As a judge, I prioritize evidence and logical reasoning, which aligns with a Kritikal or Tabula Rasa paradigm. I believe in the importance of critical thinking and challenging assumptions. While I value clarity and organization in debates, I'm particularly interested in debaters who challenge the status quo and delve into the underlying impacts of arguments. For me, it's essential that debaters engage critically with the resolution and present substantive, thought-provoking arguments. I encourage competitors to be prepared to present well-supported, critical arguments and engage in thoughtful discourse rather than relying solely on conventional strategies.

This is my first year judging debate. It is also my first year experiencing anything in debate as well. It is important to that debaters speak in a clear, concise manner. This does not necessarily mean slowly. It does, however, mean that you need to be articulate so that I can understand everything that you are arguing. It is possible to be articulate and speedy!

It is important to me that all debaters stay on topic and be specific. Generic disadvantages are not needed.

I am a single diamond coach who has been coaching both officially and unofficially for the last 9 years. I was competitive in speach and debate in high school and attended 4 CFL National Tournaments and 1 NSDA National Tournament. I placed third in Expository at the 1996 NSDA National tournament, and I was a semifinalist in prose that same year. I am currently the assistant coach for Fort Scott High School in Fort Scott Kansas. Home of the Kansas 4A division state debate co-champion teams this year. I have been judging LD and other debate events for the last 15 years, and have judged about 10 rounds of LD this year.

In high school I was competitive in Original Oration and Lincoln Douglas Debate as well as Policy Debate and interp events. I have a Bachelors Degree in Social Work and a Master's Degree in Addiction Counseling. I am currently employed, outside of coaching, as a clinical addictions counselor for a county mental health center.

My paradigm for judging is as follows:

Speed: I find rapid delivery acceptable provided that enunciation, diction and pronunciation is clear and able to understand. Rule of thumb, if I am not flowing, it is a good indication that you should slow down. Rate of delivery does not weigh heavily on my decision unless I could not understand you throughout the round. I will vote against you if you do not respect my speed preferences.

Criterion: It may be a factor depending on it's use in the round. I do feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case

Voting issues should be ongoing throughout the round

Conduct in Round: I expect courtesy between competitors and mutual respect for each other's ideas and arguments, I have zero tolerance for rudeness or blatant refusal to share evidence or make relevant information available to both your competitor and myself as a judge.

I consider myself a Tabula Rasa judge and am willing to vote for anything that is supported, relevant, and applicable to the round at hand. I do not like generic arguments that do not seem to apply to anything specific.

I do not appreciate acronyms that are not defined in a round, keep in mind that coaching is my side job at this time and I may not be up to date on the latest acronyms that are being used for a certain topic. Regular debate jargon is acceptable however.

Final rebuttals should be giving me a line by line analysis as well as voting issues, and voting issues are absolutely necessary

My basis for decision is weighted between speaking ability, argumentation and validity of arguments

I do not need you to shake my hand before the round and especially not after the round, I also do not need you to call roll before each speech, meaning asking every single person in the room if they are "ready" the only person that needs to be ready is me, so if I am ready, go ahead and start.

I may ask to see things that were read in the round at the conclusion of the competition so please do not "pack up" during the final speech, so that my viewing of articles can be expedited.

If you have any further questions about my judging style, please ask before the beginning of the round for clarification.

I coach at a 4A school in southeast Kansas. I did debate & forensics in high school, but not in college.

-Topicality is important to me, but actually make a point with it. Don't just run T to run T and then drop it later.

-DAs are great, generic DAs are fine as long as links are clearly analyzed.

-CPs are fine as well, but again don't just run it to kill time only to drop it later.

-I judge pretty big on speaking - speak "pretty". Be organized, concise, have good speed (as long as I can understand your words I have no issue with speed), make me apart of the round. Advocate for your viewpoint and why I should prefer it.

-Make me whatever kind of judge you want me to be - policy maker, real world, but if all else fails I'll fall back on stock issues and aff burden of proof as a guide for my RFD.

