Pronouns are He/Him/His, but I'm comfortable with any. Please feel free to let the room or just me personally know your pronouns if you feel comfortable.
Add me to the chain - firstname.lastname@example.org (You get one joke about my email. One.)
Email chain > Speechdrop > File share > Flashdrive > Google Drive > Paper >>>>> "We don't disclose"
I am a fourth-year 2N at Shawnee Mission South. I have experience in policy debate on both the Kansas and national circuits as well as Lincoln Douglas on the Kansas circuit, IX, and IMP2.
My biggest debate influences, in no particular order, are Sean Kennedy, Carolyn Cook, Jam Hoffman, Azja Butler, Haylee Rose, Owen Kerrigan, Annemarie Smith, Brooklyn Hato, and Clare Bradley.
Do what you want*. Win the debate from a technical standpoint on the flow and you should win the debate. I am most familiar with policy-focused debate but I will evaluate any* argument you present.
I see debate as a game, though I do recognize it has pedagogical value, and will vote on anything* you tell me to using an offense-defense paradigm.
*I will not vote on outright problematic args like racism good, homophobia good, abelism good, etc. and "suffering inevitable so death good".
Tech informs truth every time. I recognize that Truth has some value, especially for theory debates and in-round solvency claims, but technically winning an argument comes first and is the most objective way to evaluate a debate. I am less likely to give substantial weight to an argument brought up later in the debate or one that clearly was an afterthought as well as one that is total BS, but if you win it, I'll vote on it.
At the risk of sounding excessively cliche, I will be as tabula rasa as possible even though no one can be a truly blank slate. I’m a games player first and a policymaker second, though what I am beyond that is up to the debaters. I also will avoid stepping in unless it concerns the safety or wellbeing of someone in the debate, but if I have to, I will.
I will evaluate evidence the way it is spun in the round first, as I want to avoid being an interventionist whenever possible, but if my decision will come down to it, I will read over relevant evidence before further evaluation. If you think it is pertinent, ask me if I want a card doc. I probably will.
I'd still appreciate if you took the debate seriously, but I'm not going to be a stalwart for the sake of being a stalwart. With that being said, be respectful towards your opponents. Being traditionally cordial is not a priority for me, but not letting someone reasonably finish their answers in CX, scoffing at your opponent's responses, and especially laughing at or otherwise outright mocking your opponents will lead to a dock in speaks and loss of ethos.
I happen to have a name, so there’s no need to call me judge. Call me whatever you see fit instead which can include but is not limited to Jack, Mr. Shaw, Comrade, Buddy, Homeslice, or G. Also there's no need to shake my hand and introduce yourself (please don't; won't impact speaks but it's cringe), though saying your name before you speak might be helpful.
If I'm not reacting to what you say with any emotion, it's because I'm trying not to, as I want to evaluate arguments as a spectator without being a distraction or influencing what is being said. I might not be a full-on DHeidt, but I will appear as stoic as I can. With that being said, if I do react, it's probably because I found something funny, so don't overthink it. It ain't that deep.
I am an organized person who likes an organized debate. Numbering, lettering, naming, or otherwise organizing arguments is helpful to me to avoid missing anything I need to.
Even though I quite enjoy judging most of the time, most judges, including myself, like to be lazy when they can justify it. "Writing the judge's ballot" in your last rebuttals is a convincing way to synthesize and finalize your arguments to make evaluating arguments clearer to me. Setting brightlines, burdens, and tiebreakers earlier on is especially helpful to evaluate tough decisions.
Both teams should disclose a reasonable period before the round. I will not hesitate to vote on properly executed disclosure theory.
Being problematic is bad and I will drop you on it. If it's not egregious, I will call you out on it after the speech/CX and potentially dock speaks. If it happens again and/or it is egregious to begin with, I will stop the round and vote you down with minimum speaks. Debate should be a safe space for discussions from all people who all feel comfortable participating in.
Cheating is also bad and I will drop you on it. For novice debaters, I will explain what it is after it happens, but if you do it again, I can't evaluate the round fairly. To avoid this becoming an issue, be clear where you mark cards for all of our sakes and be ready to send a marked copy if it is requested of you.
Speak as fast as you want so long as you are clear. I’ll give 2 "clears". If the problem continues after one I'll dock speaks and after both I'll stop flowing. Speech docs are especially important for online debate, so I'd still like to see them anyways. Sending analytics is cool, but if they are reasonably clear, I will catch them. However, clarity and organization are important, as if I can't hear an argument you make, it is harder to evaluate it and therefore makes the debate more frustrating for everyone.
