Last Updated---1/12/2024

Washburn Rural '26

joeljijo87@gmail.com

Topics: (NATO, Fiscal Redistribution)

Top Level

I believe that debate is a game of technical strategy and that if you debate better and make the better arguments, I believe that you should win. I believe that my likes and dislikes are irrelevant in a debate round I think that debaters should go for the argument that they usually go for. My preferences do not matter when it comes to what kind of debater you are. Just because I like a certain argument does not mean that I will 100% vote for it all the time I am generally neutral in all of them. I also believe that dropped arguments are considered true.

I believe that the debate space is open to all types of arguments but any that may be going against ethical standards should be rejected. I don't think that anything someone has done outside a debate round should ever be brought into the debate space. If it's important enough, tab should be deciding this, not me.

Tech over Truth

I believe that evidence and evidence comparison is a very underrated skill in debate. I think that more people should start making arguments about the authors and dates of each card and should be contesting the actuality of the card itself. I believe that dropped evidence is true however quality is much better than quantity.

I'm not going to reread all your cards to find warrants for you. If you want me to read things after the debate/it is important to the round, I will obviously read them. Debate takes a lot of commitment, dedication, and perseverance so I will do my best to reciprocate such commitment by adjudicating the debate to the best of my ability.

Ideological opposition to arguments doesn't decide who wins the debate. The bar only gets crossed if it harms other debaters or is a procedural violation of debate (clipping, miscutting evidence, etc).

I love seeing cross applications as opposition to arguments on different pages. The way to beat faster and more technical teams is to make smart cross-applications and concessions.

I do not want to hear a prepped out ethics violation. Tell the team before the round.

You can insert evidence although you will have to explain it. This is not a robot activity, this is a communication activity. That means explain your rehighlighting inserts.

I will be very sad if you send a pdf document as a speech.

Argument Specific

Counterplans: Nice. Do it. Disadvantages: Nice. Do it. Topicality: Nice. Do it. Don't run T as a time skew that will result in lower speaks. That means don't run like 4 T shells and kick them all in the block. Same thing applies to vagueness and ASPEC. Kritiks: My lit base is quite narrow, this means a couple of things. 1. You will have to explain to me what is bad about the plan. 2. You will have to understand the arguments you are making. I have worked with lit such as Settler colonialism and Orientalism. I will determine who wins framework through evaluating each framework interpretation. I believe that this is the best way for me to evaluate Ks. You need to make it very clear why you win framework, just saying that the aff is an object of research will not cut it. You need to be able to explain what that means and how that implicates the affirmatives arguments.

If the K is just one of many off case positions and the block reads a bunch of new cards, the 1AR probably gets to say any new thing they want.

K Affs:

All affirmatives should endorse a departure from the status quo.

Procedural arguments like topicality come prior to the hypothetical benefits of the aff's implementation, but if there are arguments on the case that also serve as offense against the negative's interpretation, then I will weigh those against the negative's offense.

I do not like it when the 1AC says X is bad, the 1NC says X is good, and the 2AC says no link.

Many debaters do not explain switch side debate as effectively as they could. It should be offense.

Case:

Most scenarios are very construed. Logical analytical arguments can substantially mitigate them. I do not like it when the case debate in the 1NC is only impact defense.

Punish teams for reading new impacts in the 2AC and block.

Extinction means the end of the species. Most impacts do not rise to this threshold. Point it out.

"Try or die" or similar impact framing is very persuasive when executed properly. If the negative doesn't extend a counterplan or impact defense, they are likely to lose.

Zero risk is possible if your opponent has entirely dropped an argument and the implication of that argument is that the scenario is 0. However, I can be convinced that many arguments, even when dropped, do not rise to that level.

Girl just debate lol

Tarrence Byrd he/him

Please add me to the email chain:byrdtar@usd437.net

Updated 10/31/2023

2nd year, varsity debater at Washburn Rural so I am fine with speed I would prefer a slower round to be honest but it's fine if you don't. Just don't spread if the other team has asked you not to spread. Basically, don't be a jerk. I want to see teams that are kind to each other even while debating. #ChooseKindness!!!

Tell me why I should vote for you (judge instruction)

Run whatever you want I guess it depends on how you make the arguments anyway. Here are my preferences:

Ks: run them if you understand what they are talking about and if you know how to argue for the K on the note of K affs I don't really care what you do with them but if you can persuade me then you will get my ballot. Personally I am pretty interested in K affs but that's only because I want to learn more about them not because I am 100% experienced in them. Ks without alts are fine as long as you articulate the links as case turns. Please explain your K i'm not too familiar with a lot of it. Here are the ones I am mostly familiar with: Cap K and Set Col

Topicality: go for it if you think the aff is untopical as with all things if you can persuade me you will get the ballot. I will also be looking if the aff is untopical and if I find that it is, then which ever team ran T will be getting my ballot. I Love Topicality!