Preferred Debate Styles: CX, Policy

How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches?

A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. Arguments should each be addressed individually. If it is brought up as an argument, it should be discussed.

How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches?

No comment.

How Should Debaters approach Evidence?

Stay within the allotted time and clash civilly with your opponents. Citations after evidence is read is important.

How would Oral Prompting affect your decision?

It won't.

How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position?

No comment.

What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position?

As long as you prove it and support it with evidence, I don't care.

Please explain your views on kritical arguments.

Run whatever you want.

How should debaters run on case arguments?

Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples, no paraphrasing.

How should debaters run off case arguments?

Topicality is to only be run when actually applicable.

How should Debaters run theory arguments?

The focus should be winning the debate, not just attacking a person's style or flaws of method. Winning on technicalities isn't winning a debate.

What other preferences do you have, as a judge?

Respect towards your opponent is paramount. It is hard to find in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round. Graceful winners are as important as graceful losers.

It's also very important that the debaters speak clearly and can pronounce the difficult words well.

Make sure that when your opponent is speaking and you are discussing with your partner, you speak in a low tone. It's distracting and disruptive.

Stock Issues

4 years of high school debate; state novice, 1 year on state two-speaker, 2 years on state-four speaker. Judged for 5+ years.

Policy-maker.

I like to see impact calc during rebuttals.

I do not weigh an entire round on T alone. You may run it, but know that you will need to make other arguments as well. I don't like K at all. Any other type of Neg argument is fine to run.

Any speed is fine.

This is petty, but I can't stand it when someone says "is anyone NOT ready?" (Consider this a litmus test to see if you've read my paradigm).

I debated four years in high school, and judged off and on since. Head coach at Paola High School.

The threshold for refutation of arguments that I don't like is low, but not zero.

I’ll flow what you tell me, not what’s highlighted on your speechdoc.

If you cut a card for time, make sure you’ve read me the good stuff.

Run whatever you want. Seriously. If you can justify it and defend it, I’ll consider it.

Case debate is good, but I love a great offcase debate.

Theory is fine, and I’m well-versed. However, don’t spend too much time here, as I’ve probably already reasoned this out with you.

T is good but I’ll only vote for it if you run it correctly. This is also true for CPs and DAs. I expect Aff teams to tell me when Neg arguments aren’t structured correctly, but I also expect you to answer them anyway. If there’s no impact card, voters/standards are missing, etc., say so, then move on to your answers.

K’s are fine, but I’m a lot older now than when I used to run them. Be prepared to explain them.

Reading a big block of cards without any analysis from you doesn’t do much for me – in fact, it makes me grumpy.

If I don’t like an argument, you’ll know.

If I’m not flowing your speech, it doesn’t mean I’m not listening, but rather I have already made my decision. I am good at figuring out the round and will likely make a quick decision. However, I will never formally sign or write my RFD until the round is over – sometimes miracles happen.

Speed is fine, but please slow down for tags/dates so I don’t get lost on my flow. If I can’t keep up, I’ll let you know.

Impact calc at the end of the round is good. My RFD should ultimately sound like your 2NR/2AR.

Be kind, have fun, learn something.

How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches?

A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. Arguments should each be addressed individually. If it is brought up as an argument, it should be discussed.

How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches?

No comment.

How Should Debaters approach Evidence?

Stay within the allotted time be sure to cite evidence.

How would Oral Prompting affect your decision?

It won't.

How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position?

No comment.

What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position?

As long as you prove it and support it with evidence, I don't care.

How should debaters run on case arguments?

Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples, no paraphrasing.

How should debaters run off case arguments?

Topicality is to only be run when actually applicable.

How should Debaters run theory arguments?

The focus should be winning the debate, argue a strong case, not just nit picking the other teams case.

What other preferences do you have, as a judge?

Be professional. Run your case, argue respectfully. Be good sports

It's also very important that the debaters speak clearly, do not rush, and can pronounce the difficult words well.

Make sure that when your opponent is speaking and you are discussing with your partner, you speak in a low tone. It's distracting and disruptive.

