Hey, I am Derek. I debated policy for four years at Truman High School in Missouri and formerly debated at Missouri State University.

Here are my random thoughts on debate

I am willing and ready to hear most arguments as long as they are not denigrating or discriminatory. These are prohibited!

Most of my debate career was spent going for policy arguments but the later end of my college career has been spent reading critical arguments. That being said I am experienced with hearing both and think there are educational benefits to both.

You should feel comfortable reading whatever argument gives you the best chance to win or the most personal satisfaction (the thing we forget most about debate is that it is supposed to be fun!). Although I may not be familiar with every acronym in your policy aff or buzz word in your kritik, I mostly base my decisions on the flow and how well things are explained. So please do a great job of explaining and contextualizing and you will like the outcome!

My decisions will revolve around the question of which team forwards a better version or understanding of the world. I am primarily tech over truth unless it is egregious (in most of these instances the argument is not worthy of response anyways).

Specific thoughts

Policy Affs: I like both large, heart of the topic affs, and smaller, left leaning affs. Internal links being specific as possible is good.

K Affs: Explain what it is about the topic you are critiquing and why that critique is good. Also heavily lean into the thesis level understanding of the kritik rather than smaller specific parts which is what I feel drives a good kritikal affirmative.

DAs: The more specific the better. Topic DAs are great too but contextualize it to the aff you are debating. I will be able to tell if you are reading the same generic link block you read your last four neg rounds. Impact calculus is where I will draw my conclusions if the link or uniqueness debates are a wash so turns case args are valued highly.

CPs: I am a fan of a great DA CP combo! Please have solvency advocate unless there is some specific reason you do not need one. Just win that it is theoretically justified, it solves the part of the aff it has to solve to win the debate, and a risk of a net benefit. If you solve all of the aff you do not need to go to case in the 2NR. Affs must win at least a solvency deficit that has an impact and some form of offense is great too! Your best bet is to minimize the risk of the net benefit and win a deficit (carded ones are great)

Ks: I love a great one off debate but a kritik also read with other off is cool too. The more you dive into the aff and their cards to prove your links, the better. Winning that your impact and impact framing outweighs is crucial. Above all else, give me judge instructions heavily. Tell me how to base my decision and how it should be different from how I normally frame decisions (this applies to all types of debates but specifically this style). You do not need to win an alternative but you should probably tell me if you are kicking it, if I should, under what conditions I should, etc.

T: You are probably more educated on how to win these debates than I am if you are going for it in the 2NR. I usually think teams that win these debates have long lists of cases that would be topical under the affirmative's interpretation that are not allowed under yours. This is good. You must win an impact above all else. Why is it important if a team is not reading a topical aff and how does it undermine your competitive incentive to debate.

FW: If you are going for FW you have to win the impact level more than anything else. Do not waste time reading definitions that get you no offense. You should also probably go to case to minimize impact turns that will most likely be there. To beat FW, make sure you have a solid counter-interp that is able to minimize all the limits and ground offense (or turn them) from FW teams. Win a large impact turn that outweighs the impacts of FW. Both teams should be telling me why their arg comes before their opponents (like "Theory before content" or "content informs theory")

Theory: Condo is usually good! I do not like contradicting condo positions but as long as they are multiple cohesive worlds I do not see a problem. PICs and PIKs are good so long as they are getting rid of a part of the affirmative. For whatever theory you are going for please have an interp!

Please be nice to everyone and have fun! I think I wasted away a lot of my debate career stressing and putting too much pressure on myself. Don't make the same mistake!

I wish to be viewing docs while I am judging so please add me to whatever evidence sharing mechanism you use! My email is derekallgood7@gmail.com

Good Debate!

I am the debate coach at Blue Valley North HS. I was an NDT/CEDA debater at Wichita State University (2012) and a graduate assistant at the University of Kansas. I have taught camp at Michigan or Kansas every year since I graduated. I typically judge 50-80 policy rounds per year, plus some pf/ld/speech.

email: brianbox4 @ gmail dot com - do not stop prep until you hit send on the email.

I really, really enjoy judging good debates. I really, really dislike judging debates that take two hours, lack clash and mostly involve unclearly reading a document into the screen. I care far more about your ability to speak clearly and refute arguments than the type of arguments you read. Good debate good, bad debate bad. I will vote for any argument you win.

