Name: Carolina Perez-Lozano

Current Affiliation: Kansas State University

Experience: Competing in Forensics for 5 years and dabbled in Congressional debate for a year. Currently on K-State's Speech Team.

List of Types of Arguments That I Prefer to Listen to:

• Real world impacts.
• Kritical arguments. (Describe it well and explain the world of your alt.)
• Known and understand what you are reading and debating. (Be able to explain your cards.)

List of Types of Arguments That I Don't Prefer to Listen to:

• Topicality (Not a fan of it being used for a time-filler, but if ran correct it's perfectly okay to run topicality).
• Spreading to the point where not a lot of people can understand what you are saying or if you're mushing all of your words together.

Speed: A medium-fast speaking speed that is still understandable.

List of Stylistic items I like to Watch:

• Seeing clash happening during cross-x and rebuttals.
• Seeing the debater's personalities during cross-x and rebuttals.
• Impact Calc.

List of Stylistic items I don't like to Watch:

• Inconsistent and unrecognizable speed.
• Not being able to understand what is being said in this round because of volume or speed.

Non-tolerable: Any racist, sexist, homophobic, prejudice, etc. comments mentioned in the round will result to an automatic loss.

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'm Brynn --- I'm a second-year debater at SME and primarily debate open & varsity. You can address me as Brynn or judge, whatever you prefer.

I like being in the speechdrop or on the email chain --- my email's bkbettenhausen@gmail.com

I'll listen to any arguments you chose to make, but I think that the primary goal of debate should be to fully understand and explain everything you're reading. If I don't think you understand your arguments, that'll affect your speaker ranking.

I judge tech over truth --- I don't weigh any outside info in a round. I think judge instruction is super important! Tell me why to value your arguments/impacts, and why I shouldn't do the same for the other team. Impact calc is also super important --- do the work, tell me why it's important.

I flow rounds and I find clash to be an essential part of rounds. I don't like it when teams just read cards at each other; give me analytics, counter the other team's arguments, and give me reasons to value them.

Please be respectful in round. I don't have an issue with swearing or having fun with the other team, but if it comes to a point in the round where you are attacking the other team itself, and not their arguments, that reflects poorly on you.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before round! I do give feedback postround, but if you have more questions, send me an email.

I am policy debater at Lawrence High School

I lean toward policy with real world impacts.

I believe that clash works best with only a small amount of evidence instead of a bunch of evidence that is only loosely related to the debate in the round. This means I am definitely in favor of analytics over just reading a bunch of cards.

I do not care much for technical arguments unless they are very well laid out.

On topicality, unless you are a grammatical wizard, have extremely well laid out reasons for why I should vote on topicality, or the aff plan is clearly untopical then I do not think topicality is worth your time.

With CPs and DAs, I like them just make sure to have well thought out arguments for the link chain. Again I like real world impacts, so medicare for all = nuclear war might be a little bit of a stretch for me without good analysis.

Also, bonus points if you can tie current politics in

In regards to Ks, I will listen to them but it all depends on the alts ability to solve. Without a strong alt I probably won't vote for the K.

Most importantly for me, don't let me catch you lying in the debate.

But overall just do mostly what you have been doing all season.

If you have any questions please ask, I love talking about myself

Add me to the email chain or share the speechdrop with me.

Email: earvin4444@gmail.com

• I'm a 3rd-year varsity debater at Olathe Northwest
• I'm good with any arguments, just make sure you correctly structure and carry out each of them
• I will be flowing the round
• I am fine with speed as long as it is comprehensible

hey! i'm adeline clifford, and i'm a 2nd year debater at sme

-add me to ur speech drop or email chain: 3092047@smsd.org

just don't be stupid plz

general:

• i like T
• you NEED good clash
• i'll believe whatever is read until it is disproven, unless its super far fetched
• (tech>truth, like 65/35)
• i'm not super familiar with Ks besides set con and cap k, but u can def run one as long as u can explain it (same thing with k-affs)

do:

• understand what you are reading
• be able to answer questions about your case
• have cards/evidence and analytics to support your points

don't:

• don't spend the whole debate arguing over insignificant details
• don't spread unless you are coherent (as long as i can understand you, then its fine)

if you read this paradigm, then play drake when you walk in the room and you'll get better speaks

good luck!