I prefer traditional debate with clash and reasonable speed. I've done this for awhile so you can run what you run as long as the analysis justifies why I should vote. Not a big fan of K debate but if you can do it well, go nuts. Tabula rasa but I'll default to policy maker if not given a reason to vote.

*I teach AP American Government. It would be in your best interest to either 1. Argue funding/enforcement/federalism accurately structurally or 2. Avoid them like the round depends on it (it often does). I'm unlikely to vote on funding/enforcement/federalism arguments that are misunderstood or misapplied. Telling the judge how government works while not knowing how government works hurts the credibility of your argument.

Background: I debated four years at Salina South High School (2017-21). I was also the 5A 2-speak state champion in 2021 on the prison reform topic. I currently debate in college at Kansas Wesleyan University (parli + LD), and I had a brief stint at Yale. I have assistant coached at Salina South and head coached at Sacred Heart high school.

Judging Philosophy: Tech over truth. I think debate is a game, whoever plays it best wins my ballot. With this, I have often voted against good plans or good counterplans that I think are good ideas, because they weren't argued correctly. I try to keep my own personal biases (in any way) out of the debate round. Do not change how you debate to adapt to me; I want to see how you debate at what you believe is your best. I'm comfortable with any speed from conversational to rapid spreading. Speech drop > Email chains. ****I am of the belief that all on case and off case arguments need to be read in the 1NC. Also no new in the 2NC. I will not vote you down because of this, but I will not be happy.

Topic Specific: This year, I have been judging and coaching on the 4A and 3-2-1 A circuit. I am not a big fan of "soft left" impacts which are huge on this topic, so it will be much easier for me to vote on high magnitude impacts (yes, I am an unironic nuke war impact enjoyer).

Topicality: I believe it is an a priori and will judge it first before examining the case. I judge topicality on whether you can prove specific in-round abuse and if it sets a precedent for bad debating. I have enjoyed debating and coaching topicality, so please do not be afraid to run it!

Counterplans: I believe every counterplan has to have a net benefit, and I don’t care about whether it’s topical or not. I don't think conditionality is abusive in most cases, but I can be convinced with a really good condo bad shell.

Kritiks: I am most comfortable with Capitalism, Settler Colonialism, Security, Queerness, and Anti-blackness. Anything further will probably require some explanation. Must have Framework to tell me how to weigh the K vs Case.

I was a 4-year state debater and now I am an assistant debate coach. As a policy maker judge I look at the Aff case as if it was a plan in congress. I weigh it on if it will accomplish more good than bad. I prefer realistic impacts for both advantages and disadvantages. While topicality is important, I rarely vote on it. However if the neg makes a good enough case for it, then I will vote on it. I do not care for Kriticks. Counterplans are fine.

Policy/lay focus. Be civil and respectful. Need solvency and plan emphasis. T is okay but not a focus. Please no nuke war DAs. Prefer a deliberate, logical, and easily paced communication style over a spread or speed style.

4 years H.S. debate, college forensics All American (2013)

I've been an assistant coach for 13 years.

I will weigh stock issues primarily but will take into consideration speaker ability. Topicality needs to be clear and convincing. Not a fan of counterplans. Please have evidence ready to share so as not to waste time.

Overall, I sway toward a Policy Making Paradigm. With a heavy emphasis on speaking ability and how well the argument is made. Additionally, I disdain off-time road maps, (if it is important enough to include, please use your time for it).

Hello! My name is Ruby, and I did debate for all of one year in high school, but have done debate judging a few times over the years since. I assess debate rounds over how much the arguments make sense and how compellingly they are presented. If topicality is actually applicable, I think it can be compelling, but making topicality for the sake of topicality doesn't really make sense. Generic disadvantages are acceptable (not preferred), but present them in a way that demonstrates the connection between that and what the other team is talking about. I will be honest and say I don't quite understand kritikal arguments, but if you can make a good kritikal argument that makes sense, go for it! Talk at a comprehensible please, arguments are really only good if you can understand them, and understanding needs to take into account speed. Most of all, have fun!

