Debate Experience:
Current 4-year debater at Derby High School

Email: calebcarterdebate@gmail.com put me on the chain.

Speed: Clear>speed. if you're clear, go as fast as you can

CX: good CX gets good speaks. If you get an argument of CX EX: there is no link to a politics DA. PLEASE PUT IT IN THE SPEECH. Also, don't be mean :).

T

I default to competing interps. Please clash instead of just extending your argument. I will evaluate it based off of the debate and think it is a great way to secure links.

DA

They're cool obviously. if used with the CP clearly the debate moves more to if the cp solves the aff and how much compared to risk of the NB. Spec link are nice.

CP

aff should explain the perm and what it looks like if they go for it. NEG: The CP needs a net benefit, and it isn't we solve better. I'm lenient to aff when it comes to PIC, I'm open to all CP as long as it is competitive, this will probably change after I have enough bad CP.

K

I'm cool with the K, please don't say the K-word. Explain what that means. same goes for the alt, explain how it happens. well warranted links will go far.

K aff/FW

FW - As policy kiddo, I will probably lean closer to FW then I should however don't assume I will vote for you just because you say they aren't topical. you should clash with the aff. I need why topic edu is key and preferably, includes their edu (TVA, SSD, etc) or why their edu is bad.

K affs - they're okay, I prefer topical aff, but do what you do best and I will judge as fairly as I can.

for me to vote I need a reason for why topic edu is bad and/or what edu it causes to leave out. please explain the k words you use as I am small brain.

Theory

I think most theory except condo and T is good enough for rejecting the arg not the team.

I am a senior with three years of experience with policy debate. I primarily debated in open and PFD, but I do have varsity experience. I will understand your argument if well put together and is presented clearly. Run any arguments you want, but they must pertain the round and you must have proper reasoning for running the argument. Feel free to speak at whatever speed, just make sure that you are clear with your words and arguments. I will not try to figure out who won, it is your job as debaters to present why you won and why I should vote for you unless you are in a circumstance where the other team dropped everything, then in that case I know who has won the round. Frankly, just have fun with the round and be respectful towards your opponents, partners, and your judge. I do not tolerate unnecessary rude behavior, it’s a huge ethos kill. Don’t be a jerk.

If you have questions email me at haleell@usd260.com

POLICY DEBATE IS AN EDUCATIONAL GAME AND I AM A GAMES-MAKER JUDGE. I REALLY DON’T CARE WHAT YOU RUN AS LONG AS YOU RUN IT INTELLIGENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY. I WILL VOTE FOR YOU AS LONG AS YOU “PLAY” THE GAME OF DEBATE BETTER WHEN IT COMES TO ARGUMENTATION, CLASH, AND ANALYSIS. BELOW IS A LINE BY LINE OF IMPORTANT NOTES AND TIPS ABOUT MY JUDGING STYLE.

EXPERIENCE:

• 4-year high school debater

• Adept hired judge

• Multiple tournaments judged this season and previous seasons

• Mild knowledge of world politics

• Medium knowledge of world history, though the older I get the more I forget

• Spicy knowledge on debate terms and argumentation

SPEED:

• Okay with speed, but if you’re gonna spread make sure I get the WHOLE of your evidence. Not a master doc, not a half filled doc, the doc with ALL the evidence you plan on reading during that speech

• Make sure to slow down when transitioning between arguments or reading taglines, I need to at least understand some of your speech

• Unless you’re the 1AR there is no reason to spread through the rebuttals. Slow down, choose the important arguments, and convince me you should win

• If you don’t finish reading a card make sure to note that verbally before CX so everyone is clear on where you stopped

CROSS-EX:

• Don’t be mean/snobby, it makes me want to vote against you

• Always, whether you have good questions or not, use all of your CX time. It’s just a wise strategic decision to give your partner more time for speech building

• While I think CX is important I don’t believe it is binding, however if it is obvious that someone doesn’t understand their argumentation rather than making a simple mistake I will consider that in my vote

• Make sure you are actually ASKING questions and not just making statements

HARMS:

• Harms are important, but make sure they are up to date and properly demonstrate the SQUO

• I’d prefer if harms were labeled separately but I’m okay with them being flowed under justification or advantages. However, if asked in CX where your harms are, make sure to explain where they technically flow, whether that be justification, advantages, etc.

• Harms should form your framework because they are the components that you label as the most important. So if you get into the framework debate make sure to reference your harms as part of that framework.

