Disads: Good. Read them.

Topicality: Good. Reasonability is bad.

Counterplans: Competitive counterplans are good.

Kritiks: I don't read a lot of K stuff. Explain what you are trying to say thoroughly. If I don't understand it, I won't vote for it.

Debated 4 Years at Blue Valley West

Assistant Coach at Blue Valley West

I strongly believe that the affirmative has to defend hypothetical implementation of USFG action. If you choose not to, I will find it very hard to vote for you.

I look at a round through the lense of offense/defense. My knowledge on the topic is also limited so don’t expect me to know your acronyms.

K’s – I am not the best judge for them.

I generally have a pretty high threshold for what constitutes an argument when it comes to K's. For example, I think that you need to articulate a specific link based on the advantages. Also I’m not really familiar with the lit for most K’s so I am going to need clearer explanations of your arguments.

T - T I usually default to competing interps.

Theory – Theory is usually a reason to reject the argument. Condo is usually good.

CP – Should probably be textually and functionally competitive.

I have very little debate experience. Most of what I know comes from my sons. I'll make this brief.

Speed: No thanks.

DAs: Love them, but please articulate and don't read too many.

Kritiks: You have to know them well enough to make me understand.

CPs: Sure, but explain thoroughly and evaluate against plan.

Topicality: I like this argument on this topic. I will come into the tournaments knowing several affs, but not all. Remember to explain and extend standards and voters.

Case: Please hit case hard. Extend everything WITH WARRANTS. And please explain all case arguments.

Theory: I have 0% theory experience.

Speaks(Generic):
27- Decent.

28-Good.

28.5-29-Very Good.

29-30- Rare. Exceptional Debater.

I am not familiar with "speaker points bad" arguments. Either don't run or run very well.

**Online update: if my camera is off, i am not there**

I think debate is a game with educational benefits. I will listen to anything, but there are obviously some arguments that are more persuasive than others. i think this is most of what you're looking for:

1. arguments - For me to vote on an argument it must have a claim, warrant, and impact. A claim is an assertion of truth or opinion. A warrant is an analytical connection between data/grounds/evidence and your claim. An impact is the implication of that claim for how I should evaluate the debate. debate is competitive and adversarial, not cooperative. My bias is that debate strategies should be evidence-centric and, at a minimum, rooted in an academic discipline. My bias is that I do not want to consider anything prior to the reading of the 1AC when making my decision.

2. more on that last sentence - i am uninterested and incapable of resolving debates based on questions of character or on things that occurred outside of the debate that i am judging. if it is an issue that calls into question the safety of yourself or others in the community, you should bring that issue up directly with the tournament director or relevant authorities because that is not a competition question. if you are having an interpersonal dispute, you should try resolving your conflict outside of a competitive space and may want to seek mediation from trained professionals. there are likely exceptions, but there isnt a way to resolve these things in a debate round.

3. framework - arguments need to be impacted out beyond the word 'fairness' or 'education'. affirmatives do not need to read a plan to win in front of me. however, there should be some connection to the topic. fairness *can be* a terminal impact.

4. critiques - they should have links to the plan or have a coherent story in the context of the advantages. i am less inclined to vote neg for broad criticisms that arent contextualized to the affirmative. a link of omission is not a link. similarly, affirmatives lose debates a lot just because their 2ac is similarly generic and they have no defense of the actual assumptions of the affirmative.

5. counterplans - should likely have solvency advocates but its not a dealbreaker. slow down when explaining tricks in the 2nc.

6. theory - more teams should go for theory more often. negatives should be able to do whatever they want, but affirmatives need to be able to go for theory to keep them honest.

7. topicality - its an evidentiary issue that many people impact poorly. predictable limits, not ground, is the controlling internal link for most T-related impacts. saying 'we lose the [insert argument]' isnt really an impact without an explanation of why that argument is good. good debates make comparative claims between aff/neg opportunities to win relative to fairness.

8. i forgot what eight was for.

9. 2nr/2ar - there are lots of moving parts in debate. if you disagree with how i approach debate or think about debate differently, you should start your speech with judge instruction that provides an order of operations or helps construct that ballot. teams too often speak in absolute certainties and then presume the other team is winning no degree of offense. that is false and you will win more debates if you can account for that in your speech.

10. keep track of your own time.

unapologetically stolen from brendan bankey's judge philosophy as an addendum because there is no reason to rewrite it:

---"Perm do the counterplan" and "perm do the alt" are claims that are often unaccompanied by warrants. I will not vote for these statements unless the aff explains why they are theoretically legitimate BEFORE the 2AR. I am most likely to vote for these arguments when the aff has 1) a clear model of counterplan/alternative competition AND 2) an explanation for where the

I would prefer that debaters engage arguments instead of finesse their way out of links. This is especially awful when it takes place in clash debates. If you assert your opponent's offense does not apply when it does I will lower your speaker points.

In that vein, it is my bias that if an affirmative team chooses not to say "USFG Should" in the 1AC that they are doing it for competitive reasons. It is, definitionally, self-serving. Self-serving does not mean the aff should lose [or that its bad necessarily], just that they should be more realistic about the function of their 1AC in a competitive activity. If the aff does not say "USFG Should" they are deliberately shifting the point of stasis to other issues that they believe should take priority. It is reciprocal, therefore, for the negative to use any portion of the 1AC as it's jumping off point.

I think that limits, not ground, is the controlling internal link for most T-related impacts. Ground is an expression of the division of affirmative and negative strategies on any given topic. It is rarely an independent impact to T. I hate cross-examination questions about ground. I do not fault teams for being unhelpful to opponents that pose questions in cross-examination using the language of ground. People commonly ask questions about ground to demonstrate to the judge that the aff has not really thought out how their approach to the resolution fosters developed debates. A better, more precise question to ask would be: "What are the win conditions for the negative within your model of competition?"

Email: sblosser11@gmail.com

Judging Hx- HS/College - policy/LD 1994-2004

Asst-97-04

I typically judge more than 12 rounds -varsity per year. HS

1-2 college tournaments per year

Speed is as speed does.

Tabula Rasa.

I will vote on offcase, K, CP, DA

Delivery is important - but does not outweigh logic

Quality of arguments >quantity

I will not intervene on the ballot for you.

