quality of another person for the sake of winning a debate round and find it odd that an adult would insert themselves into the lives of high school kids in that way.
• If you only read from your computers, don't look at your flows, have the debate scripted from the first speech, you will get bad speaks. We spend a lot of time getting to tournaments, prepping, sacrificing time doing other things we enjoy. If debate is just a block reading contest, we could save a lot more time not going to tournaments and just submitting speech documents.

Important

Probably fine for everything. Most used to Policy AFF v. K and K AFF v. FW debates.

• I dislike overuse of buzzwords, monologues, jargon. I don't do anything related to debate over the summer. I don't really do research on the topic during the year either.
• Overviews should not exist. Put your arguments on the flow.

I don't like to read evidence when making a decision. I will if I feel I need to. I don't want a card doc.

- Be clear: Slow down and be clear, debate is a communication and persuasion activity.

• Ending rebuttals: should frame my decision. Have a view of the overall round and tell me why you win.

Prep

- I've noticed a sharp increase in the amount of time between when prep ends and when you start speaking. There's very little reasons why this should take more than a minute, especially since you just have to click a button to send the document out.

- "Marked copy" does not mean "remove the cards you didn't read." You do not have to do that, and you should not ask your opponents to do that.

T vs. Planless AFFs

-Affirmatives should probably be related to the topic.

-Fairness is an intrinsic good only if debate is also good. If debate is good, usually nothing matters more than fairness. This is why I think affs that are about debate are the most strategic - otherwise it's hard to win that you get to weigh your impacts in front of me since very few non-debate critical affirmatives operate on the same plane as fairness.

Fairness still makes most sense to me as an impact to T-USFG. Most negative clash explanations end up either 1. trying to solve affirmative offense which, oftentimes, ends up being a very defensive strategy or 2. trying to solve some topic education offense which is often an uphill battle against impact turns. I think the most strategic way to go for clash is explaining it as good in and of itself, but usually that explanation ends up resembling fairness. I'm open to hearing most all impacts though.

• Subject formation is persuasive to me if it's about the activity as a whole. I don't think affs need to win subject formation to solve (I typically just vote aff if the aff is a good idea) but I do think they need to win subject formation to access a good amount of their offense. This makes switch side very persuasive to me.
• Thresholds are weird for me, I find myself being pretty hard on affirmative teams to win these debates but at the same time the amount of 2NRs I've heard that are almost purely defense makes me want to rip my hair out. If you explain your argument the best you'll win.

Ks on the Negative

• Links should be to something the AFF does. I don't think you need an alternative.

• Alternatives based in a pure intellectual nature probably just lose to the perm in a world where the affirmative wins framework. Intellectual/epistemology based alternatives should probably lead to something tangible that the perm can't solve.

Counterplans

• Competition - I'm a bit out of my depth when I hear teams trying to defend counterplans that only need to be textually competitive, so it's probably not a good idea to read these in front of me. If you do want to read them I need a great deal more explanation than you'd think, probably.

Feel free to ask if you have any other questions!

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mGleRitgQc)

I'm a former high school policy debater and current litigator - I say this because my approach to judging debate has changed over the years given my professional experience. I'm more of an in between flow/lay judge now.

General Thoughts:

-I'm generally willing to listen to whatever you want, but highly prefer/encourage debates that are topically related. I also thoroughly appreciate creativity.

- I think political arguments, e.g. Republicans in Congress won't pass the plan, are annoying. As the judge I am the legislative, executive, and judicial branch, if I sign an affirmative ballot then Congress passed the plan, etc.

- Dropped arguments are not necessarily the winning ticket for me. You still need to explain/argue the point, clash, at least once, on their arguments. Just telling me to pull the argument through is annoying - at least explain why their silence on the matter is an issue.

- Teams should explain how the different issues interact and frame an order in which I should decide.

- Keep to decorum and maintain a degree of candor with one another and me.

Ks-I am familiar with most critical literature and very much appreciate a well-constructed critique specific to the aff/topic (and dislike overly generic, bastardized, or mischaracterized arguments). Make sure to demonstrate that you actually know your argument well. I will generally not give (much) weight to arguments that are nebulous or vague at the end of the round. Thus you will need to have a specific and coherent argument, especially for the alternative and framework. Also, make sure the argument's structure is clear at the outset. Strike to the core of their argument, and show me the underlying structural issues.

Theory/T- I am unlikely to vote on a cheap-shot theory argument unless there is a compelling reason. As for T, I highly prefer topical affs, but if you have a very compelling argument about why something else is better, I'm willing to listen. However, that is not at all a guarantee that I'll buy your argument. Evidence/literature is very helpful on topicality.

CPs-I despise CPs, especially in JV and Open. I think they are used as cheap shots to catch inexperienced teams off-guard. I will NOT vote for these.

Ultimately, I'm approaching your round with few preconceived notions and expect you to give me well-structured arguments.

Hello, I'm Pratik Home, a volunteer judge at Shawnee Mission East. I do have a grasp on this topic, however, please take the time to explain to me what it is you are talking about, as I am new to judging policy debate. (don't throw in acronyms/abbreviations without telling me what they stand for) Here are some preferences I have for rounds:

1. Please, no spreading. Take the time to slow down and explain your arguments to me: simply talking fast will not win you my ballot.

2. AFF: Convince me why your plan outweighs the status quo. Also, please do not bring up new arguments in the 2AC; I will not consider these arguments when voting.

3. DAs: I'm fine with DAs, just be sure to explain uniqueness, give me a link story, and present the impacts.

4. CPs: Mutually exclusive CPs are great, just be sure to explain very thoroughly why it is mutually exclusive. Plan Inclusive CPs are a bit harder for me to get my head around.

5. Ks: If you run a K be prepared to explain it without using limited debate terminology. That being said, be sure to provide a link, impact, alternative, and well explained framework.

6. Theory: Topicality is great! Be sure to explain the different parts of it to me in simple terms though. As for other theory arguments, be prepared to thoroughly explain them so that I can understand.

7. General: Any "New in the Two" arguments I notice will not be factored into my decision. Any offensive or hateful language will also cost you the ballot. All in all, have fun!

