Hello! My name is Allie Ellsworth (she/her), and if you are reading this, I am probably going to be judging you in a debate round. I am currently a fourth year debater at Olathe Northwest and I have judged for several tournaments in the past years. Here are a few of my judging preferences:

Talking speed: Do. Not. Talk. Monotone. Give me some inflection. Use the tone of your voice to show me what parts of your speech I should care about. For novices, I don't think spreading is going to be a problem. But generally, talk at a medium/fast speed.

CX: Be nice during CX!! Do not get aggressive, do not be rude to your opponent. Please let each other finish, or be polite about moving on to the next questions. You don't have to be mean to prove your point!

I'm going to be judging you on your speaking as well as the arguments being made. I will most likely join your speechdrop/email chain to look at your speech structure as well.

If you plan on using an E-mail chain please include the following email: jack.turec@gmail.com

Hello, my name is Jonathan Turec and I use They/Them pronouns. I am a 3rd-year debater at Olathe Northwest High School. I have competed in the Novice, JV, and Open divisions. I have seen most policy arguments and can follow most major CPs, K's, and DAs but you have to make sure they make sense in the scope of the debate.

Novice: The things I want to see in a novice debate are teams who are invested in and understand the debate and don't just mindlessly read off your documents. I need to be able to understand what you are saying in your speeches so please speak up and annunciate. I do factor in your behavior in round as well as the arguments you present. If you act rudely towards your opponent or your partner you will be much more likely to lose that round, so please be cordial. Furthermore, any racist, sexist, transphobic, or homophobic arguments or behavior presented will result in the debater getting the bottom speaker position and very likely result in that team losing the round.

Plan: You need to have clear and easy-to-understand plantexts to let me follow the debate and allow a fair debate for the Neg. I would prefer not to have an entire debate just on the wording of the plan as that will take away from all the impact and DA arguments. If you fail to read your plan in the 1AC I have nothing to judge the Aff case off of and will award the round to the Neg.

CX: During cross-examination, I want both the questioner and recipient to face me to allow me to hear and understand both sides of CX better, you should remain polite and cordial in your CX as well as not asking hateful or derogatory questions if it is your time for questioning. While I am fine with open CX I would prefer that you allow those who are meant to be speaking to have the majority of time in the CX.

Topicality: While I enjoy T arguments, you need to provide good reasoning for your T and make sure it makes sense. If you decide to run topicality on a case that is very clearly topical the affirmative team will have the upper hand in the debate. Overall I like T debate but make sure your T isn't too out there.

CP: If you are going to run a counter plan you need to show both how the affirmative team is wrong in enacting their plan and how your plan solves the affirmative team's impacts/advantages better. I usually enjoy counter-plan debates and will take the CP into heavy consideration when deciding the round. When it comes to perms you need to explain to me why you are perming and how perming solves the CP's issues. It would help if you also showed how perming is possible with both the Aff Plan and Neg CP.

K: It is essential that if you decide to run a K you understand the arguments and reasoning in the kritik, if on the Neg you run a Cap K or some other K and don't understand the basic reasoning and arguments of it then the Aff will get the upper hand in the round. Furthermore, you need to explicitly show how your K links to the Aff case, if you don't then it won't be considered in my RFD.

Overall the debate round will hopefully go smoothly. There should be no interruptions unless it is urgent or a technological issue. I will try to give as much feedback as possible on my ballot but if you would like more feedback please feel free to talk to me after the round so I can explain parts in depth for you.

Don't forget to have fun!!!

Good Luck Debaters!!!

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

If you bring me a monster you automatically get the 1

My name is Joseph Higgins, and I've been a debater for close to two years at Olathe Northwest.

I dislike when judges use paradigms to insert themselves into rounds, so I don't have many specific "preferences" on what you all argue. The notion that a judge should have any kind of say over what happens in a round doesn't make sense to me. But seeing as I'm judging novices, there are some things you should be doing.

-You should all be flowing. If you don't, the debate will be a lot less organized and it'll be difficult for me to make a decision.

-PLEASE clearly state which section of the flow you are speaking on. If you don't, then I won't know how to weight your arguments. It's also a good idea to section off the evidence in your speech documents into what part of the debate it references. Coming up to speak with a bunch of unordered cards makes debate really difficult. But keep in mind that I've been there and it's a lot easier for a judge to say "be organized" than for a debater to actually do it. That being said, you should keep the flow as neat and clean as you can.