My biggest pet peeve is bullying the other team, your partner, or being disrespectful.

I’m not a fan of parody or spoof cases. I will not vote for them! Be respectful and professional.

As long as federalism DAs are not run, we will be okay.

Michael Eisenstadt, Ph.D.

18th Year Judging College Debate | 22nd Year Judging High School Debate

2014 CEDA Pacific Region Critic of the Year | 2018 "Top Critic Award" at the Las Vegas Classic (UNLV) | 2019 CEDA Pacific Region Critic of the Year

For questions of any kind, please e-mail me at: michael.eisenstadt@csulb.edu

***I would like to be on the e-mail chain (m.stadt89@gmail.com, not my Tabroom e-mail).***

I will not necessarily read along with your speeches, but I would like to have evidence in the case that particular cards are disputed in cross-x and/or to make reading them after the debate concludes quicker.

This judge philosophy is just that, a philosophy. I think I have become more ambivalent to what your argument is over the years and more concerned with how you argue it. My job is to evaluate the arguments made in a debate, your job is to tell me why and how I should vote for them. Therefore, I think the following information is more helpful for you than me telling you what arguments I "like." This is your debate and not mine. Every day is #GAMEDAY and I will work hard when judging your debate, the same way I appreciated those who worked hard to judge my own.

An important meta-theoretical note: I believe in a 'healthy diet' of persuasion. I perceive there to be a serious problem with communication in competitive debate. Debates are won by important communicative moments (see below). Whether they are fast, slow, passionate, or hilarious, they must happen. I believe Will Repko has called these "Moments of Connection." Reading into your computer screen with no emphasis or clarity would make having such a moment extraordinarily difficult.

Debate is a communicative activity. This means that to win an argument a) I have to understand it and b) I have to hear it clearly enough to know it was there. At the end of the round, if we have a disagreement about something, usually a failure to achieve those requirements will be my explanation. Reading directly into your computer during your speeches and/or making no attempt at eye contact drastically heightens the risk of a miscommunication.

I am deeply concerned about the trend of evidence quality in debate. Teams seem to frequently read evidence that either fails to make a warranted claim OR that is highlighted down into oblivion. I think that a team who reads fewer, better (read: warranted) cards and sets the bar high for their opponents has a much better chance of winning their nexus/framing arguments.

Debate is what you make it. For some, debate is a game of verbal chess that is designed to teach them about institutional policy-making. For others, it is a place to develop community and advocacy skills for the problems and issues they face on an everyday basis whether at school, within debate, or elsewhere. I believe that one of the best things about this activity is that it can accomplish so many different things for so many individuals and it serves a variety of purposes. I think either or any of these approaches teach us the transferable skills debate can offer. No matter the arguments presented in a debate, I will always recognize this and will always support you for what you do. Over the years I have found myself voting fairly evenly for and against "framework" arguments because I will evaluate the arguments made in the debate itself. My ballot will never be an endorsement of one form of debate over another, it will very simply represent who I thought did the better debating.

Framework. In 1984, Dr. David Zarefsky famously argued, "the person who can set the terms of the debate has the power to win it." Generally, the 2NR that goes for "Topicality + Case D to Aff Impact Turns" is more likely to win in front of me than the 2NR who only goes for "State Good/Inevitable," though that is typically suitable defense on the case when the affirmative criticizes governmental action. The negative wins in front of me going for this 2NR strategy most often when it includes some combination of the following 3 arguments:

1. An interpretation supported by definitional evidence (that is ideally contextual to the topic). I am uncertain why negative interpretations like "direction of the topic" circumvents affirmative offense. These softer interpretations typically hurt the negative's ability to win the limits DA without much payoff. I have found that negative teams have a more uphill battle in front of me when the only term in the resolution they have defined is "United States Federal Government."

2. A Topical Version of the Aff and/or Switch Side Debate argument - I think of "framework" as the intersection between Topicality and argument(s) about how I prioritize impacts, which impacts should be prioritized, and what the best strategy for dealing with those impacts is. So, having a "counterplan" that plays defense to and/or solves portions of the case (and/or the impact turns) can be a good way to beat the affirmative. I find myself voting affirmative in debates where the 2NR did not address the affirmative's substantive offense (so, you did not respond to internal links to impact turns, address impact priority arguments, etc.). I also think this sets the negative up to make arguments about potential neg ground as well as a switch-side debate argument.

3. An impact - I have voted on procedural and structural fairness, topic education, and argument advocacy/testing impacts. Ideally, the 2NR will be careful to identify why these impacts access/outweigh the affirmative's offense and/or solve it. I think that debate is generally more valuable for "argument testing" than "truth testing," since the vast majority of arguments made in a debate rely on assumptions that "the plan/aff happens" or "the alternative/framework resolves a link."

Conversely, the affirmative should point out and capitalize on the absence of these arguments.

Presumption: This is a legal term that I think folks are often confused about. Presumption means that the affirmative has not met their burden of proof (sufficient evidence for change) and that I should err negative and be skeptical of change. Although a 2NR should try to avoid finding themselves with no offense, I am increasingly compelled by arguments that an affirmative who has not chosen to defend a(n) change/outcome (note: this does not mean a plan) has not met their burden of proof. For instance, an affirmative that says "the State is always bad" but does not offer some alternative to it has not overcome the presumption that shifting away from "the State" would be inherently risky. Of course, a framework argument about what it means to vote affirmative, or whether the role of the debate is to advocate for/against change factors into how I think about these issues.

Flowing: is a dying art. Regardless of whether I am instructed to or not, I will record all of the arguments on a flow. You should flow too. Reading along with speech docs does not constitute flowing. I am frustrated by teams who spend an entire cross-x asking which cards were read and requesting a speech doc with fewer cards. In the days of paper debate (I am a dinosaur to the teens of 2020), you would not have such a luxury. There are clearly instances where this is not uncalled for, but the majority of cases appear to be flowing issues, and not "card dumps" from an opposing team.