1. Hello, I'm Trisha Sengupta, a first time volunteer judge at Shawnee Mission East. I do have a grasp on this topic, however, please take the time to explain to me what it is you are talking about, as I am new to judging policy debate. (don't throw in acronyms/abbreviations without telling me what they stand for) Here are some preferences I have for rounds:

   1. Please, no spreading. Take the time to slow down and explain your arguments to me: simply talking fast will not win you my ballot.

   2. AFF: Convince me why your plan outweighs the status quo. Also, please do not bring up new arguments in the 2AC; I will not consider these arguments when voting.

   3. DAs: I'm fine with DAs, just be sure to explain uniqueness, give me a link story, and present the impacts.

   4. CPs: Mutually exclusive CPs are great, just be sure to explain very thoroughly why it is mutually exclusive. Plan Inclusive CPs are a bit harder for me to get my head around.

   5. Ks: If you run a K be prepared to explain it without using limited debate terminology. That being said, be sure to provide a link, impact, alternative, and well explained framework.

   6. Theory: not familiar with theory arguments

   7. General: Any offensive or hateful language will also cost you the ballot. All in all, have fun!

Judge philosophy Todd Jordan
Debate Experience: Debated in high school and college, coached college debate and was an instructor at numerous high school camps. Retired for a minute, but was active from 1996-2013.
Undergraduate: University of Kansas
Coaching: University of Missouri-Kansas City, University of Texas at Dallas

General Issues: I’ll listen to about any argument. You win the arg and why it’s important then you will win the debate. As long as the argument passes my make sense test (claim, warrant, data) then it is fine. Debate how you want but always treat your opponents with respect. A word on evidence quality- your evidence has to say what you claim it says. I know this sounds simple but it occurs far less often then I would like to see. For example, tagging a card as uniqueness when it gives no indication of what direction the squo will go does not constitute evidence and does not help your argument. I have no problem assigning zero risk to an argument if I believe your evidence does not support your claim.

Topicality- My default position is that the aff needs to be topical but I tend to be more flexible for the aff in terms of what I consider T.Even if I don’t think your aff is T, once the debate starts, that is not part of my decision calculus.If the negative has a clear and specific articulation of abuse (and preferably some evidence to back it up) then T is a good option for you. If you are aff and choose to not defend/ have a non-policy defense of the topic then you are going to need to have offense specific to the negatives abuse claims. Reading a bunch of cards about putting limits on politics being bad will not suffice. You must spend time carefully developing why your advocacy is fair in the context of competitive policy debate.

Counterplans – I think conditionality is fine and consult or conditions are all legitimate counterplans. But, I have voted on conditionality bad, consult bad, conditions bad. If you are aff, then you will probably need to combine theoretical arguments in order for them to become persuasive for me. If you are negative, you should make sure your answers are tailored to the specifics of the aff’s theory argument. My default position is to reject the argument not the team unless there is a warranted argument from the aff to do otherwise. CP’s must have a net benefit (and saying we solve better than the aff is not, by itself, a net benefit). The permutation does not need a net benefit, the negative must win a DA to the perm otherwise the perm disproves the competitiveness of the CP.I know that all sounds simple and basic, but I am surprised how often I have to explain stuff like this at the end of rounds.

Kritiks- I’ve got a good feel for most of the critical literature out there. I am fine with 1nc’s that are not traditional (ie play music, show movies) so long as you make an argument against the affirmative. The alternative is a crucial to the negative winning. It will be the first thing I evaluate and if it is poorly explained I will have no problem eliminating it from my decision making. Useful hint for both sides- The question of uniqueness is woefully under discussed in critical debates. For example, if the negative says the Aff and the squo are nihilist and the affirmative stands up says the kritik alternative is nihilist then the aff has no uniqueness for that turn (and thus it cannot be offense) because the nihilism is the condition of the squo. The discussion of uniqueness is important for the both the aff and neg in critique debates and will significantly play into how I evaluate both teams arguments at the end of the round.

Framework- This has to be handled with great care by the aff and the neg. I find most framework debates become a mish mash of neg alt’s can only be policymaking/ the aff gets to weigh their case/ realism good / life always has meaning mumbo jumbo. The rolling up of a bunch of k ans under the banner of framework makes these debates convoluted and trite. Make sure you are clear about what your framework arg is and what it means for my decision making at the end. I tend to feel that the neg does not have to be a policy alt and the aff usually gets to weigh their case. But, the aff can win that the neg alt is illegit, at which point I will eliminate it from my decision making and evaluate the K as a da (unless the aff is able to win that just reading the alt warrants the neg losing, an argument which is an uphill battle with me). I will evaluate procedural framework issues in terms of competing interpretations and other framework arguments based on the evidence, discussions of uniqueness and by weighing the impacts.

Disadvantages/case debates- These are good things that should be run. The more specific to the aff the better. Keep in mind my comments above about evidence quality.I hate the phrase “more ev”, I also am not a big fan of peoples case frontlines /DA answers/ DA extensions when it is one word tags (ie Biodiversity loss inevitable 1.) pollution 2.) warming 3.) tractors etc.) I find those arguments less persuasive (and will be more lenient in what I consider to be a sufficient answer) then if there is a tag that explains the argument which is followed by a card that supports that argument.

Random notes:
This judging philosophy is just a general guide to my thinking. Anything can happen in the debate round so don’t be upset if a decision I make is not 100% consistent with your interpretation of my judging philosophy.
Nothing makes me angrier then when I find out people did something shady in pre-round prep.
Affirmatives- if you are going to read framework in the 1ac, then it should be a part of your disclosure to the negative.
Do not throw cards around after you are finished reading them and do not print while the other team is in a speech (these points are probably now irrelevant, but worth leaving in here to give you an idea of how you should conduct yourself in the round).
I will look to see if you cite your evidence properly. I may do a bunch of different things up to and including deducting speaker points for improperly cited evidence.

If both teams are paperless then I require that speech documents be given to my prior to speeches.Failure to comply is not good for you.