I am fine with whatever as in CPs and Ks just talk as clearly as you can and talk as fast as you are comfortable with. Don't PUSH YOURSELF TOO FAR. Make sure you have whatever clash you can to make it easier to vote for you. Be nice to each other it is all for fun so don't go for each other's throats. Remember it's a fun little game don't go crazy aggressive, talk clearly, and talk as fast as you're comfortable with. For a funny haha use malarkey in you're rebuts or just have fun with it because it's just fun and games

Hey guys!

I am a Varsity debater at Olathe Northwest. I enjoy more policy-driven debate rounds. K's are okay if you explain them well. Any other argument pretty much flies.

Be nice to each other!

Hello there! I have the privilege of serving as your judge. I hope you'll find the information below useful.

Experience: I debated for four years in high school and currently serve as the assistant debate coach for Olathe West.

What I look for in the round: Since every debate round is so different in terms of argumentative focus, I appreciate it when teams specifically tell me what I should be voting for/on. For me, the best rebuttals, regardless of the level of debate, are the ones that include specific appeals to the judge to vote a certain way.

Speed preference: I'm okay with speed as long as you are clear. I need to be able to get taglines, authors, and dates down on my flow.

Topicality: If you feel there's a pretty serious violation that is preventing you from creating adequate clash, run it.

DAs: With solid analysis, disadvantages are great.

CPs: If it's consistent with the negative strategy, go for it.

Kritiks/theory: If you run a Kritik, you better know what you are talking about. Please don't run one if you are simply just trying to throw off the other team. Moreover, if you choose to make a critical argument, please make it worth everyone's time. I tend to find debates that are dominated by abstraction and epistemology unsatisfying, especially when I get the feeling that there's little substance behind the convoluted language. That said, I can appreciate a Kritik if it highlights a flawed assumption that is specific to the language and logic of the Aff case. Specific links will go a long way with me.

Decorum: Be kind and respectful to your opponents and judges. The people that are involved in this activity do it because they enjoy it. Please don't kill that enjoyment by being rude or unkind during a round.

Misc: Debate to your strengths. The best rounds involve great clash and top-tier strategy. If you need to ignore parts of my paradigm in order to make that happen, please, be my guest.

Lastly, clarity is huge to me. Explain your evidence; explain what your argument is; explain what arguments you are countering; and explain what I, as the judge, should consider when formulating my decision.

Hello, my name is Addi. I am a second-year debater at Shawnee Mission East. I have experience debating in JV and Open.

Please be as respectful as possible. I will contact coaches if you are incredibly offensive and disrespectful towards anyone in the debate. I have a zero-tolerance policy for slurs. I'm not going to dock points for asking to shake my hand..........

I am open to discussing far-fetched concepts. I'm truth over tech. For example, if you argue about "nuke war on the brink," I will believe you unless proven otherwise. However, if you are arguing about highly improbable concepts and lack basic knowledge about what you are arguing, I will be less likely to believe you. So, please run arguments that you are knowledgeable about. Also, please respond to your opponent's arguments as the clash is crucial. If you fail to respond, I may even start crying! I like analytics and prefer human debaters over automated bots that just read from their screens without ever looking up. If you made it this far, thank you! Tell me "hello" in a different language to prove you've read this!

Hello! I'm Preston and I'm currently a second year debater at Shawnee Mission East.

If you're running a K Aff or just a K in general I expect a clear informational explanation rather than random cards being read to me at 100 miles an hour.

I hate people that spam topicality so if you're gonna run it (which is fine) just don't go overboard okay?

Theory is cool but just make sure you're applying legitimate reasoning and well thought out responses because I hate it when kids just yap and spew BS that you don't understand.

I'm good with language just nothing directed towards the other team or any groups because if you're discriminatory towards any group whatsoever I'll immediately vote for the opposing team and disregard anything that's being said from there on-out.

tech>truth

Please be mean instead of passive aggressive to the other team.

