Updated: November 2023

Former 4 year debater at Olathe South High School (Graduated 2020; US-Sino Relations, Education, Immigration, Arms Sales)'

Current Asst. Coach @ Olathe South

4 years of policy and 3 years of LD

tylerboutte4@gmail.com

TLDR: You do you, I'm just here to evaluate your perspective of the topic. I have my own preferences but ultimately if you provide a warranted model of debate I'll vote for you. Feel free to add me to the email chain and ask any questions for clarification.

Judge Philosophy: Policymaker. Debate rounds are won with offense vs. defense. Do with that what you will.

*Online Debate*: I participated in the online format at Nationals and didnt have any issues other than the other team having bad internet. If you're gonna go fast make sure, your doc says everything you say just in case someone's internet decides to cut out.

Tech>Truth

Speed: Go as fast as you want just slow down for tags, authors, and theory. Speed rounds are fun. If you can do it well, please do.

Topicality: Over time I've come to care about this type of debate less and less. I find the threshold for me to vote neg on T to be pretty high, but if that's what you're gonna go for do it. Please do not just read a T block and precede to reread that block throughtout every speech for the entire round. Keys to this debate are explaining to me why the aff's model of debate as a whole is bad, not just this round specifically. Aff arguments about reasonabililty are pretty persuasive for me especially when the rebutalls come down to what is "fair." Recently teams have been opting to debate t on the surface level. That's 1) really boring and painful for everyone involved and 2) not helping win rounds. Good work on the standards and voters level of this flow looks like debating about the impacts of the aff's relationship to the resolution.

DA: Obviously the more specific your link, the more likely I am to weigh the DA but generic links work too if you make them. I feel that lately debaters have been treating these types of debates as separate piece from the case flow. Both teams should articulate how/why the DA interacts with the case. This includes impact calc which is severely under utilized. I'm most likely to vote on this flow if its connected to the aff case instead of being a floating argument for me to evaluate. Aff teams should also be looking to turn disads into advantages for the case instead of only playing defense.

(2023: I'm not a huge fan of most DA's on this topic. Generic links and impact scenarios are not very persuasive unless you do the work to make it make sense. The more specific/realistic the better.)

FW/K: I have the most experience with critiques of security, set-col, militarism, and afropess but I'm willing to listen to anything and have probably read/looked into other popular critiques. These debates I find to be the most fun as a debater/judge but that also means they're the most frustrating. To me it seems that too many debaters are scared of actually debating the critiques they're running and instead default to framework debates. While I have no problem with these debates either, they tend to get incredibly sloppy and thus difficult to evaluate. In terms of how I evaluate the K itself, in levels of importance I think Link>impact>alt. Quite honestly, I dont care about the alt as much as I do how the critique itself impacts the aff. If you want to go for the alt, GREAT, but I'd prefer if you spend most if not all of the 2NR/2AR on powerful rhetoric about how me voting for you is going to reshape the world. Good k teams are giving great analytical arguments about the k's relationship to the aff instead of reading tons of cards of obscure theory.

Counterplans/Case: This may be the most underutilized aspect of debate now. Cases should be built with offense and defense embedded as part of the aff strategy. The neg should actually interact with the aff case and produce turns or deficits to the aff impacts. All CPs are fine, Ill let the debaters sort out what is and isnt fair. I do find that my threshold for condo is extremely high, I believe that debate is ultimately a game and the neg has every right to take advantage in this game and run as many off-case positions as they want. That doesnt mean I wont vote on condo though, the aff just needs to have an argument explaining why this model of the game is bad for debate as a whole.

Please add me to the email chain: lbrigdon.info@gmail.com

also, please add analytics to chain, atleast for zoom debates because it might be harder for me to flow them due to audio/connection speed/lag. Thanks

Debate Experience:

*I debated at Olathe South Highschool for 3 years.

*And I have debated at JCCC for 1 year and I'm currently moving onto my 2nd year debating in college.

Pronouns: They/Them

What I expect in and outside of rounds:

I understand that debate can be a squirrely place full of different arguments, theory and ideology, and some have some pretty interesting things to say. HOWEVER I have ZERO tolerance for racist, sexist, ableist, and heterosexist comments in and outside of the activity.

And dont be excessive or unnecessarily mean or rude to anybody in and out of rounds.

I will not do the work for any team, if you have an argument you have to connect the dots and lines for me, I refuse to do extra work for a team. It's apart of getting better, explain your arguments and stick to the ones that best suits you and the round. Show me/tell me why you win the round and cross-apply/pull through the arguments you go for and tell me why its important.

I reward creativity and hard work, show me something new, keep me engaged for a chance at higher speaks.

I also refuse to make any judgements about you or the round based on what you wear, that means nothing to me, in college debate no one really dresses up. Also, making judgements about clothing in & out of rounds is not only classist, but it can be racist, sexist, and ableist. I WILL call out other JUDGES and DEBATERS who make any comments related to another's appearance. This is a space of acceptance.