General
Make sure to clearly explain all of your arguments. If you use debate jargon, please explain it. Definitely don’t spread. If you spread, are racist, homophobic, transphobic, or are rude to the other team I am likely to vote for the other team.

Policy
I used to do policy in high school but I am definitely not an experienced judge. I have only judged one round before (JV).

LD
I understand the concept of LD and FW but have never judged an LD round before.

I've been coaching for 15 years in the SEK at Pittsburg HS. I've qualified teams to NSDA policy, LD, PF nats the last 12 years. Coached the 5A State Championship Policy Debate Teams in 2022.

I'm very much a traditional judge who considers myself a policymaker.

If you are neg and don't run a DA (even a generic one), don't expect a neg ballot.

CPs are great - make sure you've got a net benefit to go with it.

Ks are not great. Not a fan. Please don't run one.

T is fine if it's super untopical, but don't do it for a timesuck reason.

I don't mind theory, especially when the other team can't/doesn't answer it.

Solvency is my favorite stock issue for me.

Impact calc is a way to my heart.

On-case arguments are super fantastic.

New in the 2NC is totally fine - it is a constructive after all - but new DAs would be a hard no.

Spreading is fine, but if you can't be understood, why do it?

Road maps, line-by-lines, and crystallization are all wonderful.

Happy to answer any additional questions you have. Be nice to each other. I appreciate kind debaters.

OK— today is my first time judging, but I have done an orientation and I take my responsibilities very seriously. I have a daughter who is a junior at East and has done debate since freshman year, so I am somewhat familiar with the debate terminology, structure and strategy.

That being said, I am still a rookie. For this reason, I probably need debaters to go slower rather than faster: my brain would probably be overwhelmed by "spreading."

I will certainly be looking at your cards on the Speech Drop site as you talk.

My personal bias makes me lean a little bit toward "truth over tech" in the sense that it's hard for me to agree with arguments that I think are totally false. But I also understand that the contest here is to debate as persuasively as possible even if you have to say things like "nuclear war would be good." So, I will ultimately force myself to be "tech over truth."

I think that any "impact calculus" or "impact comparisons" that you could provide would be very helpful.

Hayden '22

KU '26

Add me to the email chain:

Smcconnell.debate@gmail.com

TLDR: I've gone for a mix of policy and critical arguments. I don't have preferences about what you read. Just do what you do well.

Speed is fine---Slow down for analytics and give some pen time

Unique strategies and in-depth explanation = Increased Speaks

Tech>Truth, but truth is a tiebreaker

Impact calc is good

LD/PF Note:

I did LD a few times in high school, but don't know too much about the event.

I've never done or judged PF, but know the basic structure.

This means I don't really have any preconceived notions about these events, so you have to explain how I evaluate certain arguments in the round.

Just debate your best and I will try to adjudicate the debate my best.

If you have any questions just ask!

Parker Mitchell

[unaffiliated]

Updated for: DSDS 2 - Feb '24 - Link to old paradigm (it's still true, but it's too much. This is a shorter version, hopefully less ranty. If you have a specific question, it's likely answered in the linked doc.)

Email: park.ben.mitchell@gmail.com

He/They/She are all fine.

General Opinions

I view debate as a strategic game with a wide range of stylistic and tactical variance. I am accepting (and appreciative of) nearly all strategies within that variance. Although I do try to avoid as much ideological bias as possible, this starting point does color how I view a few things:

First, fairness is an impact, but: Economic collapse is also an impact yet I'm willing to vote DDev, the same holds here. I view Ks and K Affs as a legitimate, but contestable, strategy for winning a ballot. In other words, I will vote for K affs and I will vote for framework and my record is fairly even.

Second, outside of egregiously offensive positions such as Racism, Sexism and Homophobia good, I have very few limitations on what I consider "acceptable" argumentation. Reading arguments on the fringes is exciting and interesting to me. However, explicit slurs (exception - when you are the one affected by that slur) and repeated problematic language is unacceptable.

Third, it affects my views on ethos. I assume most debaters don't buy in 100% to the arguments they make. This is not to say that debate "doesn't shape subjectivity," but it is to say that I assume there is some distance between your words and your being. In other words: There is a distant yet extant relationship between ontology and epistemology.

I find I have an above average stylistic bias to teams that embrace this concept. In other words, teams that aggressively posture (unless they are particularly good and precise about it) tend to alienate me and teams that appear somewhat disaffected tend to have my attention. This is not absolute or inevitable. This operates on the ethos and style level and not on the substance/argumentative level.

Fourth, I will attempt to take very precise notes. My handwriting is awful, but I can read it. I will flow on paper. I will flow straight down and I will not use multiple sheets for one argument (I'm talking Ks too, this isn't parli). I will not follow along with the doc. I will say "clear" if you are unclear during evidence, but not during analytics, that's a you problem. Clarity means I can distinguish each word in the text of the evidence. Cards that continue to be unclear after reminders will be struck from my flow. I flow CX on paper but will stop when the timer does. I will not listen during flex prep, I don't care if you take it.

Experience

13 years of experience in debate. I'm currently working in the legal technology world, not teaching or coaching for the moment. I have been volunteering to assist for Wichita East in a very limited capacity this year, while judging for SME on occasion.

Formerly: 6 years assisting at Shawnee Mission East (KS, 2015-2021), 2 years as Director of Debate and Forensics at Wichita East (KS, 2021-2023). 4 years as a debater for Shawnee Mission East (KS, 2010-2015), 5 years for the University of Missouri-Kansas City (MO - NDT/CEDA, 2015-2020). I have worked intermittently with DEBATE-Kansas City (DKC, MO/KS), Asian Debate League (aka. ADL, Chinese Taipei, 2019-2021), Truman (MO, 2021) and Turner (KS, 2019). 2 years leading labs at UMKC-SDI.

Topic Experience (HS)

19 rounds. Did not coach at a camp and I am not actively coaching, so my experience is middling. I think I have decent familiarity with the topic concepts due to personal interest and participation in past topics, but I'm not exactly up to date. I think my knowledge is rather limited on social security affirmatives. I feel that most teams are broadly misinterpreting the topic and that topicality is quite a good option against most affirmatives.