You can arm wrestle for the debate, I will vote for the winner.

If you read this paradigm, please say "Mr. Krabbs...I have an ideaaaaaaa" in your best spongebob voice before the 1AC and "And I put that on Drizzy" (and point to the sky) at the end of your 1NC speech! (I'm not joking)

3 year varsity debater at Shawnee mission south

I will flow, run any args u want, i like Ks

my email: benjamin.imhoff1@gmail.com

asra june --- she/her

3rd year varsity/dci debater at shawnee mission south

add me to the chain: asrajune.debate@gmail.com

novices:

be kind above anything else. to be transparent, i am 1000x less likely to vote for you if you're mean and belittling to the other team. novice debate is about learning the activity before anything else, there is quite literally nothing at stake. being good at novice debate doesn't give you a pass to insult two random freshmen you just met. this doesn't mean don't have swag, you should be confident in your arguments, just don't be mean.

speed is fine, just be clear.

im good w/ any argument. as much as "tech>truth" means basically nothing in this context, its the way i'll evaluate the debate. remember, truth informs tech, the less true (and warranted!) an argument is the less tech you need to beat it. i'll attempt to evaluate the debate w/ as little bias as possible, using offense/defense to determine who wins as default unless given a reason to evaluate the debate otherwise. I've done both policy and k debate, and i've been debating long enough where i'll know what you're talking about. I'm more than comfortable evaluating these debates at a novice level. that being said,

arguments need warrants. i cannot emphasize this enough. even if they dropped an important argument, you still have the burden of explaining the argument w/ warrants, and impacting out why that matters for other parts of the debate. identify what you're winning, and why that means i vote for you. doing this will win you 99% of novice debates. bonus points if you can identify what the other team is winning, and why them winning that argument doesn't matter.

do line by line. most novice debates end up a card reading contest, without making arguments about why those cards respond to the other teams argument. don't do this. you should clash with the other teams arguments! flowing in a novice debate, and using your flow to answer arguments/cards the other team reads (use what you have flowed to directly respond, i.e in a "they say [argument], no, we say [argument]" format during your speech) will win you 99% of these debates in front of me. just remember to warrant out why your argument is true. the flow is how i decide debates, so using your flow to debate aligns the way you debate with how i decide debates.

orders/roadmaps should organize my flow. the order/roadmap is not "first impact calc, and then summarizing the whole debate", because i don't have seperate flows for those things. 1NC order should always be the # of off case, and then the advantages. beyond that, the order should instead be which advantages you'll be on, and which off case arguments you'll be on. i.e "the order is the IRS DA, the States CP, then advantage one, and advantage two". if you're aff, case comes first always. if you're neg, off case should come first. offense before defense.

any questions? please ask. i'm here to help you learn, so if anything here is confusing, or doesn't make sense, just ask me. do keep in mind that my feedback will be in the context of national circuit debate, because thats what i do. if you want more lay feedback, i can give it to you, but i'm likely not paying too close attention to the things lay judges care about. i know debate can be anxiety-inducing, but we're all just here to help you learn this fantastic activity. policy debate is the hardest style of debate, and is incredibly hard to learn for everyone, you all are doing great!

he/they

email--- evekincaiddebate@gmail.com

I'm a current DHS debater! I genuinely love this activity haha

Overall: Clash is a must. Pls extend arguments. CX is binding and important. You gotta know the arguments yk. I love K debate but if the aff team is perming the alt they must actually prove it works. Advantage CPs are lame. Don't run theory if you don't understand it. Have fun! Debate is a silly game.

I will not let rude teams win and if you say some wild stuff I'll make sure to write it on the ballot and talk w coaches. :)

I’m a fourth-year debater at Lawrence High School

The goal of this activity is to have fun and learn something.

During the round, I am fine with most things as long as you can convince me that it makes sense for me to vote on it.

For AFF-

First of all, know your aff. I don’t want you reading off the 1AC and not understanding anything you’re saying.

It’s easy for a debate round to spiral down into just arguing back and forth on the Negative’s points. AFF, you NEED to remember to extend your own advantages and solvency. You will have a lot better of a change at the win if you keep telling me why you deserve my vote, not just letting that go and trying to defend against the neg.