Permutations: I am almost never persuaded by the argument that the affirmative does not get a permutation in a "method debate." Permutations are mathematical combinations and all methods are permutations of theories and methods that preceded it. I could [rather easily] be persuaded that if the affirmative has no stable advocacy or plan, then they should not get a permutation. That is a different case and has a different warrant (affirmative conditionality). "Perm do the aff" is not an argument, it is not a permutation and says nothing about how a counterplan or alternative competes with the aff. I have also found that teams seem to have difficulty in defending the theoretical legitimacy of permutations. Although I would have an astronomically high threshold for voting on an argument like "severance permutations are a voting issue," such arguments could be persuasive reasons to reject a permutation.

Risk: I find that I am mostly on the "1% risk" side of things when a team has [good] evidence to support a claim. However, I can also be easily persuaded there is a "0% risk" if a team has made too much of a logical leap between their evidence and their claim, especially if the opposing team has also indicted their opponent's evidence and compared it to their own. This is especially true of "Link->Internal Link" questions for advantages and disadvantages.

Tech and Truth: If all arguments were equal in a debate, I would err on the side of truth. However, that is rarely (and should not be) the case. When there is not a clear attempt by both teams to engage in line-by-line refutation, one team tends to miss important framing arguments their opponents are making that undercut the "impact" of their truth claims. This understanding is distinct from "they dropped an arg, judge, so it must be true," since that is not a warranted extension of an argument nor is it a comparison that tells me why the "dropped argument" (how do we know it was dropped if we aren't debating line-by-line and making these comparisons? Could an argument somewhere else or on an entirely different sheet answer it?) should affect the way I evaluate other portions of the debate.

Other important notes:

A) I will vote for the team who I found to do the better debating. This means if your framing argument is "your ballot is political because _______" and I vote for you, my ballot is NOT necessarily an endorsement of that politics. Rather, it means you won your impact prioritization and did the better debating, nothing more, nothing less.

B) I do not want to preside over accusations about what has or has not happened outside of the debate I am judging. In these situations, I will always defer to the arguments presented in a debate first and try to resolve the debate in that fashion, since I am often not witness to the events that are brought up about what may or may not have happened prior to a debate.

C) I am ambivalent about argument selection and theory and am willing to vote against my own convictions. E.G. I think the Delay CP is 100% cheating and unfair but I will not credit a 2AR on that position that does not defeat the negative's arguments about why the CP is good/legitimate or I think conditionality is generally good but would still vote that it is bad if the negative is unable to defend their 1NC strategy.

D) I am unwilling to "judge kick" a CP extended by the 2NR unless they have explicitly told me why I should. The affirmative should, of course, contest the claim that I can always revert to the status quo in the event that a counterplan is insufficient/unnecessary.

In accordance with guidance from my employer, please upload docs to the file share on Tabroom instead of emailing them to me.

I debated at KU and Blue Valley Southwest, I am currently coaching at Glenbrook North

FW

I am heavily persuaded by arguments about why the affirmative should read a topical plan. One of the main reasons for this is that I am persuaded by a lot of framing arguments which nullify aff offense. The best way to deal with these things is to more directly impact turn common impacts like procedural fairness. Counter interpretations can be useful, but the goal of establishing a new model sometimes exacerbates core neg offense (limits).

K

I'm not great for the K. In most instances this is because I believe the alternative solves the links to the aff or can't solve it's own impacts. This can be resolved by narrowing the scope of the K or strengthening the link explanation (too often negative teams do not explain the links in the context of the permutation). The simpler solution to this is a robust framework press.

T

I really enjoy good T debates. Fairness is the best (and maybe the only) impact. Education is very easily turned by fairness. Evidence quality is important, but only in so far as it improves the predictability/reduces the arbitrariness of the interpretation.

CP

CPs are fun. I generally think that the negative doing non-plan action with the USfg is justified. Everything else is up for debate, but well developed aff arguments are dangerous on other questions.

I generally think conditionality is good. I think the best example of my hesitation with conditionality is multi-plank counter plans which combine later in the debate to become something else entirely.

If in cross x you say the status quo is always an option I will kick the counter plan if no further argumentation is made (you can also obviously just say conditional and clarify that judge kick is an option). If you say conditional and then tell me to kick in the 2NR and there is a 2AR press on the question I will be very uncomfortable and try to resolve the debate some other way. To resolve this, the 2AC should make an argument about judge kick.

lukehartman3@gmail.com

Background:

I debated for four years at Olathe Northwest and one year at Kansas State. I was previously an assistant coach at Blue Valley North (2014-2018 and 2021-2022), a lab leader at the Jayhawk Debate Institute (2018), and an assistant coach at Peninsula (2019-2021). I am now a patent lawyer based in Austin.

General Comments:

• I prefer policy-oriented debates, but I'm not terribly picky and will listen to most arguments as long as you can justify them.
• I don't pretend to be truly tabula rasa, as I believe that setting some ground rules (namely, that the affirmative team should defend the resolution and that the negative team should disprove the desirability of the affirmative) is a necessary prerequisite to meaningful, fair debate.
• Logic > tech > truth
• I'm far more willing vote for a smart analytical argument than a shallow extension of a card. Evidence should be read for the purpose of backing up your arguments, not the other way around.
• The technical aspect of debate is important to me. I'm generally willing to assign substantial risk to dropped arguments, but you still have to extend those arguments and their respective warrant(s).
• I love cross-x. If your cross-x is well thought out and used to generate arguments and understandings that are useful in speeches for important parts of the debate, my happiness and your speaker points will increase. [Credit to Nick Miller for most of the preceding sentence.]
• I enjoy a good joke (and occasionally a bad one).

Topicality/Theory:

The affirmative team must affirm the resolution in order to win the debate, and I believe that maximizing fairness and education (generally in that order) is good for debate. "The plan is reasonably topical" is not an argument unless the negative's interpretation is patently absurd; the neg's standards/voters are reasons why the aff is not reasonably topical. T is never an RVI. Conditionality is fine unless abused in an egregious fashion; for example, if your 1NC strat consist of 3 Ks and 4 CPs (I've seen it), you should probably go home and rethink your life.

Kritiks:

I am not especially well versed in high-theory critical literature, so do what you can to avoid burying me in jargon. I am probably persuaded by permutations more often than the average judge, and I tend to be skeptical of alts that seem utopian and/or impossible. I'm not a fan of 2NRs that go for "epistemology first" as a way to remove all substantive clash from the debate. Additionally, I tend not to think that my ballot has any particular "role" besides choosing who wins/loses the debate. "Role of the ballot" arguments should be articulated as impact framework, and they require actual standards/warrants -- not just the assertion that "The role of the ballot is [to vote for exactly what our aff/K does]." I am extremely skeptical of the idea that an isolated use of gendered/ableist language is reason enough for a team to lose a debate round. Please avoid reading from dead French philosophers if at all possible.