Topic Experience (College):

Basically 0. I know some NFU stuff from the prez powers topic.

Topic Specific Notes

This is a rant that you should probably take with a grain of salt pre-debate or during prefs, I just think aff strategic choice has suffered this year and can improve.

Outside of K affs, I've been thoroughly unimpressed by most affirmatives on the topic. I think they are largely vulnerable to some easy negative argumentation. I do not think this is because the topic is "biased," but because affirmative teams have been simultaneously uncreative and, when creative, counterproductive. I think the best way of reading a plan aff is by digging in your heels in the topic area and strongly defending redistribution. I think the ways of skirting around to initiate other plan based debates often introduce far more significant strategic issues for the aff than they solve. There seems to be this presumption that winning a dense econ debate is impossible so you have to find a different topic, which to me is both dangerous and lazy. I have actually 0 problem with being lazy, only with the fact that these alternative topics seem to be way worse for the aff than the existing one. See the following paragraph for my earlier rant about this that illustrates one example, however it is not the only example I have seen:

If you read the carbon tax aff - cool, it's not like I'm auto-dropping you but my god, this cannot be the biggest aff on the topic. I'm not sure I've ever seen the biggest aff on the topic stumble into so many (irrelevant and non-topic germane!) weaknesses while revealing so few strengths. Have we all forgotten about basic debate strategy? Trust me, no one is forcing you to read a warming advantage and lose! At some point, this is your own fault. Typically on climate topics judges are prone to give a little leeway to the aff on timeframe just so the topic is debatable - but make no mistake - you will not get that leeway here.

Argument Specific Notes

T - my favorite. Competing interps are best. Precision is less important than debate-ability. "T-USFG" will be flowed as "T-Framework." No "but"s. It's an essential neg strat, but I'm equally willing to evaluate impact turns to framework.

CPs - Condo and "cheating" counterplans are good, unless you win they're bad. Affs should be more offensive on CP theory and focus less on competition minutiae. Don't overthink it.

DAs - low risk of a link = low risk of my ballot. Be careful with these if your case defense/cp isn't great, you can easily be crushed by a good 2AR. I find I have sat or been close to in certain situations where the disad was particularly bad, even if the answers were mostly defense.

Ks - I feel very comfortable in K debates and I think these are where I give the most comments. Recently, I've noticed some K teams shrink away from the strongest version of their argument to hide within the realm of uncertainty. I think this is a mistake. (sidenote - "they answered the wrong argument" is not a "pathologization link", but don't worry, you're probably ahead) (other sidenote - everyone needs a reminder of what "ontology" means)

Etc - My exact speaks thoughts are in the old paradigm, but a sidenote that is relevant for argumentation: my decision is solely based on arguments in the debate (rfd), my speaks arise from the feedback section of my ballot - I will not disclose speaks and I won't give specific speaks based on argument ("don't drop the team, tank my speaks instead" "give us 30s for [insert reason]") I'm much more concerned with your performance in the debate for speaks, argumentation only has a direct impact on my vote and not other parts of my ballot.

****************************************************

that should be all you need before a debate. there are more things in the doc linked at the top including opinions on speaks, disclosure, ethics as well as appendices for online debates and other events.

Matthew Moore

Judge Philosophy- Update Oct 23

I am no longer actively coaching debate so if I am judging you it was because someone really needed a judge. I was involved in college policy debate for over 20 years. I was the Director of Debate at the University of Central Oklahoma until May 2022.

Do the style of debate that suits you best and you are best at. Traditional/non-traditional/K/performance/whatever, do your best. Make arguments, impact them, explain to me as a judge why your arguments should win.

The only argument I will not be open minded to on the high school level is disclosure theory. If you run it in front of me, even as a throw away, you are risking losing my ballot and a lot of speaker points. It is ok to make they did not disclose anything as part of a larger theory argument, but if you think that the other team failing to disclose to the level of your liking is a reason you should win the round, then you are doing debate wrong. Seriously, just stop.

Important questions:

Will you vote on framework? Yes

Will you vote for an aff that is not topical against framework? Yes

I am about 50/50 in these debates because I leave it up to the debaters. The aff usually wins these debates when they have substantive impact turns to the framework impacts. The neg usually wins when a topical version can access most of the aff’s offense. For affs: T version of the aff does not solve is not very persuasive to me when the solvency argument is functionally it does not solve as well as the aff.

Neg goes for a K versus a policy aff:

At the ’16 Texas tournament, negs going for K’s versus policy affs were 3-0 in front of me. Why? The aff only said weigh the aff, it is true, and then had no substantive answer to the K beyond the aff impacts. You should have offense to the alt that is not just the aff.

Theory:

After hearing multiple rounds where the 2AR goes for conditionality bad and not voting on it once, it is highly probable that affs will not win on condo bad in front of me. Not impossible, just highly improbable. This is especially true is the argument is less than five seconds in the 2AC, 30 seconds in the 1AR, and then six minutes in the 2AR. If you think the neg is cheating, tailor specific theory arguments to the situation (i.e. this conditional pic is uniquely bad). That will be more persuasive to me and garner you better points than "Condo is bad, strategy skew and time skew voter for fairness." I will not vote on perm theory. The aff shouldn’t lose for making a perm no matter how bad it is. The more a counterplan/alt cheats, the more lenient I am to theory arguments against it. Cheating is a relative term here, but affs that can demonstrate the cheating in concrete terms will win my sympathy. You should make the arguments.

Misc:

·The aff can win there is no link to the DA if they win their link turns. Uniqueness does not make the link magically only go in one direction.

·Paperless sharing of speech documents is not an excuse for being unclear. Presentation matters for points.

·For K Debaters- saying the aff results in violent interventions like NATO missions in Libya is not an impact. At best you have an intervention internal link to something else, not a terminal impact.

· Speaker Points - I tend to adjust my scale at the tournament using the points I have given in previous rounds as a guide for future debates. Be professional and respectful to each other. Shut up during the other team’s speeches. I will be pretty honest with you after rounds about what I thought was rude/not professional and what was good. These things really do impact your points.