For NEG-

Just like I said for the aff- remember to balance offense and defense. You need to poke holes in the Aff’s advantages, solvency, etc. but I have no reason to give you the vote without some sort of Disadvantage, Turn, or Counterplan (more on that in a sec).

DA’s - fine with these on the whole. If your argument makes zero sense and the Aff points this out, I will probably agree with them. You will be better off to keep your DA’s within reason. Still, crazy ones can be fun too.

CP’s - remember that your goal as the neg is to convince me to vote against the aff. My vote is NOT to decide which plan solves better. In a debate between two counterplans, I’m going to tend to lean Aff if the neg hasn’t proved that passing the aff will cause any bad effects. Cps are kill when paired with a DA or some other type thing, but make sure they don’t stand alone.

my name is claire, i am a 2nd-year debater at SME, and debate open. i will listen to all arguments, just make sure you adequately explain it or i won't vote you up on it. don't read arguments that you don't understand/don't know how to run!! the biggest thing in novice is being able to explain your arguments and defend them in CX.

i judge tech over truth, meaning in my decision i will only weigh what is brought up in the debate and won't bring in my previous knowledge on the topic. tell me why your arguments/impacts are better than the other team's and why i should vote for your's.

i do flow the rounds and clash is super important!! don't just read cards (unless it's 1AC/1NC), explain your arguments. i beg don't drop arguments.

offensive language is chill, just not pointed at the other team. don't say slurs that's not chill.

say game is game in AT LEAST one of your speeches and i will vote you up speaker points.

Noah (he/him), Varsity Debater at Lawrence Free State High School

I prefer Speechdrop but my email is 10303032@students.usd497.org

I mainly debate KDC/Open rounds (Traditional debate, slower, usually parent judges, and people usually try not to run Theory, T, or Ks), so that's what I'm most familiar with but that's just my personal preference. If there's an argument you really like you should still feel comfortable running it even if I'm less experienced with it.

Speed- Although I'll be flowing and looking at the doc, I still wouldn't recommend spreading unless you're extremely clear and articulate so I don't miss any arguments, you should go whatever speed you're comfortable with

Time- I'll likely be timing, but it's still your responsibility to keep track of your speech and prep time. Avoid stealing prep, like taking multiple minutes to "send the doc."

Please give off-time roadmaps and signpost throughout your speech.

Theory - I think most theory arguments like condo are usually stupid, so I would suggest avoiding theory unless there is a clear violation, and you articulate it well with clear voters/framing.

Ks- They arent my favorite, but you can run them if you want.

If you have any questions about anything in my paradigm, or if there's anything I missed, feel free to ask me before the round starts. You can also ask me for feedback after the round, or email me if there's not time.

hey yall :)

my name is eli (they/he)

3yr debater - free state high school '25

TL:DR

impact calc is a must, be nice, roadmaps/signpost pls, don't be a robot, i believe in you!!!

general statements

idrc about email chain or speechdrop, please just add me to it - eli.roust@gmail.com

please be nice - everyone around you (including yourself) is trying to learn

quality > quantity

please have analytics it shows me you know what's going on - cards are for constructives

use all of your time during a speech, there's always something more you can say

please give me a roadmap and signpost - i’m learning along with y’all

look at me when speaking :) i'm not super expressive but i'm still listening to you

i find it pretty cool when you can give a rebuttal off of flows only (i won't dock points if you don't i just think it makes you look more sure of yourself)

i will listen to whatever but it is your job to explain to me why your argument matters, don't expect me to do that work for you

i dont shake hands, if you and your opponents want to that's fine, but i will not

if you are rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc i will immediately vote for the other team, give you the 3 and 4, and talk to your coach - this will not be tolerated.

i believe in you and i want you to succeed. in no way am i here to harp on every little thing you screw up, i just want to see you use your brain

"be smart, have fun, and if you had to pick, choose to have fun" -LFS Debate

i will try to put as many comments as i can on the ballot, but feel free to email me with questions!

arg preferences

i do KDC debate so i can listen to you spread but i'd really rather not

AFF:

• Please do overviews of your case in EVERY speech, even if nothing else in the debate is about case, you still extend it and that's key
• Keep your advantages and solvency straight as best as possible - makes things easier for me which means I can judge better
• 1ARs are my favorite speech by far - a great one is amazing to watch/feels good after you give it
• Huge pet peeve if you don't know what your aff is about (you should know this!!)
• Don't lie in the 2AR - that's a quick route to the loss, i do flow yk

DAs:

• DAs are great. That's it. Make sure you have every part of the DA and extend each part and I'm good
• Link debates are underutilized - DA debates more often than not come down to the impact and forget about the link. you disprove the link, there is no impact to worry about

CPs:

• Ngl, I'm not a fan of CP's. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean I won't vote for one (i have in the past), it's just not an argument i like to run. This does mean that you need to really explain why the CP is important.

T:

• Easy wins: the aff is blatantly untopical, someone drops t, no defense/offense (aka the obvious things)
• If you're going for T, it should be the entire 2NR, otherwise you have not done enough work on it

Ks:

• I am not a k-debater, but I have the knowledge to understand most. I've only run a couple (militarism, Nietzsche, security, imperialism)
• Please slow down on these!!

Theory:

• If someone reads theory, no matter what it is, you have to respond
• I will vote on theory

Impact Calc:

• THIS IS A MUST
• Keep all 3 parts - timeframe, magnitude, and probability - whether or not you say those specific words doesn't matter but all 3 arguments have to be there

Judge Instruction:

• Take the assumption that I'm a parent judge who knows what the technical terms mean
• If you tell me how to vote in the debate, I'm more likely to vote for you!!

Email (if you have questions): jay.desoto.debate@gmail.com

Experience: I'm a senior on the De Soto High School debate team. I have been debating for three years and currently compete in DCI. That means in simple terms I know what debate is and you don't need to explain everything like debate terminology to me (if you don't want to). Speed at any capacity is fine but it's novice debate so assume it going to be a pretty slow debate.

Voting: I try to focus on voting on the team I feel won on their arguments and outweighing the arguments of the other team or stock issues. In order to eliminate bias within the debate but sometimes those newer arguments I have never heard before just get me. If they articulate something unlikely to be read from the novice packet I prefer it. As new arguments make a round less boring and fun to watch.

For specific arguments:

T: I love it. Especially for this topic, it's really applicable argument due to the array of funding mechanisms. I do believe you should be reading it every round.

K: I prefer different arguments within the debate like Kritics as they are underutilized in lower divisions. Therefore if you understand and can articulate them properly you should be reading them.

DA: It common argument that I will vote on but you have to win your impact is worse than trying the aff plan.

CP: I love them. Why not run have all the benefits of the plan and solve any other problem. To win on this thought you need to have good solvency for the CP otherwise, there is no reason not just to run the aff plan.

Aff's: Which topic do you pick for aff whether it be JG, UBI, or SS all seem equally advantaged in a round.

Miscellaneous: Overall it doesn't matter what you read to me as long as you understand and can correctly explain how an argument links, works, and solves. The actual debate and clash is how I vote not what affirmative or DA you decided to read at me as long as your arguments apply.

Additionally, you should end your rebuttal with why you won to explain how you should weigh the arguments and impacts. I love impact weighting and comparison of evidence to understand which team wins a debate.

Add me to the email chain (or Speech Drop ????): 10200419@students.usd497.org

Hi! I'm Kaitlynn (they/she), and I am a junior debater from Free State. I have been involved in debate for a while now, and I know a lot about how it functions and this topic. With that being said, I don't want to stress you out, so treat me like a parent judge who actually knows what they're doing and how to weigh the ballot/different arguments. And if you ask for oral comments on speaking or strategy, I will give them, but everything will be on my ballot so don't worry! I am fine with any speed as long as you are clear and coherent. I also don't mind cursing in the round, it adds passion, so do whatever you enjoy/will help you win:). I also WILL NOT vote for you if you are harming the way the debate is supposed to function or being bigoted in any way. Let's get started!