Debates judged (current topic): 0

Debates judged (career): 337

jacobhegna+debate at gmail dot com

University of Kansas 2019

I will keep my paradigm brief because I believe most paradigms are a normative description of how a judge wishes they judged debates rather than a descriptive one.

I am happy (or at least willing) to judge most kinds of debates. My favorite kinds of arguments are:

- affirmatives with large, truth-over-tech impacts with try-or-die framing

- resource disads (e.g. the oil disad)

- topicality

- technical Ks with specific topic and/or aff links

My least favorite kinds of arguments are:

- process, delay, etc counterplans (any counterplan which requires reading a definition to compete)

- theory debates on either side, unless it is used to reject one of the aforementioned arguments

- generic Ks of the government/etc

However, please do not significantly adjust your plans for the debate for me. I would much prefer to see a good debate on an argument I enjoy relatively less compared to a bad debate on an argument I love.

I debated policy for three years in high school. I am a policymaker and expect you to weigh the round. Tell me why you win and/or outweigh the other team. I believe topicality is important and, if blatantly nontopical, I will vote for it. I have debated in fast rounds and judged fast rounds but I PREFER a more slow to moderate speed round. Case debate is important and more clash/turns the better. Kritiks and CPs are fine but convince me why you win it. Have not judged a lot of Ks so please be very concise in explaining it to me. Be clear on your sign posting. I love and will listen to your CX - I don’t mind open CX. I value your arguments equally with your passion and speaking skills. Your final rebuttal should tell me why you win! Reading a bunch of pre-written arguments or analytics doesn’t do much for me. You can impress me if you do line by line. cmhund@hotmail.com

Experience: placed top 32 in policy debate at NCFL nationals, was Kansas 4-speaker state debate champion, was Kansas 2 speaker debate state champion class 4A

I was an assistant forensics coach for 10+ years in Kansas at Blue Valley Southwest. Placed top 3 in forensics sweeps in class 5A twice.

I debated at Blue Valley North in high school and at UMKC in college. I’ve been an assistant coach at BVN for three years now, led a lab last summer, and have judged about 50 debates on this topic. I don't have much of an ideological preference, and will evaluate all arguments. Here are some thoughts I have:

Evidence quality, comparative impact calc, and technical proficiency are important regardless of your arguments’ content. I dislike embedded clash.

Email chain: minhajutt1 @ gmail

Case/DA

Impact turning DAs/advantages is fine but you still have to do impact calc and evidence comparison for the turn, else the debate becomes difficult to objectively judge.

Responding to terrible internal links with impact defense seems less strategic to me than beating the internal link with alt causes/etc.

CP

Conditionality is good, but the neg has to say judge kick is an option. Most cheating counterplans are fine if you can beat the aff on theory.

Topicality

Impact calc still matters in T debates! Have defense to the other side’s standards, and explain why your offense outweighs/turns theirs. Be sure your interpretation resolves the offense you extend.

Your standards should be specific and impacted – list arguments their interpretation excludes and why they are good, explain which affirmatives their interpretation justifies and why including them in the topic is bad.

Critical Affs

Everything I’ve said about topicality applies here. I also think the aff typically has to win that debating the resolution is bad and that good debates would occur under their model to beat framework. Negatives need defense to aff impact turns to topic education and fairness. Fairness is an impact, but you need warrants explaining why it is.

You can win that critical affs shouldn’t be allowed perms with nuanced, impacted standards like you would in a standard theory debate

K

Each link should have an impact. Critiques of plan focus/consequentialism seem more strategic to me than critiques with causal links, but I'll vote for any argument if you win it. Winning framework lets you determine the threshold for the negative to disprove the aff. Explain why your interpretation provides the best model for debate and compare their offense to yours. Explain why you should still win under their interpretation. ROB arguments are arbitrary and usually deployed to avoid clash – do impact framing instead.

Kendall Kaut

Olathe North (KS)- 2006-2009; Assistant Debate Coach 2021-present-I serve as the primary argument coach for Olathe North CF. I work full-time as an attorney.

Baylor- 2009-2013-I was ranked in the coaches poll my sophomore, junior and senior seasons.

I want emails. kendallkaut@gmail.com

The vast majority of debates are decided on technical mistakes/one team being substantially better than the other in that contest. What follows is what may decide close issues in close debates.

Tech v. truth-Truth sets the baseline for how much tech is needed. If you argue, "The federal government includes the states," I don't need a carded response. I am fine with saying, "It's not- separate governments," and you moving on. If you say, "China rise is bad because it leads to war because the Thucydides' Trap is predictive of conflict, and Graham Allison's studies are good (card)" obviously an opponent needs to provide substantive responses.

I find very few elite debates come down to tech/truth. All of us who debated at major tournaments have felt cheated by a judge who read every card in the debate and started lining up arguments, seemingly ignoring anything that happened in the debate. I will never do that. But the worst judge or decision you faced should not overwhelm that some things require more time to answer than others.

There are good and bad arguments-I have voted for nearly everything, and I had stretches where I went for many bad arguments. I do not wake up early to do a second job--after working a full-time gig during the week--jazzed to see if I can vote for "rocks are people too." I may indeed be forced to do that, but I would stress you can and should go for better arguments than that.

Choice and clarity will win you more debates than anything else below-You don't need to go for 12 arguments against a DA in the 2AR. The block does not need to extend four different viable 2NRs. If there's one thing I would change about my career, it would be choosing more. Depth on the key issues in the debate will be much better than hoping I decide your 14th argument at 3:40-3:51 of the 2AR won the debate.

Points- Flow, be clear and answer things logically. Be nice and innovate when possible. There is nothing illegitimate about answering or asking questions during your partner's cross-examination. But absent your partner having zero idea what the argument is or answering a question 180 degrees from the correct answer, you should allow them to answer questions. Debate is a two-person game for each side. Don't kill your partner's ethos thinking you are perfection.