Don’t read to much into subtle nonverbal cues from me. I have had multiple rounds where I ask a team why didn’t you go for X and they will respond with you looked like you did not like the argument. Judging can be a miserable and uncomfortable experience, usually that look of disgust on my face is the result of a weekend of bad food, lack of sleep, and being stuck in an uncomfortable chair for hours at a time hunched over. I will do my best to make any nonverbal communication that may matter obvious. If I am grimacing because I do not like your argument, that is up to the other team to call out.

I generally adhere to a Stock Issues paradigm. I prefer on-case arguments, which I believe are most likely to result in a well-developed, back-and-forth debate between the teams. I typically dislike most Kritiks but will listen (if I have to) – though many often feel like a game a team plays when it doesn’t know how to argue on-case. I want roadmaps and signposts. If arguments get dropped, call them out. If you aren’t paying attention, don’t expect me to for you. In other words, it’s your job to tell me why to vote for you. But do so accurately and truthfully. Do not lie.

I was a high school debater in the days we pulled around big tubs of files. Cards were actual cards. I will use Casedrop but don't assume that I am reading your cards. And if you don't read them, I won't consider them. I flow, and while I can handle some speed, you may need to slow your speech if you notice that I’m not following. If I can’t hear the arguments you make, I can’t understand them, and I can’t vote for them. Please be courteous and professional.

I’ve been an attorney for nearly two decades. Debate played a critical role in preparing me for my future profession, and honestly, it’s just a lot of fun. Enjoy yourselves!

I was a high school debate competitor for 2 years.

I am a lay judge.

Focus on analytics.

We need to speak at a speed that I can understand.

I prefer speech drop. My email filter is likely to screen out unfamiliar email addresses.

I am a former high school debater and practicing attorney. While I am a detailed flow, my pen-speed is unlikely to be able to keep up with national circuit top-tier speed. I recommend that the fastest debaters slow down to about a six on a ten-point speed scale. If I can't hear the argument, I won't flow it, even if it’s on the speech doc. Some debaters tend to ignore this request and spread at uncomfortable levels for me. I encourage you not to do so.

Substantively, there are no absolute deal-breakers for me, but I do have some commitments from which I will depart only if compelled to do so by cogent and persuasive (or unrefuted) argument: cases should be topical (unless you present compelling reasons why they need not be); teams should engage in productive clash; and debaters must operate in good faith. If I'm not successfully placed in a paradigm in-round, I will default to a hybrid policy-maker/rules framework. Aff must present a prima facie case in 1AC. I'll vote on T--readily--but neg must understand their argument and win the battle on definition/interp. Note that I tend to view T as a prima facie obligation. Aff, you should know that this means I tend to view it as a priori/jurisdictional, so if Neg wins the battle on this issue, i don't evaluate the rest of the Aff. Otherwise, I will assess the round as a test of policy. Does case identify a problem that needs to be solved? Does the plan solve for it? Does it do so without disadvantages that outweigh its advantages? In other words, the old-timey stock issues matter to me (unless you convince me they shouldn't). Clash = good; analysis = good; impact calculus = critical. Also, I really appreciate a good case debate--too few negs challenge case.

Tech stuff: If the debate descends into a tech fight, then you're going to have to slow way down and explain why I should vote for you. I also tend to be a dinosaur on "offense and defense" nuances. For example, I believe neg can win on defense alone, so if your arguments descend into "no offense, they lose" claims, I may not fully follow you and you may be disappointed in the ballot. Explanation and analysis > jargon and "gotcha."

Counterplans. I would prefer to see a debate focused on a topical plan. If you choose to read a CP, I'll entertain the argument, but will listen to Aff's perm claims and expect you to clash on that point. Note that I believe counterplans must be non-topical. I also won't go looking for the net-benefit (or mutual exclusivity); Neg must explain this to me in detail.

Kritik. I prefer clash on policy issues over attacks at the level of worldview or axiom, but its your round, and I understand that Kritik has some value in training high school students to analyze at the meta-level. So I'll hear you out (provided you explain the lit), but I'll also entertain counter-arguments with equal and perhaps more earnest ears. If you choose to run a K, you must explain it in detail and offer a clear, and compelling, Alt. I disfavor K Affs; I believe your job as the affirmative is to represent the resolution. K advocates must win on role-of-the-judge/rule-of-the-ballot; I'm sufficiently self-aware to know that, as a default policy guy, that's hard to do with me.

I approach debate with an open mind and a commitment to fairness and objectivity. While I don't impose a rigid ideological or philosophical framework on debates, there are certain aspects of debate that I prioritize when making my decisions:

1. Clarity and Organization: I highly value clear and organized argumentation. Debaters should structure their speeches logically and provide explicit signposts to help me follow their arguments easily.
2. Evidence and Logic: Sound logic and well-supported arguments are essential. I expect debaters to cite credible sources and provide robust reasoning to bolster their claims.
3. Debate Decorum: I expect respectful and professional conduct from all participants. Debaters should engage in substantive exchanges and avoid personal attacks or disrespectful language.
4. Adaptability: While I appreciate debaters who are well-prepared and articulate, I also value adaptability. Being able to respond effectively to an opponent's arguments and adjust one's strategy in real time can be a significant asset.
5. Resolution Analysis: I encourage debaters to engage deeply with the resolution, examining its nuances and implications. This includes considering the broader context and real-world implications of their arguments.

General Overview

My political views trend liberal with a smattering of libertarian thrown in. But do I try hard to be aware of my own biases, and counter them when evaluating policies and arguments.

I will intervene on the ballot if I think you are being rude, sexist, racist, or deplorable to your opponents or partner. I've sat with too many kids in tears because of how they were treated in a round. I will not accept it, nor will I enable it. Play nice.

I am not a particularly fast flow; if you go too fast you will lose me - especially your analytics. If I don't write it down, you didn't say it. My suggestion is that you start at 3/4 speed and watch my non-verbals. (Yes, I still believe a speaker should at least occasionally make eye contact with the audience.) I will not tell you to slow down, but if you think I should be writing and I am not, you have probably lost me.