Note: You may see another Tyler Slinkard paradigm on tabroom, use this one. The other is from an old account. There is no major difference between the two other than I have updated some info for Highschool competitors.

Background:

4 years of policy and LD in High School (Fort Scott Sr. High)

4 years of NFA-LD in College (University of Central Missouri)

1.5 years of coaching speech/debate in College (UCM)

General In-Round Info:

Keeping the flow clean is the easiest way to win my ballot. I have based the info below on my previous decisions. Note the points where I have found the analysis in round was most effective in making me vote aff/neg.

LD (Highschool):

Value/Criterion-not necessary but if you are not engaging with the traditional structure of the event then at least make it clear what you are doing and why I should (or should not) vote one way.

LD (College) CX (Highschool):

*Speed* If you keep the flow clean, you can go as fast as you want. I will say "clear" if I cannot understand your rate of delivery. Please note, I am slightly bad of hearing. The wonderful result of growing up in a rock-musician's house.

Topicality-an a priori until a counter framework is presented. The negative needs to show me how their definition directly relates to the affirmative case. If you want my ballot on T; explain the violation.

Ks and all manner of dark sorcery-My wheelhouse in college was the Cap K, but near the end I started to venture into feminist literature and I have since fallen into a wide array of different perspectives that I now generally, at least in part, embrace. That said, in the following section I have included my general view of debate's relationship to the individual and society because I think that is the best way to explain my understanding of Kritiks.

Debate is a performance like any other event. Policy presentations have their place and are not inherently contradictory to critical evaluation. However, policy debate is a social associate of power in the status quo. For me, that is true for psychic, bio, and material power within the American system. That said, debate, as a collective idea, is not a state of counter/anti-fascist praxis, but it can be a space.

Debating as a practice of evaluation by means of competitive information processing is important because debate questions (i.e. resolutions) are not only an attempt at examining competing positions and placing one over another, but also the reassertion of a primary mode of processing. A traditionalist would contend that primary mode is policy. Indeed, the most recent NFA rules for Lincoln-Douglas maintain the event should be a "policy-oriented dialogue." That places policy discussions inherently above alternative mechanisms from the outset. Thus, in my mind, the Kritik is about rejecting not only a previous position but also the recognition of the inherent bias of organized debate.

I myself am game for any rejection of status quo politics. I just like clash.

That is a very general synopsis of my view on critical debate. Please feel free to ask more specific questions before rounds.

Impact Calculus-While my background would indicate a desire for a clear, concise line-by-line, I've found the BP style of rebuttals has a greater capacity for keeping my attention. I also recommend that people collapse to as few arguments as possible. Use your time efficiently.

I find systemic (violence) implications far more compelling than existential/terminal ones. That said, I have voted for extinction many times.

Click here for Keiv Spare's Lincoln-Douglas paradigm.

Quick Summary of my paradigm if you don't have time to read the entire thing:
The team with the smarter arguments and the smarter strategy is going to win my ballot. Speed is okay. Classic policy maker / stock issues judge.

Debate Experience: 4 years at Parsons High School in Kansas. Debated at champ level (a.k.a. varsity or DCI division), won medals and trophies, won a lot more rounds than lost. Qualified to NFL nationals in forensics. Was member of numerous state champion teams in debate and forensics, and was quarterfinalist at nationals in expository. I attended camp at Emporia State University and Fort Hays State University and was coached by NFL hall of fame coaches andCEDA national champions.

Have helped with camps at Kansas State University and The University of Kansas, and have assistant coached and sponsored for high school teams for coaches that I am friends with, including coaching multiple cx teams at NSDA nationals and taking 1st or 2nd at State pretty much every year from 2011 to 2021.

Have judged at least one tournament in Kansas or Missouri every year since 1993, and have judged NFL nationals off and on since the late 90s whenever the tournament has been in the midwest, but recently have judged nationals almost every year including the most recent tournaments in Florida and Texas, and the online nationals in 2020 and 2021.

