Hello, I'm Bennett! I have several years of experience in policy debate, so I've played the game. I consider myself open-minded, and do my best to come to a debate room to judge fairly and listen carefully. I do flow every round, and clash is very important in order to win my ballot. I would like to specify some things however:

File Share: My email is fractured so I would pref SpeechDrop, but if needed add bennettaddink52@gmail.com to the chain.

Topic Knowledge (23-24): Love this topic. I would say I'm pretty knowledgable, but I love learning new things so intrigue me! As this is Economic Policy, the squo is pretty fast-changing so contextual analysis is very important on this topic.

Philosophy- I treat debate as a space for education and the simulation of change. This space creates the future of our nation- producing knowledgable policy-makers, lawyers, activists, scholarly critics, and forward-thinking members of society. As a judge, I seek to make this activity welcoming and accessible. In other words, don't be toxic please! Prioritize being good humans over good debaters, if I feel like its a minor concern with this it won't affect my decision, but I will reflect that in speaker points.

DA's- I need a clear calculus and DA story in order to vote on a DA, if I don't understand the story by the end of the 1NR then its gonna be hard to win in the 2NR.

CP's- I need to be assured the CP adequately avoids the aff impacts in order to vote on it and it needs clear Net Benefits.

Topicality- I will typically not consider this a voting issue unless necessary. I default to competing interpretations but if you don't give me clear voters by the 2nr I typically won't vote on it.

Kritiks- I think the K debate is fun, and if it is run correctly flowed consistently I consider them voting issues. A few things here: I default to the policymaker framework, so in order to vote for a K I need a clear framework to do so. I have ran with Cap, SettCol, Empire, Neolib, and Security K's in the past, but am familiar with Identity K's (Race, Fem, Queerness, etc.).

Speed- I can typically tolerate high speed, but do not encourage it. As long as you are persuasive and logical. I will verbally say "clear" if it is too fast.

Complete disclaimer, I type kinda loud so if it gets unbearable let me know you won't hurt my feelings :)

Let me know if you need any kind of accommodations, i.e. dimmed lights, sit while speaking, etc. If there is a medical thing (like a sugar spike/drop) please let me know. Don't use your prep to resolve an issue such as that.

Any form of overt racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or any other biased discrimination is not tolerable and will result in your loss of my ballot and a referral to tournament staff. I trust debaters to not welcome this into this sacred space of education, so I hope not to see any problems of this kind.

If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round. Have fun and good luck!

PS: If you manage to make me laugh then I'll give you +1 speaker points. Love humor in debate!!!!

Any questions about feedback can be directed to bennettaddink52@gmail.com or 24benadd@kckps.org

hey y’all, if ur trying to see the paradigm for Michael Andrade, look it up from the paradigm tab. For some reason i, gabriel andrade his brother, am the one whose paradigm is being shown, but a direct search solves it

I have debated for 7 years, first in middle school then high school at Sumner Academy. I've also volunteered as an assistant coach for 4 years. My default judging paradigm is as follows:

Tech or truth?:

Im very middle ground. I want structure to speeches, and if one team drops arguments from the other side I am inclined to vote them down. However reading 10 cards is not very engaging nor helpful, id much rather have arguments explained to me than read at me. 10 crappy cards can be beat by one good analytical if properly executed.

Theory/spreading:

By the end of my career I found myself running theory more and more and am a fan when it's applicable. When the AFF (or neg) starts being abusive, I think the neg should call them out, even if it doesn't lead to the main argument by the 2NR (or 2AC).

In terms of spreading: I do not think spreading is good for debate. If both teams agree to spread, I can handle it, but please ask your opponents if spreading is ok. If one team doesn't want spreading, please respect that decision, and if you decide to spread anyway, and the other team reads spreading bad, Ill find it hard not to be compelled.