In Policy Debate, I default policy maker. I default to probability over magnitude in most impact debates. (e.g. Russia invaded Ukraine, and no nukes have been used. But the trauma and destruction are still real and awful, and are a compelling reason to make policy.)

I will vote on topicality if the Aff is not at least reasonably topical, and the Neg wins the argument.

I have a rather high threshold for voting on kritiks that are not intuitively linked to the topic. (e.g. on the 2023-2024 topic, Cap K seems intuitively linked, Spinoza and Confucius do not) Very few policy decisions based solely on the views of dead philosophers have been successful. Having said that, I'm willing to listen to a kritik, and have voted for a number of them. Just keep in mind, my policy maker lens is difficult for me to put down here, so you better be able to tell me how your advocacy can actually solve something. In a K v K debate, this still applies - you need to prove you actually solve something.

When deciding a round, I begin with the arguments in the 2NR and 2AR. Those will be my primary concerns, as those should be the the salient points for each team if they made good choices. Make sure in those speeches to explain clearly how the positions interact, and why you believe I should vote for you.

Extend your key arguments through the debate - it is a good habit to form. Failing that, evidence read in the first constructive that is not contradicted by the opponent does still exist in my understanding of the round, even if not explicitly extended. I will presume if there is no argument against, the opponent is willing to stipulate its truth, at least temporarily. Making reference to it in rebuttals is still legit, but only if the other side has not argued it. If you don't want the argument/evidence to carry through, make an argument.

In Lincoln Douglas, I will focus primarily on the Value and Criterion debates. I believe this is where LD should differ from policy and PF debate. Policy implications are only important to me if the topic specifically calls for it. But keep in mind, I will be looking closely at how those implications interact with the value and criterion you establish.

Hello, my name is Natalie Rigdon and I have been apart of forensics and debate since 2015 and have a bachelors degree in Communication Education.

I tend to be more of a policymaker when it comes to debate, I need to see solutions. Both teams should be aware that I am not a fan of spreading (so don't spread), K's, or anything having to do with theories, just keep it to the point. I do enjoy a CP!

The whole reason of the debate round is for both teams to be challenged academically and intellectually, use your prep! Analytical arguments are fine, they need to have substantial reasoning behind them if I vote on them. DA's are a must, and honestly if you don't run one on NEG, it goes to AFF. AFF is also responsible for having the answers, so if AFF can't reply, at any point, I see it as a flow to the NEG.

Keep your cool, frustrations are bound to happen, just remember to breathe and go debate!

Email chain: lfsdebate@gmail.com

Who Am I: I debated four years at Field Kindley High School in Coffeyville, KS, did not debate in college, and have been an assistant coach at Lawrence Free State High School in Lawrence, KS since 2013. I have a Master's degree in International Relations.

General Approach: Tell me what I should be voting on and why. If you want me to evaluate the round differently than they do, then you need to win a reason why your framework or paradigm is the one that I should use. If no one does that, then I'll default to a policymaker paradigm. I don't view offense and defense as an either/or proposition, but if you do then I prefer offense.

Standard Operating Procedure: (How I will evaluate the round unless one of the teams wins that I should do something different) The affirmative has a non-severable duty to advocate something resolutional, and that advocacy must be clear and stable. The goal of the negative is to prove that the affirmative's advocacy is undesirable, worse than a competitive alternative, or theoretically invalid. I default to evaluating all non-theory arguments on a single plane, am much more willing to reject an argument than a team, and will almost always treat dropped arguments as true.

Mechanics: (I'm not going to decide the round on these things by themselves, but they undeniably affect my ability to evaluate it)

• Signposting - Please do this as much as possible. I'm not just talking about giving a roadmap at the start of each speech or which piece of paper you're talking about during the speech, but where on the line-by-line you are and what you're doing (i.e. if you read a turn, call it a turn).
• Overviews - These are helpful for establishing your story on that argument, but generally tend to go on too long for me and seem to have become a substitute for specific line-by-line work, clash, and warrant extension. I view these other items as more productive/valuable ways to spend your time.
• Delivery - I care way more about clarity than speed; I have yet to hear anybody who I thought was clear enough and too fast. I'll say "clear" if you ask me to, but ultimately the burden is on you. Slowing down and enunciating for tags and analytics makes it more likely that I'll get everything.
• Cross Examination - Be polite. Make your point or get an answer, then move on. Don't use cross-ex to make arguments.
• Prep Time - I don't think prep should stop until the flash drive comes out of your computer or the email is sent, but I won't police prep as long as both teams are reasonable.

Argumentation: (I'll probably be fine with whatever you want to do, and you shouldn't feel the need to fundamentally change your strategy for me. These are preferences, not rules.)

• Case - I prefer that you do case work in general, and think that it's under-utilized for impact calc.  Internal links matter.
• CPs/DAs - I prefer specific solvency and link cards (I'm sure you do, too), but generics are fine provided you do the work.
• Framework - I prefer that framework gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
• Kritiks - I prefer that there is an alternative, and that you either go for it or do the work to explain why you win anyway. "Reject the Aff." isn't an alternative, it's what I do if I agree with the alternative. I don't get real excited about links of omission, so some narrative work will help you here.
• Performance - I prefer that you identify the function of the ballot as clearly and as early as possible.
• Procedurals - I prefer that they be structured and that you identify how the round was affected or altered by what the other team did or didn't do.
• Theory - I prefer that theory gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
• Topicality - I prefer that teams articulate how/why their interpretation is better for debate from a holistic perspective. TVAs and/or case lists are good. My least favorite way to start an RFD is, "So, I think the Aff. is topical, but also you're losing topicality."

Miscellaneous: (These things matter enough that I made a specific section for them, and will definitely be on my mind during the round.)