Pet peeves: Overuse of acronyms and abbreviations without defining them. Mispronouncing words. My skin crawls when students repeatedly use verbal hedges such as "like", "I mean", "you know"/"you know what I mean"/"you know what I'm sayin'", "kind of", "sort of", "and stuff", "or something" and "or whatever", "basically", "literally", "obviously", etc. Don't say "I can see nothing but a (neg/aff) ballot." (Don't be cliché.)

Pet peeves that shouldn't even need to be said, but they happen so much that I feel obliged to actually put this in writing: It's ok to shake my hand and introduce yourself or thank me at the end of the round, but do not try to peek at the ballot during or after the round. Do not take up time by asking each individual person in the room if they are ready at the beginning of your speech - if the judge doesn't look ready, ask, but nobody cares if your partner is ready. Neg team: do not noisily pack up your stuff during the 2AR. Do not talk loudly to your partner during your opponents' speeches. Do not steal prep time. Do not stand next to the person speaking and impatiently await the evidence they're reading. Don't stand behind the person speaking and read over their shoulder. No oral prompting during speeches please.

Arrive to the round on time. Do not dawdle getting ready for the round to begin. DO NOT MAKE THE TOURNAMENT RUN BEHIND. Be prepared: Bring a timer to the tournament. Have an extra PAPER copy of your case. Know how to correctly pronounce every word in your 1AC. Charge your laptop battery before the tournament. Bring flash drives. Bring extension cords. Use the restroom before the round. Be a responsible, respectful, and courteous professional.

Likes: Organized (signposting, numbering, line-by-line), real-world, smart, clever, unique, efficient, strategic arguments which showcase the debater's individual thought process. Strategic use of cross x. Partners working together on an effective strategy. Emotion, energy, personality, originality, humor. Overviews, weighing of arguments, concise and intelligent explanations. Intros, conclusions. Every speech in open division should have an intro and a conclusion. NO "with this I can see nothing but an affirmative/negative ballot" IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE CONCLUSION. (the Intro/Conclusion requirement applies more to open division and less so to champ division). If you're going to run long complicated arguments, it's best to explain them at the beginning and throughout rather than at the end so the judges aren't confused the entire time - the team that spends the least amount of time confusing the judges usually wins.

Dislikes: Thoughtless, disorganized, generic babble. Monotonic regurgitation. Lack of strategy. Lots of cards with no supplemental explanations or logic/reasoning/applying by the debater. Partners not working together. Inefficiency. Debates about debate (i.e. fighting over whether debate rules allow or disallow a particular type of argument. Spend your time arguing the merits of the argument, not whether the rules allow it or not.)

Speed: Haven't heard anyone yet who is so fast I can't flow them. However, don't try to speed if you're not good at it. Some of the best debaters I've heard have a slower conversational delivery. Hint: You can win many a round by giving a conversational 2AR to a judge who has heard nothing but speed all day - it can be an oasis of relief.

Topicality: Don't run it if you plan on punting it (but don't be afraid to punt it if you're losing it). Don't run it for no reason. If you think you can win it, absolutely run it. Running topicality exponentially increases the chances of a neg ballot, because much of the time the aff loses, not because they wouldn't have been easily able to prove they were topical, but because they dismiss the topicality argument and don't give it the attention it deserves.

I may actually get ticked at you if you don't run it when the case is obviously non topical, or is quasi topical and could be easily beaten with a competent topicality argument. Topicality arguments must be structured with standards and warrants. Legal or contextual definitions are best for violations. I will accept regular dictionary definitions for counter interps.

Extratopicality: Know what this is and run it. I see far too many cases in which the bulk of the plan and case is extra topical. This is an excellent tool for the 1NC toolkit.

Effects Topicality: I rarely see cases that are blatantly effects topical, but it has happened. You have to really be in serious violation of taking too many steps for me to consider this argument. More often than not the negative runs this by inventing steps (first the house has to vote on it, then the senate, then the president has to sign it, then someone has to make a phone call, then they have to transfer the money, then they have to....etc etc) Every plan has these steps, this does not make it effects topical. Rarely is a plan in violation, but on the rare occasion that it is, the neg would be wise to run this (ask yourself, "Does the plan text in a vacuum achieve the advantages or are other steps required?").