TL;DR - Read what you are comfortable reading, be nice to each other, and format the speech so I can flow easily. If you have any questions, just ask!

Now for the nitty-gritty:

Aff Case: I'm pretty open to whatever approach you might have or decide to take. However, I believe that the 1AC should be appropriately timed and understandable, that you shouldn't only have extinction impacts, and that you must understand what you are reading. The 1AC cross-ex should be the easiest to follow and is an excellent way to preface the debate. The only other thing I have to say here is that I think that lying in the 2AR is a fast way to count yourself out of the debate, - lay things out for me how they were, and then explain why you still win - I love a good "even-if" argument.

Neg Approach: Don't utilize time sucks, I hate them and think they are cheater-y. I think running less offense and fully understanding it while having time for the aff case is in your best interest anyway. In the end, a lot of people think that being negative means losing the ballot because they choose to approach it that way. It's actually a really good place to be in since you can read pretty much anything as long as it links and the aff might not have something to answer it with/understand the argument. Use this to your advantage and be strategic - if I have to hear both you and your partner in the negative block say the exact same thing instead of splitting it, I will go crazy. Make sure you know what you're talking about and you should be set.

Neg Specifics:

T: I am okay with T as long as you don't read it as a time suck and it's not your go-to strategy - only read it if it is necessary.

DA: If you have all four parts of the DA, you're doing great! I haven't found/seen one I haven't liked or viewed as not feasible in-round, but make sure you don't use generic links - or if you do, explain them well enough that they don't seem generic.

CP: I absolutely love certain CPs, but I can get pickier about how they work in the debate - like if you want to read the States CP, make sure you have solvency for the States specifically because municipal governments have different governmental frameworks. I do have some hated CPs, but none are super relevant this year, so you should be fine.

K: I am not a K-Debater, but I do love hearing K's! If you feel comfortable reading one as a champ novice, go for it, maybe you'll knock my socks off! I am super familiar with Capitalism, Imperialism, Security, Fem IR, and SetCol, so if you are reading those, yippee! If not, don't worry, but make sure to overexplain your literature - I love learning new things.

Theory: Theory debates are cool! I don't think you should come into the round prepared to run theory, but if it comes up, go for it! I will most likely agree with the person who brought up the theory argument in the first place, but everything is relative and if they did so with no prior "abuse" as it were, then I will weigh it differently.

Thanks for reading this far if you did, and good luck in the round!

Hello, my name is Jonathan Stears, but you should still probably call me "judge" during the round.

I will have notes for each speech on the back of the ballot.

I am fine with most arguments whether it be DAs, CPs, Ks, T, or anything else, but you should still explain everything to me regardless. This includes why you should win the round, why I should prefer your argument over your opponent's, why I should believe your grouping/cross-applying, and especially where you are applying arguments on the flow.

I will be flowing so I would like to be a part of the speechdrop or email chain, but you should still be signposting, moving down the flow, applying arguments, explaining arguments, and especially telling me why I should prefer your arguments/evidence. If you can do all of those things better than your opponent there is a good chance that you will win.

I will also be timing speeches but this isn't to be strict, this is more so that I know how much time you've spent on arguments so I can give you feedback on that when necessary.

I will be thinking about the debate round throughout however I will not bring these thoughts into the round if they aren't said in the round. Similarly, if you drop arguments I will immediately flow them towards your opponent, and the same goes vice versa, if you do not bring up an argument that you are winning I will not consider on the ballot.

I promise I am paying attention to the round and what's going on, also don't assume that I don't like your speech, my facial expression ≠ my actual thoughts.

I don't like disclosure theory, let's have a round where both teams can shine.

My email (for email chains): stearsjonathan@gmail.com

Hi, I'm Emily! I've debated all through high school, and love to hear a passionate argument as long as it is as politically neutral as possible. (we are AFF vs NEG not Republican vs Democrat) As far as K arguments, I am not a huge fan UNLESS you have an impact calc and very good/compelling evidence to hit impact. If your K lacks impact, I will flow to the Aff. Topicality arguments should be short! Do not be the team that nitpicks instead of formatting a quality argument. Hit the T and please move on. I love to see PICS as I find them as the best of both worlds and usually well-developed. Racism and Feminist Arguments are great when relevant, but if it looks like you're pulling the gender or race card instead of developing an argument, it gives the appearance that you aren't holding up the educational standard of Debate, which I cannot flow towards.