The timer indicates that a speech is finished and the time for getting arguments out is over, though I can be reasonable about it. If you're finishing your reasonably short sentence at the end of a speech, I'm all good with it. If you finish your thought or card a few seconds after speech time, I'll allow it if it isn't egregious. If you read something new or go on for more than about 5 seconds, I will stop flowing and speaks will be docked.
I don’t really care what you do with your CX time. Asking your opponents questions is good and can help speaks and ethos, but if you want to use CX as prep time, so be it.
I always default to open CX, but if there is a reason to do otherwise like a maverick in the round, I am fine if the competitors agree to closed.
Speed is good and preferred if you can read clearly and if there is no ability-based opposition in the round, but you'll be better off speaking in a style you are comfortable in front of me with rather than one you are not, especially for rounds with a tricky panel.
If I can give an oral RFD, I will. I will be as efficient and direct as possible and will likely only verbally share the reason for my decision itself and will usually leave speech-by-speech comments to the ballot, as I respect the competitor’s time. With that being said, I am always open to questions and can elaborate as much as time allows me to. Feel free to email me after round if you have any questions, comments, concerns, ideas, etc.
You are more than welcome to send memes in your speech docs. They won’t impact the round, but they will make me happy.
Not that I assume the debaters in the round are doing this, but stealing prep is bad, so turn your cameras on if you can. I find it best to keep cameras on as often as you feel comfortable so that we all can see the debate happening and I can make sure the debate is fair.
As someone who uses a shitty school macbook to debate, I empathize with tech issues. As long as you keep us updated and try to get them resolved, you need not worry. If a tournament has tech time allotted, let us know clearly (if possible) if/when you need to use it.
I will likely have some good headphones to hear you with, but I may still miss something if you cut out or are inaudible, so play it on the safe side and prioritize clarity over speed.
Mute if you aren’t speaking, especially if there’s background noise. We all should be able to hear the speaker as best as possible without external distractions.
Please do not read mask theory procedurals, as I will do all that I can to avoid evaluating them. I would generally prefer masks be off while speaking for the sake of clarity, but I will not dock speaks if you have one on and I can hear you.
I like to know what I’m voting for, so be clear about what your advocacy is and does. Even if you do have a plan, but especially if you don't, let me know what my ballot affirms.
You don't necessarily need a plan to have an advocacy, but you should at least have an advocacy.
Not a fan of courts affs, nor am I particularly well versed in the underlying cases and procedures associated with them, nor do I really think they're T on most topics, but they are a part of debate and so I will evaluate them.
Impact turns like democracy and heg as well as specific indicts and contextualized answers are cool. Generic answers that aren't contextualized to the aff are cringe but sometimes necessary and understandable. Not touching case to begin with is cringe.
You want to critique something and have a K for it? I’ll listen to it!* With that being said, I know little about postmodernism and its associated criticisms, so I’ll need some more explanatory work for evaluating those debates. Also maybe avoid reading essentialism-based Ks like Heidegger in front of me because they are cringe.
I guess PIKs can be good, but tiny word PIKs and especially floating PIKs are cringe.
I'm partial to letting the aff at least weigh their impacts on FW, but an interp that says the neg doesn't get Ks or the aff doesn't get a plan is cringe. It’s not 2005. They get a K.
I'm what the cool kids call "a radical Antifa" (follow me on Twitter @Banished_Potato; +.1 speaks if you follow me on Twitter and you let me know that you do so) and am well-versed on cap. Articulation of the alt's theory, praxis, and empirics all have potent value to me.
As with evaluating the aff, make sure you tell me what I’m voting for when I vote neg for the alt, whether that be “reject the aff” or a fundamentally new model of society or anything in between or beyond.
I’m not too partial to long overviews, but I’m fine with them if they’re there. With that being said, it would be nice of you to let me know if they'll be long and even nicer of you to put them in the doc. Embedding offense into an overview is often a smart move, but make sure it is clearly articulated and applied so that I can actually flow it.
Arguments centered around identity should reflect the debaters advocating for them. Especially for things like antiblackness and queer theory, running identity-based arguments strictly for strategic purposes without a personal connection is ingenuine and can prove to be problematic. I am all good with those arguments in a vacuum and by no means would I force someone to justify their identity, but this is something to keep in mind when making that personal and strategic choice in front of me.