Where I'm good for the affirmative:

Aff teams should go for theory more against process CPs- The explosion of process counterplans has not been good for debate. Many affirmative teams are bad or too reluctant to go for theory, so I understand why the negative is going for ridiculous process counterplans. Again, I've voted for many process CPs. I had stretches where I went for them. But you are much better off having a stable interpretation of "Counterplans that do the whole affirmative are bad" than trying to find offense to every net benefit. I can be persuaded limited intrinsicness is good when the plan itself does not link to the net benefit. I am often quite persuaded that if a CP competes off of "resolved" "should" or "substantial" that it's not legitimate.

Conditionality is hitting an upper limit-I would be hard pressed to think two conditional worlds are bad. I have a hard time believing a stable 2AC can be given if someone reads five or six, as I see in so many debates. If the negative has read almost no evidence explaining why a CP solves the aff, I would allow new answers in the 1AR.

Big advantage CPs can sometimes be destroyed with analytics-Obviously if the negative reads good solvency evidence, or if they recut affirmative evidence, the aff needs real responses. But if the negative reads eight planks, I could easily be persuaded those planks may link to the net benefit or have some catastrophic failure that tanks the economy or does something else that makes solving the aff impossible.

Elections strikes me as awful-The idea the plan's mechanism would flip the election is incredibly dubious on this topic. Last year's topic had quite strong link arguments--though we were so far away and Biden ended up dropping out. But a good 2AR going for, "Other issues outweigh," and "nobody cares about the plan to flip votes" would require resounding negative debating to defeat.

Where I'm good for the negative:

The 2AC needs some substance answering case-If the negative has read seven conditional worlds, so your response is to blow off the case in the 2AC, then you should instead think about going for theory! But I don't think--especially when the negative has made new claims your 1AC evidence does not answer--the 2AC should be allowed to read a 15 second overview then make zero warranted arguments to answer new case attacks.

Limits seem good on this topic-There does not seem to be a core topic argument like the Econ DA last year. And the politics/elections DAs are awful. Maybe someone will convince me that justifies more negative theory terrorism. But I think it at least justifies a narrower topic if there's a decent topicality argument. I am probably--if the debating is done close to evenly--going to think limits are more important than the educational value of more affirmatives.

Kritiks that link to the affirmative and give them some ground to answer you-If your entire K strategy is to only go for, "The affirmative can't weigh anything it said in the 1AC because this question comes first," I'm a terrible judge for you. If you give the affirmative something it said as an answer to you, I'm probably a fine judge for you. I remain 50-50 voting when the negative goes for a K.

Framework/T against no plan teams-I have voted for no plan teams plenty before. But if you can simply explain why fairness and some limits to debate are good/debate can be productive, you are extremely likely to win the debate absent any major technical concessions.

Paradigm

Email: Krousekevin1@gmail.com

Background:

Coaching:
Olathe North Assistant Debate Coach (2024-present) - Policy/LD/PF
Simpson College Assistant Debate Coach (2024-present) - LD focus
Olathe East Assistant Debate and Forensics Coach (2017-2024) - Policy and LD focus

Debate experience:
4 years competing in Policy and LD in High School
3 years competing in College Parli debate (NPTE/NPDA circuit)

If you only read one thing on this paradigm, it should be my thoughts below on extending arguments:

Extend your arguments. Extend your arguments. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS! (THIS IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT FOR ME THAN WHAT TYPE OF ARGUMENT YOU READ) Some of the debates I've watched this year have me so frustrated cuz you'll just be absolutely crushing in parts of the debate but just not extend other parts needed to make it relevant. For example, I've seen so many teams going for framework this year where the last rebuttals are 5 minutes of standards and voters and just no extension of an interp that resolves them. Or 2ARs that do so much impact calc and impact-turns-the-DA stuff that they never explain how their aff resolves these impacts so I'm left intervening and extending key warrants for you that OR intervening and voting on a presumption argument that the other team doesn't necessarily make. So err on the side of over extending arguments and take advantage of my high threshold and call out other teams bad argument extension to make me feel less interventionist pulling the trigger on it. What does this mean? Arguments extended should have a claim and a warrant that supports that claim. If your argument extension is just name dropping a lot of authors sited in previous speeches, you're gonna have a bad time during my RFD. The key parts of the "story" of the argument need to be explicitly extended in each speech. For example, if you're going for T in the 2NR then the interp, violation, the standard you're going for, and why it's a voter should be present in every neg speech. Whatever advantage the 2AR is going for should include each part of of the 'story' of aff advantage (uniqueness, solvency, internal link, impact) and I should be able to follow that back on my flow from the 1AR and 2AC. If the 2AR is only impact outweighs and doesn't say anything about how the aff solves it, I'm partial to voting neg on a presumption ballot

Ways to get good speaks in front of me:
-Extend your arguments adequately (see above paragraph) and callout other teams for insufficient extensions
-Framing the round correctly (identifying the most relevant nexus point of the debate, explain why you're winning it, explain why it wins you the round)
-Doc is sent by the time prep ends
-One partner doesn't dominate every CX
-Send pre-written analytics in your doc
-At least pretend to be having fun lol
-Clash! Your blocks are fine but debates are SOOO much more enjoyable to watch when you get off your blocks and contextualize links/args to the round
-Flow. If you respond to args that were in a doc but weren't actually read, it will hurt your speaks
-Utilize powerful CX moments later in the debate
-If you have a performative component to your kritital argument, explain it's function and utilize it as offense. So many times I see some really cool poetry or something in 1ACs but never get told why poetry is cool/offense and it feels like the aff forgets about it after the 2AC. If it's just in the 1AC to look cool, you were probably better off reading ev or making arguments. If it's there for more than that, USE IT!

Speed:

I can keep up for the most part. Some teams in the national circuit are too fast for me but doesn't happen often. If you think you're one of those teams, go like an 8/10. Slow down for interps and nuanced theory blocks (ESPEICALLY IF THEY ARENT IN THE DOC). 10 off rounds are not fun to watch but you do you.

Argument preferences:

In high school, I preferred traditional policy debate. In college I read mostly Ks. I studied philosophy but don't assume I know everything about your author or their argument. Something that annoys me in these debates is when teams so caught up in buzzwords that they forget to extend warrants. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. Not just author names, but extend the actual argument. Often teams get so caught up in line by line or responding to the other team that they don't extend their aff or interp or something else necessary for you to win. This will make me sad and you disappointed in the RFD.