This is an educational experience and you should treat it as such. Passive aggression is acceptable during CX, but if it turns into disrespect I will flow to the other team. If I seem uninterested, it is for a reason, if I wanted to hear a robot talk I would watch C SPAN. Please use emotion and diction in your speeches, that goes for spreading as well. I need to be able to understand you!

Email Chain: Hjwalawender@gmail.com

Current De Soto High School Debater,

He/Him

Top Level

Send your analytics, accessibility is good :)

I don't love handshakes.

I'm 40% Policy and 60% Ks just bc of the args I read, but PLS read what you're comfortable with.

Judge directions in the 2nr/2ar are the best ways to get the ballot you think you're winning.

+1 speaks for every "Go Cats!"

Specifics (policy)

K

I will listen to and evaluate Ks (including performance affs). I have become a lot more K-friendly over time, but please don't interpret that statement as a green light to read something you don't understand just because you can. Accessibility is a very important part of any Kritik. As such, be very explicit on what the role of the ballot is and what the intended impact of the alt and/or performance is. I will vote on no link to the K and I will default to policy impacts unless the framing debate is done well. Don't be a moving target or change advocacy stances between speeches (obviously you can kick out of the K but some of those things might haunt you on other flows). Perf con arguments are very persuasive to me. I don't particularly love K v. K debates but do what you must. If I don't buy the alt solvency I won't weigh the impacts, unless the framing is done well by the k team. I have a hard time voting for a perm on a k unless it links to no offense or is well-explained. I'll also give extra leeway for perms with ev explaining the method of how the perm works with the k. I also generally think that if a K gets links to case then it can be enough to reject the arg even if alt solvency isn't 100% guaranteed just depends on the f/w of k.

Tech/Truth, Ev Quality

For both of these things, I try to limit judge intervention as much as I possibly can. I'm probably 80/20 tech v truth and I think your evidence should actually say what you claim it says. That being said, because of my intervention philosophy, you need to call this out deliberately in the round for me to evaluate it. I will absolutely vote on "untruthful" arguments if there are no responses claiming otherwise.

CPs and DAs

I think CPs are super fun and I think you have a lot of decent options on this topic but please be competitive. I like PICs but, I also think they can be really abusive. If the aff can prove lack of competition or abuse in round I will vote on it but, I generally default to PICs good. Be sure to have a clear net ben (internal or external) and articulate what it is: I've seen far too many CPs without them gone for. For the aff, I don't love hearing a laundry list of every perm you can think of. Read and articulate perms that actually test competitiveness (i.e. "perm do the aff" isn't a thing) and explain how the actions can coexist. DAs should be unique: generics are good but ev quality is important.

Condo

I have no threshold for the amount of conditional CPs or Ks or whatever the neg wants to run. However, if the aff wants to read abuse or condo bad I will certainly listen to it. Watch out for those pesky perf cons.

T

Explain your definitions and make sure the card you use has warrants that actually state (or strongly imply) your interp. Competing interps need to be evaluated in terms of both the definition's contextual value to the resolution as well as the warrants of the definition read. Explain your limits/ground. No laundry list here, articulate how exactly in-round abuse has occurred or how what the plan text justifies is bad. Explain your voters. If you want to read and actually go for T, I need to see contextual work done early and often. Avoid using buzzwords unless they actually mean something.

Theory (General)

In terms of other theory arguments like framing, disclosure, etc. I need to have voters. If a teams wins on the theory level but does not provide adequate voting reasons why this is important or does not provide reason as to why theory evaluation should predicate policy, I will ignore the theory debate in favor of policy impacts. Make sure to articulate the sequential order of evaluation when multiple theoretical stances are being taken. On this note, RVIs are a *silly* thing and I will *begrudgingly* vote for them but they need to be weighed against the initial theory claim.