New disads in the 2NC or having the 1N run disads and the 2N take case: All of this is fine, I grew up with case in the 1NC and disads in the 2NC, but the neg can do it however they see fit as long as the strategy is smart and makes sense. Presenting a disad shell in the 1N and expanding it in the 2N is fine too.

Disads that are created in the round and specifically tailored to the case are my favorite. Seems like no one does this anymore. Generic politics disads are discouraged, however a politics disad that is case-specific, unique and has good timely evidence can be great.

Backlash Disads: The only kinds of disads I don't like are backlash disads - the idea that we shouldn't pass the Aff plan because some people (usually terrorists, the KKK, or some other "bad guys") won't like it, and they'll riot or start a war or blow something up in retaliation. I've never been a fan of not doing a good thing because it would upset some bad people, so this by itself is not reason enough for me to not vote for an otherwise good plan. However a backlash disad can provide weight to the negative side when accompanied by other arguments such as a counter plan that solves the harms but avoids the disad. Before you run this kind of disad with me, be sure it's not simply an anti-progress position of backing down to terrorist demands and letting the bad guys win.

Conditionality: When I was a debater, I ran conditional arguments, so I'm open to hearing them. However they must be run well. Don't use conditionality as an excuse to run a bunch of random arguments that don't work at all together or make any sense (the throw a bunch of crap against the wall and see what sticks approach), and expect me to accept them because I'm saying here that I am open to conditionality. Be smart. Use conditionality as part of your toolkit to defeat an affirmative case, but don't abuse it. I'll give you leeway, but for instance if you run a critique that has a moral imperative voter on it, and you are emphatic about how this voter is the most important issue in the round, and then you (or your partner) turn around and run five disads which specifically contradict said voter - then I'm going to have trouble taking you seriously and I'm going to be very sympathetic to the aff when in their next speech they accuse you of being insincere about both your disads and your critique voter. Conditionality is acceptable to a point, but overall as a judge what I'd like to see a neg team do is present an intelligent consistent strategy against the case. Conditional arguments can be part of this strategy (i.e. to set up dilemmas), but don't run diametrically opposing arguments unless it makes sense to do so. Just because two arguments can theoretically link to a case doesn't mean you should run them both. Stop and think first if it makes sense. As far as conditionality in terms of the neg being able to kick out of any position at any time without being penalized - yes, I believe in this. However, I'm not too sympathetic to teams who run bad arguments as a time suck and then punt them. I'd rather see a team spend their time running good arguments. It is completely okay to go for the arguments you have the best chances of winning at the end and punt ones that are lost causes.

Counterplans, Plan Inclusive Counterplans, Critiques, Critical Aff's, Goals-Criteria & Plan-Meet-Need Cases, and other miscellany: I'm open to just about anything as long as it's run competently as part of a thoughtful strategy. Run a critique because the case calls for it. Do not run a critique as a way to avoid case debate. Don't run something if you don't understand it. Don't run something if your only motive is to confuse the other team - you'll probably end up confusing yourself and the judges as well. Critical aff's, counterplans, critiques, philosophical arguments and policy debates which end up sounding like LD rounds can make debate more fun and interesting.

If your counterplan is plan-inclusive, it's a good idea to run topicality against the aff, or run extratopicality against yourself so your counterplan remains non-topical. Counterplans must be nontopical - trying to get me to budge on that will be an uphill battle, but I could be persuaded if you are extremely convincing and the circumstances warrant. However, I will have a default sympathy with an aff who claims abuse against a topical counterplan. Multiple counterplans are okay, again as long as it makes sense.

Tag team cross X is okay unless the tournament rules forbid it, but don't abuse this.

I prefer the person who gives the 1AC give the 1AR, the 2AC the 2AR, the 1NC the 1NR and the 2NC the 2NR, mostly because this keeps speaker points simple. You should only really switch if you think it is absolutely necessary to do so to win the round. If you do switch, make sure you tell me before you do it.