• I'm not planning to judge kick for you, but have no problem doing so if that instruction is in the debate.  The Aff. can object, of course.
• Anybody can read cards, good analysis and strategic decision-making are harder to do and frequently more valuable.
• Individual pages on the flow do not exist in a vacuum, and what is happening on one almost certainly affects what is happening on another.
• Comparative impact calculus. Again, comparative impact calculus.
• You may not actually be winning every argument in the round; acknowledging this in your analysis and telling me why you win anyway is a good thing.
• Winning an argument is not the same thing as winning the round on an argument. If you want to win the round on an argument you've won or are winning, take the time to win the round on it.
• The 2NR and 2AR are for making choices, you only have to win the round once.
• I will read along during speeches and will likely double back to look at cards again, but I don't like being asked to read evidence and decide for myself. If they're reading problematic evidence, yours is substantively better, etc., then do that work in the debate.

Zen: (Just my thoughts, they don't necessarily mean anything except that I thought them.)

• Debate is a speaking game, where teams must construct logically sound, valid arguments to defend, while challenging the same effort from their opponents.
• It's better to be more right than the other team than more clever.
• A round is just a collection of individual decisions. If you make the right decisions more often than not, then you'll win more times than you lose.

I'll be happy to answer any questions.

My name is Andy Snyder and I have been a practicing attorney for twenty years in and out of the court room. Because I have a minimum of recent debate experience, I would appreciate a minimum of jargon. I understand time is short, but please slow down when speaking. I tend to favor empirical and objective arguments over emotional speeches. I look forward to hearing all of your arguments!

I debated for 3 years @ Washburn Rural
I debated for 4 years @ Emporia State (NDT '08)
I am the Director of Debate at Lawrence Free State HS (7th year at FS, 15th year as a head coach, 23rd year in Policy Debate)

*Please add me to the email chain if one exists: kmikethompson@gmail.com

tl;dr

I will do my best to answer any questions that you have before the debate.

-I don't care how fast you talk, but I do care how clear you talk. I'm unlikely to clear you but it will be obvious if I can't understand you because I won't be flowing and I communicate non-verbally probably more than most other judges. This is particularly relevant in online debate.

-I don't care what arguments you read, but I do care whether you are making arguments, responding to opposition arguments, and engaging in impact calculus (your arg v their arg, not just your arg) throughout the debate.

-I don't care what aff you read, if you defend a plan, or if you debate on the margins of the topic, but I do care if you have offensive justifications for your decisions, and if you solve.

-If you're reading generic link arguments or CP solvency cards - it will matter a great deal how well you can contextual that generic evidence to the specific affirmative plan.

-I think teams should be willing to go for theory more.

Some top level thoughts:

1) "New in the 2" is bad for debate. Barring an affirmative theoretical objection - I'll evaluate you arguments and not intervene despite my bias. But, if the other team makes an argument about it - I will disregard all new positions read in the negative block.

2) Neg ground on this topic is not very good. I'm sympathetic to the negative on theoretical objections of counterplans as a result.

3) If you're flowing the speech doc and not the speech itself you deserve to be conned in to answering arguments that were never made in the debate, and to lose to analytic arguments (theory and otherwise) that were made while you were busy staring at your screen.

4) People should assume their opponent's are winning some arguments in the last rebuttals. A decision to assume you're winning everything nearly guarantees that you are incorrect and minimizes the likelihood that you're doing relevant impact calculus. I really think "even-if" statements are valuable for final rebutalists.

-My speaker point scale has tended to be:

29+ - you should be in elimination debates at this tournament, and probably win one or more of those rounds

28.5 - you are competing for a spot to clear but still making errors that may prevent you from doing so. Average for the division/tournament.

28 - you are slightly below average for the division/tournament and need to spend some time on the fundamentals. Hopefully, I've outlined in my notes what those are.

27.5 - there were serious fundamental errors that need to be corrected.

Topicality- I really enjoy T debates, I think competing interpretations is probably true and find reasonability arguments to be uncompelling almost always. That said, this topic is kinda awful for T debates. If you're not topical you should have an offensive reason that you're not. If you are topical then you should win why your vision of the resolution is superior to the negatives.

Critiques- K debaters tend to spend an extraordinary amount of time on their link arguments, but no time on explaining how the alternative resolves them. Affirmatives tend to concede K tricks too often.

Counterplans - I like smart, aff specific counter plans more than generic, topic type counter plans.

Critical affs - I'm fine with K affs and deployed them often as a debater. I find it difficult to evaluate k affs with poorly developed "role of the ballot" args. I find "topical version of the aff" to be compelling regularly, because affs concede this argument. I have been more on the "defend topical action" side of the framework debate in the last two years or so. I'm not sure why, but poorly executed affirmative offense seems to be the primary cause.

Updated 10/20/23

(If you have any questions about anything below, please feel free to ask me before the round).

Please note that I have not judged a lot of rounds on the fiscal redistribution topic. So please be thoughtful about your use of acronyms or technical terms without definitions. Thanks!

Please add me to the email chain - andrew dot vanderlaan @ gmail dot com - or provide me with the code for the SpeechDrop room.

I debated for four years on the national circuit in high school, and more recently I’ve been judging a handful of round every year on and off since 2012.

As much as possible, I try to be a tabula rasa judge; my goal is to be as open-minded as possible, and maximize ground for the debaters. I am open to on case arguments and off case positions including disads, T, counterplans, and kritiks, and I have cast ballots based on each of those arguments. Debaters are also welcome to argue what my judging philosophy should be - stock issue, policymaker, game player, etc.

Having said that, we all have biases. Here are mine:

1. Clash is the MOST important aspect of a policy debate round. The hardest rounds to judge (and the most boring!) are those in which one team dumps a block of cards, and the other team groups them and reads a response block. I much prefer debates about evidence quality and relevance, close textual analysis of a key card, and smart framing of how the cards interact and how I should weigh them.

2. I can flow, and it is unusual (though not impossible) for me to be spread out of a round. I will not yell clear, but I will put my pen down and stop flowing. Speed over clarity is not effective communication.

3. Theory is a really interesting part of debate, and I’d like to hear your arguments. Please don’t blip through your T standards, K framework and theory, and CP perms; give these arguments the time they deserve. I am 20+ years removed from my high school debate career, and I'm not on the cutting edge of the latest debate arguments. If your argument is new and fancy, please take the time to explain it. I didn't debate K's myself, so that's probably where I need the most guidance on particularly esoteric arguments. And you should always assume I don't know the literature underlying your K.