I'd rather you debate arguments you enjoy and are comfortable with as opposed to adapting to my preferences. A good debate on my least favorite argument is far more preferable than a bad debate on my favorite argument. I'm open to however you'd like to debate, but you must tell me how to evaluate the round and justify it. Justify your methodology and isolate your offense.

I don't judge kick CPs or Alts, the 2NR should either kick it or go for it. I'm probably not understanding something, but I don't know what "judge kick is the logical extension of condo" means. Condo means you can either go for the advocacy in the 2nr or not. Condo does not mean that the judge will make argumentative selection on your behalf, like judge kicking entails.

K affs- I don't think an affirmative needs to defend the resolution if they can justify their advocacy/methodology appropriately and generate offense against the resolution. I wish negs going for framework did more work explaining how the TVA articulated is sufficient instead of just reading their blocks with random TVAs v K aff, these debates are often shallow and too generic. I think being in the direction of the resolution makes the debate considerably easier for the aff as opposed to a full rejection of the topic, but I've voted for both a decent amount. I wish more negs would engage with the substance of the aff or innovated beyond the basic cap/fw/presumption 1nc but I've vote for this plenty too. I have recently been convinced that fairness can be impacted out well, but most time this isn't done so it usually functions as an internal link to education.

Document sharing:

I have no preference on email chain or speechdrop, but it does irritate me when debaters wait until the round is supposed to be started before trying to figure this stuff out.

Ev Quality:

I'm of the opinion that one good card can be more effective if utilized and analyzed well than 10 bad/mediocre cards that are just read. At the same time, I think a mediocre card utilized strategically can be more useful than a good card under-analyzed. I don't go back and thoroughly re-read every piece of evidence after the round unless it is a card that has become a key point of contestation.

Any other questions, feel free to ask before the round.

LD Paradigm:

I've coached progressive and traditional LD teams and am happy to judge either. You do you. I don't think these debates need a value/criterion, but the debates I watch that do have them usually don't utilize them well. I'm of the opinion that High School LD time structure is busted. The 1AR is simply not enough time. The NFA-LD circuit in college fixed this with an extra 2 minutes in the 1AR but I haven't judged a ton on this circuit so how that implicates when arguments get deployed or interacts with nuanced theory arguments isn't something I've spent much time thinking about. To make up for this bad time structure in High School LD, smart affs should have prempts in their 1AC to try and avoid reading new cards in the 1AR. Smart negs will diversify neg offense to be able to collapse and exploit 1AR mistakes. Pretty much everything applies from my policy paradigm but Imma say it in bold again because most people ignore it anyways: EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. Not just author names, but extend the actual claim and warrant. Often teams get so caught up in line by line or responding to the other team that they don't extend their aff or interp or something else necessary for you to win. This will make me sad and you disappointed in the RFD.

Hello - Is this thing on?

What did the Zen Buddhist say to the hot dog cart vendor?

Make me one with everything.

The Zen Buddhist gives the hot dog cart vendor $5 for a $3 hot dog. He asks the vendor, "Where's my change?"

The vendor says, "True change comes from within. Now go be the change you want to see in the world."

What do you call the wife of a hippy?

Mississippi

Do you know the last thing my grandfather said before he kicked the bucket?

"Grandson, watch how far I can kick this bucket."

For the person who stole my thesaurus, I have no words to express my anger.

I have been and English teacher for 30 years - I have judged debate (as an assistant Coach) for 6 years. Therefore, I like reason and intelligent argument debaters who have researched enough to know what they are talking about.

SPREADING IS STUPID.

I prefer actual conversational debate. Please use speechdrop.

I am basically a TABULA RASA judge. Counterplans, kritiks, disadvantages, topicality - it is all possibly a winning move if it is done well.

I respect debaters who know their evidence well and can concisely clarify during cross-x.

A big plus for actually understanding how government works so that you can formulate a reasonable plan/counterplan - know what the IRS is actually responible for - know the powers ennumerated to the federal government and therefore what is relegated to the states

I generally do not enjoy nuclear annihilation arguments - unless they link clearly. Sometimes it does, but most of the time it does not.

I debated in high school 2008-2012 and competed in parliamentary debate in college 2012-2013.

The team that tells me how to vote and why to vote their way the best will normally win, it is not just about making the argument but making it convincing and not making me complete your thoughts for you. I do not normally vote on T unless it is a clear violation. I will listen to any and all arguments that a team wants to make as long as the argument is clear. Do not try to run something just because you think I will like it, run what you are comfortable with.

Speed is not normally an issue for me as long as you are clear. I do appreciate rebuttals being slowed down a little. Like I said, I like teams that verbally write the ballot for me and tell me why to vote for them, this normally requires you to slow down a little to make a convincing argument.

I do not want anyone to be rude in my rounds. There is a nice way to cross x someone and to try to interrupt them for another question without being rude. I will not vote on this, but it will affect your speaker points if you are rude to the opposing team.

If you have questions, please ask.

Contact me with any questions, hate mail, or life advice: mason5855[at]gmail[dot]com

Debated 4 years in High school in the Shawnee Mission Area on the competitive local and national circuit
Currently debating @ KU
Rounds Judged on LA topic: 30+
Rounds Judged on Oceans: 10+
Rounds Judged on Surveillance: 9

TL;DR--Read a plan, don't read a plan, play music, read hundreds of cards - *how* you debate doesn't influence my decision unless implications of your method/performance are brought up in round. I rely on framing arguments to check my intervention in the debate, but intervention is probably inevitable to some degree. You can read things like Baudrillard and Heg advantages in front of me, but I won't encourage you to do so. email me if you have any questions

*Kansas Debate*

An argument = Claim + WARRANT + Impact. A lot of debates that I judge at regional tournaments involve debaters with relatively *good* understanding of techne and argumentative theory, but are really, really shallow when articulating why an argument is true or why a certain internal link chain makes sense. If you are tag-line or shaddow extending your arguments, you should expect my decision to be increasingly subjective, especially if I have no idea what your advocacy is/does (this goes for both critical and traditional policy arguments). Make framing arguments. Make permutations. Don't re-read evidence. Explain a dropped argument beyond "they dropped this so it flows Aff/Neg".