INHERENCY:

• Inherency is also important, so make sure that your evidence is up to date and accurately displays the SQUO

• Once again, I’m okay with inherency flowing under justification just make sure to make that entirely clear

• If you’re on NEG try not to run inherency with DAs that contradict each other. For example if you say that the plan causes “x” impact and also that the plan is currently happening in the SQUO that puts you in a double bind and good teams will definitely catch you on that

• Make sure you actually understand what inherency is, if you don’t believe it’s valid that’s one thing but at least understand what it is

SOLVENCY:

• Make sure you actually have solvency cards that prove you solve for all the harms and impacts you label

• Make sure you know who your solvency advocates are just in case you are asked during CX

• DON’T powertag your solvency cards, they have to directly mention the subject of the plan and how it provides benefits for the SQUO. Good teams will tear apart a powertagged solvency card

ADVANTAGES:

• I prefer impacts that are more realistic than terminal impacts, stuff like climate change, food scarcity, proxy wars, etc.

• Make sure your advantages have proper internal links and make good logical sense at a quick glance

• Advantages also help form your framework so at the end of the round when you’re pushing framework, use your advantages and harms to do so

PLAN:

• I’d prefer if you have plan planks that explain your funding mechanism, enforcement, etc.

• I need to be able to have a solid grasp on what your plan is doing from plan text and plan planks alone, I hate AFFs that are purposely vague

• Make sure you actually understand your case, I dislike when the AFF reads a case and then absolutely fumbles the bag knowing their case during CX

TOPICALITY:

• I don’t like extra topical or effects topical cases, so I’m more inclined to vote against an AFF if the NEG can run a solid effects or extra topicality argument

• STANDARDS and VOTERS are huge DON’T drop them

• Unless an AFF is super untopical and abusive, topicality is more like a filler argument to me, don’t be afraid to run it but also don’t expect to win on it

DISADVANTAGES:

• I think brink and uniqueness are important so try to have them in your DAs

• Make sure you have proper internal linkage to the impact, I dislike DAs that make broad assumptions without proper evidence

• Generic DAs are okay in my eyes, just don’t continue to push them if the AFF thoroughly dismantles them. Also, make sure they link to the case

• Once again, I prefer realistic impacts over terminal ones

VAGUENESS:

• Only run vagueness if they are intentionally being vague and there is proof of abuse, aka them being a moving target

• Make sure to only run vagueness when the thing they are being vague about is valuable to the debate. Don’t focus in on a component of the case that means absolutely nothing in the context of the resolution, case, and debate as a whole

COUNTERPLANS:

• PLEASE have CP plan text, even if you just copy and paste their plan text into your CP shell, at the least have something

• Before you run CPs make sure you understand what conditionality, a perm, and a net benefit is, otherwise you might get into some trouble during round

• Make sure your CP is not topical, otherwise you, as the NEG, would be affirming the resolution which is the AFFs job

KRITIKS:

• I’m not super well versed in kritik debate so don’t rely on me to know when a response is poor or not

• I understand the need for kritiks at some points but unless there is a super crazy link from something the AFF said, I’d rather just stay focused on the topic of the resolution

• Whatever you do DON’T run an ableism kritik on someone for calling themselves stupid during round. I have a bad memory from when I was in high school so I’d rather not be reminded of that

PET PEEVES:

• I hate the phrase “Is anybody not ready”

• Be quick when sharing evidence, I hate just sitting around because people can’t figure out how to download and share their evidence. Just use Speech Drop it’s the most efficient method I’ve found

• Use all of your speech time no matter the speech, there is always something more you can run or extend

• Use all of your CX time even if it’s just for clarification

• I dislike ad hominem attacks

I am a "Stock Issues" paradigm meaning the affirmative team must present a prima facie case to win: Aff must prove their policy proposal will result in a significant advantage free from disadvantages. If the affirmative plan does not solve (produce the advantage), they lose. If the affirmative plan does result in the advantage but it is not significant, they lose. In other words, the negative has presumption and the aff the burden to prove.

Hutchinson High School assistant coach for 2 years running.

Hutch alum 4 time state attendee 2 time nsda nats.

6 years debate experience, debater for Wichita State University.

https://www.wichita.edu/academics/fairmount_college_of_liberal_arts_and_sciences/elliott/2012/Student_Organizations/Debate_home.php <if you're interested in joining debate in college, check us out!>

Just do what makes you happy. Debate is supposed to be fun and teach you new things. I like competitive debates where teams actually care and aren't just reading off the doc. I will be sure to give personal feedback to everyone on ballot and keep a neat flow. Ill go for any strat, weather you play safe and just go da or decide to spice it up and bring out a K is up to you and ill do my best to take in any argument. Don't change your style for me i'll adapt to whatever you throw at me. I do well with speed, not a fan of open crossx for highschoolers.