Policy:

Debated mostly policy Affs so I'm very familiar with technical policy stuff and jargon. Here's a rundown of my feelings on args:

Case: love me a good case debate, turns can make or break a round. Aff needs defend all stock issues to have a chance of victory. Don't forget that 1AC cards cross-apply to off-case cards 99% of the time.

DA: LOVE DA'S, one of the best args out there. The link/internal link debate is always make or break for the DA, but UQ answers can also stop a DA. Impact answers alone are not enough to win against a DA

CP: Not bad, am ok with PICs but can be convinced their not fair. In terms of condo, I think the neg can drop the CP whenever but shouldn't run more than 2 counter advocacies. The neg dropping a CP doesn't mean the perm drops (unless I'm told that's wrong).

T:

I will vote on Topicality if it is either A) inherently clear the AFF is un-topical, or B) the AFF fails to adequately answer T.

Ks:

On the neg I'm very open to the K debate, though not too familiar with lit outside of genetics, I'll probably need explanation. Links can serve as case turns and can independently win rounds, but the alt is the #1 part of the K.

On AFF im pretty cool with K Affs except for a caveat (which I will get to). I don't really buy T or policy/state good args unless mishandled and I think these affs have a role in debate. HOWEVER, I hate rage politics or personal attacks against opponents. I get why calling your opponent racist or sexist helps your case, but it makes me disinterested, bored, and unable yo take your position seriously. If the opponents take the heat I'll listen but the moment they call you out it's an immediate loss. If you still want to run rage politics, direct your rage at the system or me: I can take the heat it's fine.

However almost everything (minus rage politics) can change!: If you explicitly give me a framework/role of the ballot, I will vote on your interpretation based on clash with the other team, not with my own paradigm. Please understand that while I have my preferences, they’re not static.YOU have the power to convince me to completely change my paradigm, and I implore both teams to exercise this power.

Do not hesitate to ask any clarifying questions if needed. Thanks :)

Middle school debate coach for 5 years, Language Arts teacher for 10. Have clear arguments that show you firmly grasp the stock issues and your (and your opponent's) claims and reasoning. I'm not picky on types of arguments, just don't wait until rebuttals or cross-x to make it clear (beyond reading cards) why what you're saying matters; you should be explaining that each step of the way.

As a Language Arts teacher, any creativity that helps make the story you're telling through your debate more interesting and appealing is welcome (debate should be fun!). Just keep it grounded in reality, have strong clash, and clear impact calculus.

Name: Christian Renteria

Current Affiliation:Sumner Academy of Arts & Sciences - Kansas City, KS

Debate Experience:Assistant coach for 3 years.

Judging:

I don't really have a preference of what is ran as long as the evidence clearly supports it and you aren't just reading as many cards as you can get through. Personally I don't really care about speed as long as you are clear and i am able to follow along with your cards. When it comes to casting my vote I give it to whoever makes the most sense and make it seem more possible. To elaborate, I want to hear the effects that it has on the real world as of this moment and how realistic those effects are. If you are running a K, I would enjoy hearing it as long as the opponents arguments are not ignored. I enjoy hearing your arguments but if you completely drop the opponents arguments it no longer feels like a debate round. I really do appreciate the realism of the debate and if it feels like there is no substance to back up your arguments my vote will automatically go to your opponents. I also really enjoy CX, I want to see a clear understanding of the material presented and the ability to go beyond and elaborate. While CX can get aggressive and sometimes rightfully so, I dislike rude behaviors and side comments so steer away from that. For Rebuttals don't spend your entire time summarizing your arguments, I want to hear the debate in your own words and shooting reasons as to why my vote NEEDS to go to you.

Debate:

- I would like to see:

- Money saved

- lives saved

- Great enunciation of words, and powerful young speakers

- Not a huge fan of spreading

- I love seeing new ideas

- Love seeing on case attacks as well

IE Forensics:

- I'm looking for the following

- Your own interpretation of the literature

-Good Memorization

- Understanding of the character

- Understanding of the entire literally selection

- Good characterization

- Projection