*Old Debate*

Aff:

Talk about the topic - this isn't a rule, but I think it's meaningful. It helps you contextualize your theoretical abstractions and/or policy discussions. We pick a new one every year, and there's a lot of creativity in tying your research to a prompt that won't always be available to you in educational environments.

I've been a 1A, and will give you leeway on extensions, but there has to be 2AC substance to back it up. Important things to make sure you highlight for me are framing arguments, the description/evaluation of permutations, and a clear articulation of your advocacy, interp, or whatever it is that you're defending. I'll also let the 1AR get away with embeded clash if it can be contextualized in a clearer fashion in the 2AR. 

I will vote on a plan-flaw. I hope you've appropriately capitalized the letters in your actor names. 

T:

I generally think reasonability means that your grounding in topical literature solves most of the Neg's offense, but you need to explain what reasonability is in the 1AR at minimum, preferably in the 2AC. "Be reasonable" is as vague as "vote for the team with the best argument". I default to competing interps because that's where most of the offense gets hashed out anyways. Intent to define and Author quals are a good way to frame how i evaluate each teams standards. When impacting out T, try to contextualize your argument to the Aff's interp. The Roland/People Quit type of impacts only get you so far if both teams agree that being topical is good.

T/Framework:

I think the second half of the rez is always easier to defend than the "USfg should", but I'll evaluate your interp regardless. I'm less swayed by the traditional "switch-side debate good, state good, limits/predictability, etc" impacts, but I do enjoy the nuance of deliberative democracy, stasis, and institutional competency. You will never win that ontological and epistemological inquiries are irrelevant to policy-making in front of me unless the other team drops it. You should have a defense of why your interp facilitates a better mechanism to discuss these rather than try to frame them away from the impact debate. I think it's also important to deliniate between role-playing/fiat and institutional competency or legal education if those are the types of arguments you're going for. 

Disads:

I don't have many thoughts on the substance of these debates, but i do think perception-based links give the neg some creativity in terms of impact calc. Don't expect me to be knowledgable about the uniqueness of these - i don't read politics or traditional disads anymore and haven't invested enough time in them to keep up with the lingo.

CPs:

They need to be competitive. They need to solve some part of the aff, everything else is up to the case debate. I'm open to whatever CP you want to read as well as the theory debates behind them. Like disads, i don't read traditional CPs much and won't be familiar with your tricks, so try and highlite these in the overview or whatever part of the debate you think they apply to. Object fiat is probably cheating and pedagogically unproductive.

Kritiks:

You need a clear articulation of not just what your Alt "is", but specifically what it does. you should articulate the relationship between my endorsement of your alt and your impacts. specific links aren't a rule for me, but they'll make the 1AR sand-bagging on the perm less messy and will help you control the case/impact debate. I'm more persuaded by Aff defenses of methodology/reps/epistemology/ontology rather than theoretical objections to prioritizing those. Both teams need to analyze the relationship between the link debate and the perm debate - this is where a lot of cheap-shots are won, and substantive argument is lost. Both teams need to give me a framework that either A) positions me to evaluate arguments in a given context or B) establishes what the function/role of the ballot is or should be. Absent this, my decision will be a forced arbitration that will be whatever makes sense to me. you might love or hate that depending on which flavor of koolaid you're sipping on. 

Theory:

I'm personally not experienced in either going for theory or evaluating it. that said, i won't tell you which theory interps to read/not read. you NEED to slow down when impacting out your argument - especially in your shells and especially if i don't have access to the analytic in the speech doc. I think identifying in-round strat skews helps offset the "reject the arg not the team", but i won't promise you a win for making it.

*New Debate*

Methodology

Methodology is important and I think that having a good understanding of both yours and your opponents makes for some really great debates. It's important that you highlite the difference in scholarship-production/pedegogy between the two. I also think this both complicates and redefines the attributes of the permutation. I don't think that you can necessarily "do both", especially when it comes to performing your method. I do think you can contest the mutual-exclusivity of a competing method. A lot of method debates that I've been in come down to questions of accessibility and knowledge production, so you should have a good defense of both in the context of your argument.

Performance

i think performative contradictions in more traditional K arguments give the Aff way more leeway towards perms and link evasions. I think your performance should account for how your performance is received and interpolated, as most discourse/affect theory tends to be grounded in the speaker/audience relationship and since my decision is ultimately my interpretation of your discourse/affect regardless of your style anyways. Also the more you do to explain how the permutation should be evaluated in this kind of debate, the better. 

*Technicalities* Speed

Clarity > Speed - especially in theory/analytic debates.

Prep time

Prep time ends when the flash-drive is pulled or when the doc is saved/is being emailed. I'm not harsh about this, but please don't take 5 minutes to save your speech or pretend that you're jumping when you're actually removing analytics.

Flowing

I flow whatever is said during the speech times with a grace period if the debate warrants it.  I think it's warranted to extend a little bit if something about the debate gets personal (see thoughts on micro-aggressions), but not if you're getting to the 4 perm disads that you forgot to extend in your 1NR or reading new ev, etc.

Speaks

Speaker points are still difficult for me - my largest issue is that my expectation of what a given debate looks like will change depending on where I'm judging. at regional/Kansas tournaments, i'm likely to reward debaters with 27.8-28.8 if they engage in minimal articulation of claims + warrants + impacts, whereas my expectations of debaters at national-circuit and competitive local tournaments will be much higher to get those kinds of speaks, or higher speaks respectively. The easier you make the debate for me to evaluate, the higher your speaks will be. i tend to reward things like awareness and articulation of conceded arguments, contextualization of your arguments to the round, clear speaking, and strategic choice when picking which arguments to extend. I tend to give lower speaks for inarticulate explanations of arguments, generic blocks that don't speak to the context of arguments made in the debate, rude behavior, and tooling your partner.

Neil Patel

Glenbrook South High School ‘13

Updated: December 2017

Education Topic: Not at all as familiar with the topic as I have been with the past few. Have judged zero debates on this topic. 

Debated for four years at GBS and coached for four as well during college. Don't really do any debate stuff anymore.

Debate is a game that is a tremendous learning opportunity for a variety of professional careers and I have experienced first-hand the real world benefits of the activity. I appreciate how it allows you to test a variety of ideas and strategies that you normally wouldn't be able to. 