Counterplans: do it I love them I appreciate a good counterplan debate maybe add some theory and I will be happy. I think that advantage counterplans are fine I really like them. Don't run condo if they read literally one counterplan!

Disadvantages: love them go for it I would like to see a good disadvantage debate. Nearly all of my 2NRs are Disads!

Theory: go for it I love these especially. I love to watch good theory debates because it just is a lot of fun for me to watch and I also love going for theory when I debate.

Impact Turns: YES! I love these especially and will be very happy if you run one. I don't see these many times so it would be exciting to see one being debated.

Overall just have fun and yes i copied most of this.

Get good.

MVHS '26 2nd year debater

I'm not too strict about what you run I really couldn't care less, I'II follow along as much as possible as long as you aren't wishy washy. Stick with what you're saying and don't switch up. I'm fully a tech>truth person, whoever convinces me more is the clear winner. In my opinion, cross-examination is the best time to prove yourself, if you can't answer questions about your own case I'm not sure why you're running it. Don't stress I won't dwell over a small mistake but if you're a team you win as a team and you lose as a team both people have a part in my decision to some capacity.

K rounds- If I’m being honest, I dont love K’s they’ve never made too much sense to me but don’t let that discourage you. I would just need you to overexplain and convince me fully why I should vote for you!

Classic rounds- Like I said I don’t care what you run, just explain why your plan is best! Not much to it really. I’ll listen to any DA, CP, T, etc. But if you run T it’d be good to completely explain your violation I’m not here for the vague explanations, but overall I think T is great if you can adhere to it! I will also be flowing the rounds so make sure your speed is bareable and you’re responding to what you need to respond to! I’m willing to give verbal feedback at the end of the round if you ask, but overall have fun and stay consistent:)

I don't care if you're the worlds best debater any rude comments or discrimination to the other team immediately results in a loss. Confidence over agression. Always be civil even at the end!

I prefer speechdrop but if you wanna do email chain -> @jonestri000@usd232.org

Save Paradigm

Email: alake@tps501.org

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

Lincoln Douglas Debate

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

Policy Debate

Overall, net-benefits.

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

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

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

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

Hello, my name is Kaven and I have done High School Debate and Forensics for three years. I have been a judge for two years and have judged many different novice online tournaments.

Please either add me to the email chain or speech drop: oloughlinkaven@haydencatholic.net

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Main things:

-Please do not lie and say you said something that you didn't say, stick to what you said don't change it because you messed up. This will result in an automatic loss.

-Be respectful in the round, there is no point in being a jerk because the other team messed something up.

-I do consider cx in my decision if you trip someone up and then show that.

-I am perfectly ok with speed but if you are speaking fast then slide the doc so I can follow it easier

-Make sure that you have complete off-case positions, don't run a T with only a violation and no voters or a DA with no clear link chain, I will not vote on half-finished arguments

-Please please use all of your Cross Ex times so that your partner can get some extra prep time, I don't care if you just sit there and sing broadway show tunes just say something to keep the time going.

-Same with speeches don't ever just not give a speech go up there and say random stuff.

Topicality:

-I will vote on Topicality, I do like seeing it in a round but make sure that it is valid and real not just a time waster. I do not like watching things run just to waste the affirmative team's time, there is no point to this, and is just lazy.

-Do it if you think that the aff is not topical and that you can convince me. I think that each team should have competing interpretations and both teams argue limits, ground, fairness, etc. Don't run T if the aff is obviously topical, please.

CounterPlans:

-I do like Counterplans but if you are going to run one please make sure that you show that it is better than the affirmative plan. Make sure that you have solvency for it, as well as either an internal or net benefit so you can have some impact calculus as to why it solves better stuff than the affirmative.

K's:

-I don't prefer Kritiks, but if you choose to run one I will listen, pay attention and follow it.

On Case:

-I vote heavily on case arguments. If you are on the Affirmative side make sure to show me that your plan will solve and is worth voting on. If you are on the Negative show me how the Aff's plan won't solve and just won't work.

-Please please use judge direction throughout the round. In your rebuttals, you should be telling me what I should be voting for in the debate and why your side has won. Even if you know you lost keep trying don't just give up. Confidence goes a long way.

-This is your debate, make it all yours. Run what you want this paradigm is just what I like/prefer, you don't have to use this as a guide.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't call me judge just call me Kaven

If you have any questions ask me before the round starts or feel free to send me an email