My order for the importance of arguments generally goes L>UQ>IL>!. For politics disads, it goes UQ>L>IL>!
Usually, more analysis > more cards. For politics DAs, walls of evidence tend to be able to adequately suffice for deeper analysis because of how the warrants inherently interact, but clash is good and should be a priority.
If you read an add-on, do the work you'd normally do for an impact already in the 1NC in terms of explanation and comparative analysis.
Intrensicness should not be rehabilitated. My threshold for voting for this argument is incredibly high, mostly because it's lazy and cheating.
All counterplans will be evaluated as legitimate until the aff wins otherwise. That, however, does not mean I will enjoy voting for a plan-plus or delay CP.
With no real functional limits to what a counterplan can say, I enjoy debates comparing mechanisms for process counterplans. Winning why your implementation of the plan is best helps me identify points of clash on the solvency debate.
I like to know what the world of the perm looks like. Especially if the explanation is in the 2AC, I am more partial to vote for something that clearly interacts with both positions involved.
PICs are often good, though don't get too small with what you PIC out of or how you do it
Process CPs are usually fine, but I can certainly be persuaded otherwise
Judge kick is good when applicable. If the neg can win that condo is good, I will default to judge-kicking a counterplan unless the aff can win otherwise. However, if a counterplan is in the 2NR, I will flip presumption to the aff unless the neg can win otherwise.
Topicality and Framework
I default to competing interps.
Limits and clash are good standards.
Fairness is probably an impact.
For the water topic specifically, most all affs are effects T, but that doesn't mean they are all equally egregious in their violation.
TVAs and caselists are persuasive and should be a part of any good T debate. The TVA doesn’t have to prove it solve perfectly, but both that and a caselist should prove that it can help competition. Like perms, I am also partial to articulating these in the 1NC first over reading them for the first time in the block.
RVIs aren’t real for T vs an aff with a plan. That doesn’t mean T can’t implicate offense in other parts of the debate, but I won’t evaluate an RVI in and of itself. This isn't LD.
On the question of framework / T USFG, I consider myself pretty ideologically neutral. On one hand, I think debate should be a space to discuss a multitude of things, perhaps not all of which can be done while defending state action. On the other hand, I recognize teams get to be both aff and neg, so reading a plan half the time probably provides a stable nexus of clash and predictability. I always read a plan for the affs I ran throughout high school, but that doesn't necessarily mean I think others need to as well. Planless affs are probably “cheating” in the sense that they “break the rules” of policy debate, but I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing.
If you think an argument is illegitimate, let me know if and/or how I should evaluate that as an independent voter using theory. Creative and unique theory debates can be fun.
My reject the team threshold is high but my reject arg threshold is lower.
Neg conditionality is good, but dispositionality is probably better. However, unless there's a clear articulation of what that model entails, I will find it harder to evaluate it as a competitive alternative to condo. The neg should get at least a few worlds to test the aff from multiple angles, though holding them accountable for doing so is probably a reciprocal balance. I have no arbitrary limit as to the number of conditional positions allowed, but contextually, there can exist a reasonable limit where the aff can argue a threshold exists.
PerfCon is oftentimes more of an internal link to condo bad (I.E. maybe you don't get a market reform CP and a cap K in a way the aff can test both effectively) than an independent voter, but I guess I can vote on it if you want me to.
Traditional > Kritikal = Philosophy > Theory = Tricks
I debate on the Kansas circuit, so I've really only been exposed to conservative/traditional LD, so while I have no reservations against argument style, I will be better able to evaluate what I'm familiar with.
I see LD as a matter of discussing morals (values) and how to get there (criterion) backed up with proof, empirics, and examples (contentions).
Dropped Definitions > Value > Criterion > Contentions > Definitions
Definitions tend not to matter to me much unless they are dropped, in which case they will frame my entire evaluation of the debate. Otherwise, I don't really care about them.
The value is the key focal point of the debate and what the goal either side is striving for, so defend the morality associated with the value you uphold.
The criterion is the moral process one uses to get to the value, so defend the process to attain a given result
The contentions are metrics of proof to back up the legitimacy of the value and criterion and why and how they can and should be applied. In and of themselves, their impacts matter less than the morality they uphold.
PFD sucks lol