Please include me in email chains/ speech drop, 70% of you don't know how to sign post.

email: Kaydperd@gmail.com

Good luck to anyone who took the time to read :) <3

Debate experience:
4 years nat circ / varsity policy at Derby High School in Derby, KS ????Formerly known as Jack Sallman

A little LD, world schools at nationals twice, basic understanding of PFD

MY PRONOUNS ARE HE/HIM

Put me on the email chain. Send docs before the speech, not after. Jacksallmandebate@gmail.com

Always feel free to email me with questions or feedback !

open cx is fine, off time flashing and road maps are fine idc

A few things:

Debate however you feel comfortable. I enjoy many different styles of argumentation and debate. If you're critical or policy, TOC or KDC, or literally any style of debating, my job as the judge is to adapt to your style.

Email chains/flashing: If I (or the other team) ask you to flash/share your speech doc and you refuse, speaker points will face consequences.

Post-rounding: I don't mind providing feedback or answering questions. Any post rounding that gets out of hand/aggressive, I will shut down though. It's a genuine trigger for me, and I also feel like blowing up on your judge is not productive.

Speed: Go as fast as you want, but please be clear. With me, I don't care if you're slow or fast, because I think efficiency is more important than speed.

I start speaks at 28 and work my way up or down.

Manners? : I think being assertive is good. If you're a jerk though, I'll drop your speaks. Don't be a bigot.

T

Competing interps is probably better than reasonability, but you've got to do your work. Please do your impacts and standards work or I'll die on the inside. Crafty we meets are awesome. Tell me why I prefer your interp. Shot gun T isn't one of my favorites, but I'll still listen to it.

DA

I love DA debates, as long as the DA isn't entirely horrible or you can do the work for it (Flashback to no DA ground on CJR topic). I default more to magnitude and probability debates. Brink arguments can be important. Aff, turn the DA. Neg, explain WHY the DA outweighs and turns the case. Specific links are great. I don't default automatically to util or deontology, I will evaluate with the lenses that wins on the framing debate. I LOVE DAs for K affs or on FW.

CP

POST the cp, but I wouldn't spend too much time on theory unless if you're going for condo. I tend to lean towards reject arg not team unless if the aff proves I should reject the team. The CP needs a net benefit. Aff, explain the perm. DON'T FORGET TO PUT OFFENSE ON THE CP!!!! Neg, I won't judge kick the cp unless explicitly told to and I feel it is right. Also if you can prove the CP links to the net bens, mwah!!! Do it! Ngl tho, cp debate isn't my favorite but don't let that discourage you! I will still vote on CPs.

K

Hell yeah. I've run Queer Theory, Capitalism, Derrida, Militarism, Security, Abolition, Anthro, Disability, Biopower, Set Col, etc. Basically, I love K debate. Performance K's, Rep K's, Academic approach K's, etc. are all fine with me. I am not strongly familiar with Baudrillard or Deleuze, however. If you want to attempt that route, feel free, but buckle down to explain more than a judge who is a Baudrillard hack. TBH most K's I can grasp fairly quickly. If you have any questions about this or if I know anything about a specific area of literature, either shoot me an email or ask me before the round.

K aff/FW

FW - I think clash is the important part here. Prob should read state inev, convince me why your interp o/w. TBH I don't think Affs need a w/m here, just a counter interp. I think if you find crafty ways to turn the DAs the aff will inevitably put on FW, DO IT. On a side note, Affs, put good DAs on FW. Side note.... FW doesn't only have to be T-USFG...

K affs -hell yeah. I read a queer anarchism academia aff my senior year, if that says anything, and my teammates read a Foucault Will of the Sovereign k aff. If you can effectively explain your case and win FW, you're good. I don't care if your aff does or doesn't have an advocacy, but be prepared to have that debate. Also read "K" header for more info literature wise. I think that preempting FW and other args in the 1AC is smart, and while I don't require it with my approach, topic specific affs are good. If you're not topic specific, that's still aight. I'll listen to most things -- but be ready for that debate with the neg.

Theory

I think most theory except condo is good enough for rejecting the arg not the team. This doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't attempt theory debate -- go for it if that's your heart's desire. Please don't be blippy on these theory debates and sending those blocks could be good. Even the best flow out there won't catch all of your arguments if you spread full speed through theory blocks.

It's a Great Day to be a Panther

Uhhhh errr uhmmm

I forgor ¯\_(ツ)_/¯