Ultimately, the debate is not about me, and I will do my best to evaluate whichever strategy you pursue, but I am very bored by negative strategies that do not demonstrate an undesirable effect of the affirmative. There is a time and a place for most strategies, and I firmly believe there is no one right way to debate, but I wish more of the debates I judged were about core topic arguments and less about non-competitive counterplans (obviously debatable), generic critiques of fiat, poorly supported politics disads, ridiculous impact turns, etc.

I have found that 99% of high school debates are such clear technical victories that my argument specific thoughts aren't terribly relevant. As such, I want to emphasize a few points that are important for debating in front of me.

Points of emphasis - adhere to each of these and your speaker points will be no lower than a 29.

1. Clarity. Many of the debates I judge mumble and slur the text of evidence, and the transitions between arguments are difficult to follow. If I cannot understand you, I will say "clear" once. If I have to say it a second time, I will reduce your speaker points by a full point. If I have to say it a third time, I will stop flowing your speech.

2. Refutation. If you use your flow to identify the argument you are answering, read evidence with purpose and speak clearly while you do it, the floor for your speaker points will be a 29. If you start the timer and read straight down without saying which argument you are answering or how to apply your evidence, the ceiling for your speaker points will be a 27. Scouring the flow to fit the pieces together IS judge intervention.

3. Highlighting. I will completely ignore evidence that is highlighted nonsensically. The threshold is obviously subjective, so if you are of the school of thought that you should intentionally highlight your evidence poorly to force the judge to read the unhighlighted text on their own, I am not a good judge for you.

4. Flowing. If you aren't flowing the debate, I won't flow your speech.

5. Meaning of the plan. If asked to clarify the meaning of the plan in CX, you need to answer. The way you choose to answer is up to you, but If your plan is the resolution + one word, be prepared explain what it does. If you do not, I will A. automatically assume the negative CP competes or DA links (based on the part of the plan in question) and B. The burden for what the negative has to do to win a vagueness procedural or solvency argument becomes exceedingly low.

6. Prompting. Each speaker should give one constructive and one rebuttal. You are permitted to prompt your partner once per speech. Additional interruptions will result in a full speaker point deduction and the arguments being ignored.

7. CX. Each partner must ask questions in one CX and answer questions in one CX. You are permitted to ask or answer one question in a CX to which you are not assigned. Additional instances will result in a full speaker point deduction and the questions/answers being ignored.

Other things to know

Evidence matters a lot. I read lots of evidence and it heavily factors into my decision. Cross-ex is important and the best ones focus on the evidence. Author qualifications, histories, intentions, purpose, funding, etc. matter. The application of meaningful author indicts/epistemic arguments about evidence mean more to me than many judges. I find myself more than willing to ignore poorly supported arguments.

I cannot emphasize enough how important clarity is. I can't believe how often I see judges transcribing the speech document. If you have dramatic tone changes between tag and card, where you can barely be heard when reading the text of evidence, you will get lower points from me. If I can't understand the argument, it doesn't count. There is no difference between being incoherent and clipping. Reading directly into the screen at top speed - no matter how clear you are - is nearly impossible for me to understand.

Go for theory? I will never be the judge who views all sides of any theory debate to be equal, but am far more likely than I once was to vote for an argument about the scope of negative fiat. I am more likely to be convinced by a qualitative interpretation than a quantitative one. Affirmatives should be extending theory arguments that say a type of counterplan or category of fiat is bad more often. Conditionality is good. Judge kick is my default.

The link matters the most.The first thing I look at is the link. When in conflict, it is more important to contest the link than the impact.

CX is huge. This is where you separate debaters who have researched their argument and can intentionally execute a strategy from debaters who have practiced reading unclearly as fast as possible. I don't flow CX, but I am very attentive and you should treat me like a lay judge because these moments will be impactful.

I graduated from Blue Valley North in 2019 and I'm now a sophomore at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. I debated policy all four years of high school, mostly participating on the Nat Circuit. I qualified and went to the TOC my senior year, as well as going to other national tournaments like CFL and NFL throughout the years.

I don't know a ton about the topic this year, so bear with me. I judged a decent amount last year but haven't much this year. That being said, what is below should still apply.

My email is ellieanderson295@gmail.com if you want to add me to the email chain or have any questions.

GENERAL PARADIGM (Mostly applies to policy but read it anyway.)