Overall:

What is probably most enjoyable to me is watching the student's mind work - seeing a good 1NC rip a case to shreds with their own individual analysis is worth more to me than a spread of cards that the student didn't even research themselves.

I confess I probably put more emphasis on speaking skills than most flow judges (although I think most judges do, they just don't admit it or realize it). I've often found myself using skills as a speaker point tie breaker when the arguments were moot.

One good succinct original thought that tears through an opponent's argument can win a round or score a student a better speaker point.

The team with the smarter arguments and the smarter strategy is going to win my ballot.

p.s. After writing all this, I realize it may appear that I have a neg bias. I don't. I'm a progressive-minded person and generally like to see change to the status quo as long as the proposal is a good one. I want to see positive change, but I don't want to pass bad plans. Run a good case and argue it well and you have a good chance of winning.

I Debated 4 years in HS and currently debate in the NFA-LD (1 person policy) circuit at Washburn University. Email is huntersquires4@gmail.com for email chains/more explanation on a decision/questions about NFA-LD and Washburn

I don't have a strong preference in types of arguments. If your argument is better than your opponents and you explain better than them why that gets you the ballot you'll win the round. I like listening to unique arguments so if you've been wanting to try something new or odd out it wouldn't be a bad idea to read it in front of me. Just make sure it makes sense...

Please run whatever arguments you are best at/make the most strategic sense in the round. If you get done reading this and think "He isn't going to like our strat" you are probably wrong and you should read it anyway.

Like most judges, I try to be as tabula rasa as possible, but everyone has experiences in and outside of debate that influence decision-making. Any judge that tells you they are purely tab rasa should not be trusted, because it is impossible.

The role of the judge is to be mostly robotic, but there are some exceptions. First, I will do my best to protect the 2NR. Second, I may intervene if you are being violent/threatening.

I usually assume that implicit statements/assumptions are true unless they are argued against. For example, if neg reads T and says non-topical affs collapse debate, they are implicitly arguing/assuming that we should preserve this space. If the neg doesn't impact turn that, I assume everyone agrees that the space is good, so I wouldn't say in the RFD "Idk why we need to preserve the space so I'm not voting for the neg on T." That seems pretty interventionist. The same concept applies to extinction, suffering, and whatever else isn't contested.

This logic also applies to things like links. If in the 2AR and 2NR both teams tell me I'm just weighing the impact of CC on the aff's ADV vs. Impact of Econ collapse on the neg's DA, that's what I'll base my decision on, even if I don't fully understand how the aff solves or how the DA link works.

I won't judge kick unless I'm told to. If we are going to have a judge kick debate please give actual warrants. If this debate is one line from both sides I probably will judge kick but don't put me in that position.

But on specific arguments

T- On the neg, make sure I know interp, violation, standards, and voters. Cards are cool, but not totally necessary usually. I lean towards competing interps.

Theory- Like T, I should clearly know the interp, violation, standards, and voters. I like weird theory arguments, and also think they're strategic. I'm very sympathetic to solvency advocate theory.

Case- Defense is good, but make sure you're generating offense because I probably won't vote on presumption except in rare scenarios because try-or-die makes sense.

Disads- I don't really care about specific links as long as you can prove that the aff does link. A lot of the time a specific link will be able to show this better but if the generic link applies I'll value that as much as a specific link.

CPs- Make sure you have a good net benefit for your CP. Presumption flips aff if you go for this. Perms are a test of competition.

Ks- Ks are one of my favorite arguments when ran well. Please just understand what the literature says (or seem like you do) if you're going to run this. I know a lot of lit but don't assume I know your lit. I'm most well-versed in arguments from the Baudrillard vein, especially semiocap. You can also ask me how much I know about your genre of K before the round if that changes anything.

I've found that when I'm looking at a paradigm as a competitor a sliding scale is very useful so I'll implement one into my own.