Please resolve issues at the end of debates with not only impact calc, but the implication of you being ahead/winning arguments in the broader context of the debate. 

Flow. 

Debaters work hard and I feel I should do the same as a judge. 

An arg is a claim+impact+warrant. 

"You can't beat an argument by simply pointing out that an argument should be ignored. If you cannot logically deconstruct a 'dumb' argument, what does that make you?" - Ben Wolch. At the bare minimum, present a reason why.

1% risk doesn't make sense. Mitigating the risk of something sufficiently enough will make its risk inconsequential. 

Try or die only makes sense if the trying somewhat resolves the dying. 

I have a a strong emphasis on clarity and efficiency – generally, debates center around a few key arguments but the last rebuttals include a lot of irrelevant substance filling arguments instead of a focus on the core issues. 

Pieces of evidence are only useful as support for an argument. Make sure each piece of evidence you read is carefully selected to serve an explicit purpose. Analytics suffice in the absence of evidence as long there is a logical warrant proving the claim true. 

The content and source of an argument are relevant, in so far, as the argument that you are making. 

My favorite part about debate is research. Take that for what you will. 

Truth versus tech is sort of arbitrary. It's not new if it is true. 

“I enjoy debaters doing what they do well. If you’re funny, be funny. If you are smart, be smart. Cordial debates are generally more enjoyable. Context matters. If two aggressive teams have a heated rivalry then it’s going to produce an aggressive debate---I get that. Unnecessary aggression/rudeness/etc will result in lower points.” – Jordan Blumenthal

Impact turn + Advantage CP/Case is my favorite strategy.

There is a strategic utility to certain critiques (more commonly known as kritiks) when executed in a fashion that makes it a relevant consideration of the affirmative.

after my time in the activity and experience in the real world, my parting words of wisdom is that the single most important thing I took away from the activity is to maximize your fun. 5 years from now - you are going to tell the stories where you had the most fun. 

For questions related to anything, email me: 

Neilp1215@gmail.com

I debated 4 years in high school from 2011-2015 at Blue Valley Southwest (KS) and 3 years in college from 2015-2018 at the University of Kansas. During college debate I also coached/judged at high school tournaments in the KC area. Currently I am a community coach at Chicago Bulls College Prep.

I read policy arguments, but am not opposed to k debate. Do whatever style you are most comfortable with. If you can convince me of an argument, then I'll vote for it (within reason).

General:
Do whatever you're good at, I don't care.
-Speed: Yes.
-Disclosure: Yes
-Open Cross-X: Yes

Policy Debate:
This is the style I am most familiar with.
-Topicality: I think team's should be topical, but I also believe that it's up to the other team to prove why.
-Counterplans: I enjoy counterplans a lot. Open to hearing theory on 'cheating' CPs, however I think CP theory is usually a reason to reject the arg and not the team.
-Disads: Remember to have impact calculus on both sides. Explain why your disadvantage outweighs the advantages of the 1ac.

K Debate:
I will listen to kritiks on both sides.
Top leveling framing is important (how do I evaluate the debate?).
Affirmative- I am a policy debater so I evaluate the K similar to how I would evaluate any other policy argument. Win your impacts/framing.
Negative- I think that kritik should try to have a specific link to the affirmative and do their best to engage it. Links of omission do not persuade me. Teams should explain how the alt interacts with the impacts of the 1ac otherwise the K just becomes a non-unq da.

Theory:
I'll vote on condo if that's what it comes down to.
For most other theory args, I am more likely to reject the argument instead of the team.

My Dog:

Lauren Carter, Assistant Coach at Olathe East High School

lncarter@olatheschools.org

I debated for three years in high school (two years as a policy debater and one year in public forum debate) at Liberty High School in Missouri. I didn't debate in college, but I have been coaching and judging since 2017.

General debate preferences:

Please be polite to each other! Being rude is not a good look if you want good speaker points.

I do my best to flow all arguments made in the round. That being said, if your argument isn't clear and/or I don't know where to flow it because you're jumping between points and aren't clearly sign-posting, it may not make it on my flow. Please stick to your roadmap as much as possible if you give one.

I'm not a huge fan of scripted/pre-typed speeches, aside from the first speech of the round. Going off-script shows me that you have a good handle of your arguments and will reflect well on the ballot. Being a good reader and a good debater are not one and the same.

I'm not comfortable giving oral critiques or round disclosure after the debate. I will put comments on my ballot.

Policy: I'm okay with some speed (not your top speed) but would prefer that you slow it down a bit during analytics and explanations of arguments/cards.

I learned a more traditional, stock issue oriented style of policy when I debated, so that is what I have the most experience with. However, you are the debaters and know which arguments work best for you. If you can teach me something new while in your round, go for it!

I especially love to hear good disads, but I also think that CPs and T are effective when argued well.

I don't mind kritiks and theory, but I don't have the background to follow them well without very clear explanations. Please don't throw around technical terms and arguments and assume that I know what you are talking about.

While you should respond to all arguments, I do believe that quality over quantity often comes into play when it comes to reading a bunch of evidence. A card isn't an argument, so please don't give me a laundry list of cards and taglines without taking some time to justify their purpose in the round.

I generally don't spend a lot of time looking at your speech docs. If I open your doc, I'll mostly look at it as a quick reference to help me keep track of my flow. If I have to continuously look at your doc to follow you, you aren't being clear or sign-posting enough. If a card is called into question I will look at it, but I don't take evidence credibility or inconsistencies with cards into consideration unless you as the debaters bring it up.

LD: I prefer a more traditional style of debate for LD and like to see rounds that bring out the distinct style of debate that represents LD. I would prefer to see debates centered on your case values, philosophy and logic.

Public Forum: I've judged PFD at local tournaments and prelim rounds at nationals.

You don't have to speak super slow for me but I don't enjoy hearing spreading during PF rounds. In this style of debate, I appreciate debaters who use their time well and know when to develop and expand on arguments and when to narrow the focus. You have longer speeches at the beginning so use this time wisely early on, especially for you second speakers.

Currently leaving this blank due to doxxing of judges. Ill update again before the season or debaters can email me for a copy. SovietHistory2396@gmail.com