CX

CX isn't binding unless you say it is. I'm fine with asserting arguments during this time but, if it's clear you're using this time to have an 11 minute speech, I won't be very happy with you. Don't make this a shouting match please, otherwise I'm just going to ignore both teams and nobody wants that. We're all friends here.

Speed

I am okay with speed in basically every instance except for when we get to theory args made on the flow that need explanation. If it's intricate and not in the speech doc slow it down a bit; it will help you if I can understand what's going on. That being said I'd prefer you be organized, clear, and slow instead of messy, unintelligible, and fast. I won't ever give up on your speech if you have a hard time with clarity, but just know I may not pick up all of your arguments (obviously a bad thing for you).

Voting

As said earlier I will hear out almost any argument but it must be explained and backed well enough for me to vote on it. Speech is important and I don't want to see a debate where it's two teams looking down at their computers the whole time. Eye contact is good but don't do it too much. Any form of racism, sexism, homophobia, or other offenses I deem worthy will have the team disqualified. Debate is for all people and everyone should be welcomed.

Pf

This is pf not policy pls be accessible

"It's a great day to be a wildcat"- Mr. Hamilton

My name is Landon R Weaver. Refer to me as whatever you want in the round (preferably judge for simplicity's sake). I am a second-year high school debater, with experience in state and various other debate-related activities. I do have a few things that I believe you should do in the round if you want my vote.

1: I am a flow debater. I don't care how little sense an argument makes, if it is not acknowledged it will flow towards the team who brought it up in the first place. And the same can be said for your arguments, if you don't bring things up I will not vote on it. Analytics are fine against evidence if you explain why it makes sense.

2: I am a flow debater. Tell me where to place any of your evidence on my flow. A dirty flow is a bad look to me, so keep it clean.

3: I do not like K's, plain and simple. I will not instantly vote against you if you run it, however, it better be incredibly well explained and should make sense the whole round.

4: Be respectful. I can very much tell when you are being condescending or disrespectful, purposeful or not. Debate is still about sportsmanship and self-improvement, which doesn't work if you are a meany.

5: During cross-ex, both sides should be setting their partner up for arguments.

Lastly, just relax. I understand that debate is incredibly stressful at times, but I think being constantly nasty to each other or refusing to be positive during rounds leads to a net negative for both ourselves and the debate itself. (Also griddy up to the stand).

I'm Patrick Wong. I'm a debater at Lansing High School, currently a junior. I went to Michigan Debate Camp. I debate.

Please extend arguments.

Please give me an order that isn't confusing. Just say "case in order of adv 1 then adv 2 and then the DA then CP" or something. For the 1NC just tell me how many off it is.

Please look at the judge when doing CX you are attempting to convince the judge not the opponents.

I flow the debate, so don't bring any new args in the last rebuttal that were not previously stated in the prior speeches.

Don't steal prep time.

Don't be problematic.

Run whatever you want.

Pronouns: She/her

Lansing '22

4 Years Lansing HS Debate & Forensics

Lansing HS Assistant Coach

KU '

i don't really care what you run as long as you are clear about it, if i don't know what you're saying then i probably won't vote for you. i have a pretty good understanding of debate and basic arguments, if you run something confusing then EXPLAIN IT, jargon should also be explained if it's not a fairly common term just in case i don't know what you're getting at. i would rather you focus on fewer good arguments than try to run 9 off and not know how to explain any of it. if you wanna run a k or anything like that i don't care but i would prefer for it to be something you can clearly convince me of, your k should basically be an alternate reality and if i'm not convinced it can exist then i won't vote for it. win me on basic stock issues before you try to win me on some off the wall argument that is only vaguely relevant to the current debate. as for speed i'm not a huge stickler about speed but i do ask that whatever speed you go that you are clear. if i am left in the dust, cannot understand you, or it's unclear of what's going on i'll probably just stop listening and i'm guess you probably don't want that. if i am judging you then i definitely want to be a part of the document sharing however that may be done, if there's an email chain that's cool: alexa.ymker@gmail.com. i also believe that the 1AC should be able to send the speech out as soon as the round starts so please make sure you are able to do that