Policy------X----Kritik

Competing interps----X------Reasonability

Condo good---X-------Condo bad

Perf cons bad-------X---Multiple worlds good

Presumption--------X--Try-or-die

Speed good--X--------Speed bad

Cheater CPs good (Consult, delay, etc.)-X---------Cheater CPs bad

Tech--X--------Truth

I will read all the ev----X------You have to point out things you want me to read

Disclosure good-----X-----Disclosure bad

Summary- Run whatever you are the most comfortable running. I think every type of argument in debate has a valuable place. In your last speech tell me what you win and why that makes you win the round. I need to know why to vote for you.

Most importantly, don't make debate a negative space for anybody. Don't be rude to the other team and don't have your objective be to make the other person feel dumb and want to quit. Sometimes one team is a lot better than the other team. If that's the case just be nice, take the W, and move on to the next round.

Being mean is a voter :)

Stock Issues, extremely big on Sig and Solv

Tell me why anything you are reading in the round matters, don't just rattle off cards. That is key to clash for me.

Disadvantages this year are in desperate need of uniqueness, tell me how the Aff plan itselfis going to cause the impact. I don’t mind Kritiks, just be aware of the weaknesses inherent in putting one forward in the round.

Hello!

I debated and competed in forensics all four years of high school. After graduating I have continued to help out with my high school team as my Dad is the coach. Thanks to him, I've been around NSDA (Or NFL as it used to be) since I was little. 

I am a tabula rasa judge. I will judge off of only what is mentioned in the round. If your arguments are structured/run incorrectly etc. I will only consider those things in my decision if your opponent mentions them (I may leave you a lengthy ballot comment however, for education and improvements sake).

I am completely fine with counterplans, theory arguments, and Ks. Topicality usually needs to be substantial for me to vote on it, however if you feel confident you can convince me it is substantial, go for it.

I do not need to be included in any evidence sharing or email chains. I believe that if you convince me of something, then it is true. This means when directly competing evidence is presented, I will often favor the evidence that is presented more persuasively.

Really what this whole paradigm boils down to, is I believe in debate your goal should be to communicate with and persuade the judge to your side. You do that, and you'll have my ballot.

Email: dyates@usd313.org

I prefer speechdrop but do what you must.

Experience:

Head Coach @ Buhler High School

- Former Head Coach @ Nickerson HS 2019-2023

- Assistant Coach @ Salina South 2017-2018

- College: 4 Years Parli Debate, NFA-LD, and Limited Prep @ Kansas Wesleyan University from 2014-2018.

- High School: 4 Years Debate/Forensics at El Dorado HS (2010-2014). Did pretty much everything.

I am a huge advocate in you doing you. I will list my preferences, but know that I do find myself open to nearly any argument/strategy/style within reason. Please do not feel like my paradigm below should constrain you from doing arguments that you believe in.

• Be respectful and debate with integrity. Overt rudeness and exclusionary/offensive language and/or rhetoric will lose you my ballot.

• Substantive arguments and clear clash/organization is a must. I will not vote for unethical arguments (e.g. racism good). Please weigh arguments clearly and have a nice technical debate. Clean flows make happy ballots.

• Tech first, but not only tech. Immoral arguments will not win my ballot even if they are won 'on the flow'. Please provide a FW for weighing and evaluating the round. Don't make me have to decide why you won - you may or may not agree with my conclusions.

• I am receptive to framework and theory. I do not usually vote on procedural arguments on violations alone - extend and weigh your impacts on the procedural if you go for it in the 2R

• Kritikal arguments are good. I guarantee I like them more than you think I do. Explain your alt to me. RotB arguments take a second for my brain to process because I am a big ol' dummy, so I will want clear warrants for how and why the claim is true that my ballot does something.

• Alternative approaches (Performative Affs, K Affs) are okay but I am in all honesty less familiar with these approaches. Please explain to me the reasoning/justification for your methodology in plain-ish language if you go this route. Like the K, I like these arguments more than you might think. Please don't take my lack of exposure as a lack of willingness to vote on it.

• Please be clear on the flow. Also, please flow.