-Clash is very important to me. Rounds with a lot of clash are better.

-I really like evidence analysis, and as a novice it shows that you are paying attention and thinking hard during the round.

-I like voting on more "procedural" type arguments like topicality or uniqueness. In novice rounds I don't expect theory to come up, but I'll listen to what you have to say if it does. At the end of the day, debate is a game and not a truth-finding activity. I'm more "tech" over "truth."

-One basic idea that I take into the round as a judge is that the aff has to prove that they are a better idea than the status quo. I'm voting neg until the aff convinces me that they are better. In other words, the status quo is innocent until proven guilty.

Happy debating!

Joseph Higgins

Hello, my name is Denise Hiracheta a former 4-year debater at Olathe East Sr. High School. This is my first official year judging. I have competed in Novice, JV, Open, and KDC. I also competed in Congress at local, state, and national as well.

Policy:

Novice: The thing I look for in a novice debate is not just a person reading off of their computer but someone who is invested in the debate. I will not accept any rude, racist, or derogatory behavior from any debater. If you do show any of this type of derogatory behavior it will affect your ballet negatively. Now let's move on to the content of the debate...

Inherency: What I expect out of an inherency card is not only just to state that your case is related to the status quo but to have it as the basis of your arguments. Starting your case with a minor argument makes the debate harder to keep track of. Inherency is one of the most underestimated cards in the debate and should be taken more seriously.

Plan: If you don't have a clear plan it will be hard to debate negative arguments. If the plan in context is poorly worded having an entire debate just on the wording of the plan will take away from all the impact and DA arguments. (PLEASE DO NOT FORGET TO READ YOUR PLAN IF YOU HAVE NOT READ A PLAN THERE IS NO POINT IN THE DEBATE)

Topicality: If you are going to run topicality make sure that it makes sense. If you run topicality on a case that relates to the resolution the affirmative team will have the upper hand. I don't mind a good topicality debate, as long as it makes sense and has valid arguments to go along with it.

CP: If you are going to run a counter plan make sure to have your arguments in order from - how the affirmative team is wrong to how your plan solves the affirmative teams better. I love counter-plan debates and will always consider the arguments in each. When it comes to perms explain to me why you are perming. Prove to me that both the federal government and the opposition plan can work together.

Forensics:

I competed in OO, INFO, Impromtu, and congress

What I look for in any piece is to number one have a strong presentation. It does not have to be perfect because I know sometimes it just happens but if you show me that you know your piece and that you made an effort to convey the information then that right there is what matters. The second thing I look for is the overall communication. That simply means, getting my reaction. Did you make me interested in the piece? Did you get a strong reaction out of me? Those kinda things. When it comes to the overall piece selection it would be nice to get a trigger warning before you get started because I would like to be warned if I am going to hear a piece about something dark at like 8 am. I will try to put in as much feedback as possible on the ballot some might be on paper but the majority would be online just because you have access to it faster than that of a paper ballot. If you have any questions or concerns I would be more than happy to answer them before and or after the round.

Overall:

The debate around should go smoothly and steadily with no interruptions unless it is urgent or a technological issue. I will try and give as much feedback as possible on the ballot but if you would like more feedback please feel free to talk to me after the round is over for a more one on one response.

Don't forget to have fun!!!

Good Luck Debaters!!!

My name is Cameron Linde (He/Him) and am a 4th year debater at Olathe South.

I want on the email chain or speechdrop

Email: os.clinde@gmail.com

I always look incredibly bored when I am judging, do not be offended by it.

I don't care about speed, I can deal with spreading and such, but clarity is my tiebreaker. I will not clear you.

Tech>Truth

I really cannot define what type of judge I am, but everything in my paradigm should help you figure out what type of judge I am.

I like overviews very much. Explain the story of the round, minus the 1AC/1NC.

Debate how you want to, I will take whatever you throw at me and figure out what I like. I hate it when judges control the round to the point it skews my neg strat, so I won't do it to you.

(Note: I am not very familiar with K-Aff v. K debates and might not be a great judge for it)

I Hate Disclosure Theory. If you choose to run disclosure theory, please scream and run around the room while you do it so I am at least a little bit entertained.