5. The crucial parts of any disad debate are the link and uniqueness, focusing your efforts here will pay off (true for either team).

6. If you don’t argue to shift my paradigm, I’ll default to a policymaker and weigh advantages vs. disadvantages of the arguments in the round.

7. I rarely read evidence before casting my ballot; evidence really matters, but I need you to be able to make good arguments with your cards. I can recall asking for a card only once, when the entire round collapsed to one crucial card and each team offered a radically different interpretation of what the evidence said. (And if you ask me to read a card, I will.)

8. Passion and competitiveness are important, and so are civility and respect. Please treat the other team well, there's no faster way to lose speaks and possibly even the round.

Thanks for reading, and have fun!

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

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

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

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

I'd like to be added to the email chain mwoodcock692@gmail.com

(he/him)

email chain >> speech drop

Experience:

Debating:

I debated at Lansing High School for 4 years

Debated two years at KU (alliances and antitrust)

Coaching:

Lansing (2020-2022)

Shawnee Mission South (current) :)

Top Level -

1. Tech over truth, the only scenario in which I may look towards truth rather than tech is as a means to break a tie in portions of debates that are extremely difficult to resolve (i.e. lack of clash)

2. Don’t let anything said in this paradigm discourage you from reading/going for any argument, the best debates are ones where people have devoted ample time in researching the argumentative positions they read. I enjoy debate and will put my best effort into my decision because of the ample work that debaters put into the activity should be seen and rewarded as such, which I believe requires judges to do the same.

3. If any arguments that are homophobic, racist, and etc. are presented you will lose the debate and be rewarded the least amount of speaks as possible. This also includes any other way that you may make the debate space less safe for people.

4. Taking CX as prep will be rewarded with lower speaks.

5. JUDGE INSTRUCTION! If you think that a portion of the debate should be the deciding factor, then tell me why that is and how I should evaluate it. The more judge instruction that you do, then the more happy you are to be with the decision I give.

Topicality -

I default to competing interpretations, if you believe I should evaluate this differently, then tell me to do so. Some big things that matter to me here is that I think both teams should have a robust explanation of what they think the topic should look like. I find limits to be more compelling than a loss of ground as internal links to the impacts that you are going for.

Impact comparison is still important here, like why does fairness outweigh education or the impacts that your opponents are going for. If the debate takes the course where both teams are going for fairness, then this should be done at the internal link level, but regardless there needs to be more impact comparison in topicality.

I think that I am pretty relaxed with my biases as to what aff's are topical and I like to think that I reward teams who invest research into these arguments and think that teams who read aff's that are perceived to be regarded as topical to the community should be punished for lazy debating on whether their aff is topical or not.

Critical Affs –

I prefer aff's have some relationship with the topic, I also want you to tell me what and how this relationship is established. I feel pretty comfortable adjudicating these debates but also believe that the more judge instruction you give me, the happier you will be. I also think that the more offense that you generate on the fw page, then the better position you put yourself in. I think if you are reading a version of an anti-cap lit based aff, then generating this offense can be more difficult, but not impossible. The ones that I have seen on this topic feel pretty defensive on fw and I think you should invest time into creating this offense.

For the neg --- I believe there is a trend where teams are choosing to read definitions that stop at Ericson, and/or some sort of evidence that is similar to it. I don't think this puts you in a position to win your limits offense and my threshold for aff defense and offense is increasingly more compelling. So, if this is your strategy, then you need to invest time into creating a vision of the topic that is actually limiting.

The 2nr should have some discussion of case, or tell me how fw interacts with the case page and give me ample judge instruction on why it should come first. Reading positions other than just framework are more enjoyable debate to watch, but fw debates can be equally as interesting as long as there is time devoted to it and your strategy.

Disads -

Not much to say here...

I think there has been a trend towards reading the least number of cards as possible, while there may be SOME cases where those cards make all the arguments needed, I will be sympathetic to new 1ar arguments should they be extended into the block.

Link specificity and spin are what I look for and reward if it is being done. Obviously, the more specific the link the better, but good spin can go a long way.

I like and reward aff strategies that straight turn disads and/or other offense generating strategies.

Counterplans –

Counterplans can make for interesting debates. I tend to side with the neg on pics and agent counterplans. I think other competition questions are typically decided on whichever team has invested more time in their strategy revolving around competition. Furthermore, I am more than happy and comfortable in adjudicating these debates, again judge instruction is important here.

With theory debates I think I am most compelled to reject the team only in context with condo but can be persuaded with other theory arguments if you are able to impact them out well enough. I enjoy watching aff teams double-down on condo and I don’t think there is a certain number of off that makes me more/less likely to vote on the argument, just win your interpretation if this is what the debate boils down to.

Kritiks –

The more specific of a link I think the better (this goes very any argument though) whether or not this is a link to the plan or the aff's performance, link spin can also go a long way. Pulling lines from evidence and contextualizing them to your link analysis is good. I do not think there must be an alternative in order to win the debate, just make sure you are wining other arguments that justify you doing this (i.e. framework). With these debates telling me what and why x matters are very important in framing my ballot.

With permutations I think the neg has to do more than just say, “all links are disads to the perm,” make sure to explain how they operate as such, and if you are going for the perm being intrinsic and/or severance make sure to explain why and tie an impact to it. On the flip side, I think that aff teams need to do a better job at answering each individual piece of offense to win a permutation (i.e. each link, disad, or solvency question) with a net benefit.

Case -

Don’t neglect case, it never hurts to extend some sort of defense or offense no matter how miniscule it may be. I think neg teams going for k’s sometimes get away with not going to the case page, if this happens make sure to use your aff.

I don’t understand the use of framing pages. They are often things that don’t matter if the neg just wins the disad or kritik that they are going for. I think the best examples of framing pages were affs written on the immigration topic and have since not seen one that was inherently offensive rather than defensive. The same goes for pre-empts. This is not to say don’t have a fed key warrant, but rather don’t just read a bunch of thumper cards or random pieces of impact defense. In this instance you should just read another advantage.