Whatever your typical style of debate is, I'm probably fine with. However, I haven't judged a lot of rounds on this topic so if talking about super complicated jargon, take some time to clarify for me.

General Notes: I typically default to tech over truth, just because I think it's the best way to evaluate the debate that's the most fair for both sides and relies mainly on the skill of the debater.

I WILL vote on presumption if you prove the aff doesn't do anything-- a logical argument against a bad aff is better than a bad disad against a bad aff.

Topicality: I typically default to competing interpretations but can be convinced otherwise-- contextual definitions are good. Prove in round abuse.

Disads: If your disad doesn't make sense, it's going to take a lot to get me to vote for it, unless the aff also doesn't make sense. Spend time on impact framing in the rebuttals is extremely important-- especially if you're going for a DA without a counterplan. Disad turns the case can also be a very valuable argument.

Counterplans: You can read pretty much any counterplan in front of me but if it is super abusive and the aff makes a logical argument on why it shouldn't be allowed I will reject it. Most times I'll just reject the counterplan, not the team, unless the argument is really convincing. Judge kick is good.

K's: I'm good with most K's until you start getting into POMO stuff-- aka I'm not a fan of Baudrillard and similar authors, but will have a good time if you read K's like anti-blackness, neolib, queer theory, etc. I think you need a coherent explanation of your alt and if you can't understand it you shouldn't be reading it.

Theory: Condo is usually good unless it's absolutely and obviously abusive or dropped by the neg. I'll listen to any theory argument but probably won't vote on it unless I can see abuse in round, again unless it's completely dropped.

Feel free to ask me any questions if I forgot anything, good luck!

Overall, I don't care what you do BUT don't run the arg if you don't know how. I don't want to see a K debate from novice who don't know how to run a K. Tell me why your args outweigh and why you win. Thanks! If I can't understand the argument, it doesn't count. There is no difference between being incoherent and clipping. I won't do the work for you. Actually analyze your arguments, I would rather you identify and analyze args then ramble off a billion more cards. Speak at a pace where your opponents understand you. I'll flow everything and if you want anymore information just email me.

Things to do:

Disclose

Send docs with analytics

Be nice to partner AND opponents please

Put me on the email chain if there is one :) lewiszoe2003@gmail.com

I have been an English teacher for almost 20 years.  During that time I have taught communications classes as needed at my school.  I also have experience with public speaking as a student and sponsor in various activities. This is my first year serving as an assistant debate coach so I am familiar with the current year's topic.  I would say that when I judge a round I am more of a policy maker.  

I am currently an assistant coach at Lansing. Previously, I was the head coach and director of debate and forensics at Truman High School in Missouri. I was a policy debater in high school. I have taught at debate and speech camps and I frequently judge policy debate, LD, PF, and speech.

EMAIL CHAIN: jeriwillard@gmail

Things I like for you to do: send an email effectively and efficiently, speak clearly, and respond to arguments. Communicate TO THE judge.

GIVE THE ORDER AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SPEECH.

I flow on paper. Be clear when you are switching args.

The aff should be topical. The aff needs an offensive justification for their vision of the topic. I find the arguments for why the aff should be topical to be better than the arguments against it. (Read: I rarely vote on T. Running T? Go all in.) If you are reading an aff that is not topical, you are much more likely to win my ballot on arguments about why your model of debate is good than you are on random impact turns to T.

Evidence matters. I read evidence and it factors into my decision.

Clarity matters. If you have dramatic tone changes between tag and card, where you can barely be heard when reading the text of evidence, you will get lower points from me and you should stop doing that. If I can't understand the argument, it doesn't count. There is no difference between being incoherent and clipping.

The link matters. I typically care a great deal about the link. When in competition, you should spend more time answering the link than reading impact defense.

I am fine with K debate on either side of the the resolution, although I prefer the K debate to be rooted in the substance of the resolution.; however, I will listen to why non-topical versions of the aff are justified. Methodology should inform FW and give substance to FW args beyond excluding only other positions. Links should clearly identify how the other team's mindset/position/advocacy perpetuates the squo. An alternative that could solve the issues identified in the K should be included with solvency that identifies and explains pragmatic change. K debaters must demonstrate their understanding and purpose of their K lit. Moreover, if you would like for me to vote for the K, it should be the main argument in the round.