Spreading/Speed Reading:

I'm more than okay with it, I can understand those who spread. Don't be afraid to speed read for me, don't worry I got it. Just make sure you are speaking clearly, If I cant understand you I will make that evident within round, if I cant understand you or your words are coming out of your mouth faster than your brain can process it. Just slow down on the Tags, Authors. I don't want to hear gibberish, I don't expect it to be 1000% crystal clear the whole time, but try your best to be understandable.

Counter Plans:

CP's are cool, just do the work. Show me that the CP is mutually exclusive and explain the CP that's all I ask.

K's and K lit:

I am a big fan of Kritiks and any K lit, I prefer them much more than policy arguments, however that doesn't mean you have a higher chance of winning or losing a round if you do or do not run them. If you do decide to run a K, you have to explain it well enough for me to understand it, as if I have not heard it before even if I have already, which I probably have lol. Like I said above, I will not do the work for you!

A big part of judging a debate for me, is the technical side, please explain in great detail the link level of the debate in great detail, I cant apply an argument if you don't do the work.

You also have to explain the alt to me, and the mechanisms of the alt, like how it will work, or what the world of the alt would look like. Just be sure to explain your arguments in general.

I'm also a big fan of performance arguments so go for it if you want! :)

A brief summary of some K's I have used this year: Academy, Ableism, Anarchy, Buddhism, Capitalism K, Heidegger, Psychoanalysis, Security, Queer Theory.

Also if you're not black then don't run blackness arguments, if you're not queer then don't run queer theory, etc..

Policy Arguments/Case Arguments:

I was a policy debater all throughout high-school and a little bit in college, I do enjoy some good o'l policy arguments, just make sure you explain whatever you run well.

I'm not the biggest fan of Nuclear war impacts, so if you can avoid it, then please do so. Unless you can prove to me, beyond a reasonable doubt how the world will dissolve into nuclear chaos. Other then that all impacts are on the table. I'm looking for creativity with Policy arguments, because truthfully most of them tend to bore me. That doesn't mean you will have a higher or lower chance of winning if you run them, just have fun with it, do the work and show me why you win. it's very simple.

Im also not the biggest fan of Politics or Bi-Partisanship DA's in general, but that can be attributed more to the fact that I hate the USFG and any other Governmental/Power Based structures as a whole, because I believe any power structure is designed to create struggles and tyranny from those deemed lesser, and thats messed up and I shouldn't have to tell you WHY! (Thanks Anarchism K's lol.) But like I mentioned previously regarding Nuke War impacts/DA's, I won't stop you from running them, and I won't weigh them any less than any other DA/IMP's/ or argument you run, YOU HAVE TO DO THAT WORK FOR ME WITH IMPACT CALC!!!

And please if you have case args, then run them if applicable, I feel like there isn't enough clash in rounds anymore and that's partly because people are either afraid, or just dont want to read on-case, read it if you have it, if not I hope you have a sure-fire/strong strategy to win the round. Say if you have 10 DA's and 3 K's it still might not be enough to win the round without great links, or impacts. Because even if you do, if they claim case outweighs and you dont provide any reason why that's not true you will lose, plain and simple. That's also I big reason I think Impact Calc and FW is super important.

Impact Calculus:

Its important, do it in round if you want to make me happy. Show me the in's-and out's of your impacts, and weigh them. Thanks

Framework/Topicality:

Framework is huge for me in deciding a round, I will usually always vote for a team that tells me how to view their arguments, and the round at large rather a team that does not, even if I wouldn't necessarily deem that lens in which they asked me to view the round through is a good argument or not. If you really wanna sell me on a vote for you, have solid FW arguments.

I understand T is basically apart of FW, but if you separate the two, which is totally fine, then good for you. However if you run a T arg you really have to hit home on why a team is or is not topical/ abusively untopical for me its either all or nothing. If you don't make it thorough, and really explain it I wont vote on it, simple as that. And that's also due in part because I hate Topicality, I guess IT IS an argument, but to me its sort of a cop-out unless they're blatantly un-topical. I would much rather see some of your efforts be put into another basket. But again, I won't stop you from running it, but please show me they actually are abusive and

Speaks:

I'm down for any speed you want to go, I dont reward based on presentation and speed alone, but moreover on argumentation, creativity, and how well you explained your arguments.

Coaching/Communication Inquires:

If you would like to contact me for advice, coaching, and/or a more in-depth explanation of an RFD then feel free to reach out to me and send me an email or a text with the contact information listed below. If you do reach out it, I will only respond to debate, forensics, life advice, or college related discussions.

I also I have a close relationship with some coaches and assistant coaches in the community, and if you would feel more comfortable talking to them for advice, coaching, or connections. I'm more than happy to set you up with them so you can connect and talk to them about what I mentioned above or about furthering your debate career.

And if there's any specific theory you'd like to learn about, or what it takes to debate in college, I know either me or my spouse - who currently debates at KU, and is an Assistant coach at SMW - can give you some great suggestions! We are always down to help the community that has given us so much.

Thanks, and have fun y'all! :)

Coaching/Questions Email: lbrigdon.info@gmail.com

And remember to have fun, debate is about expression, learning, growing and making life long connections. Dont take any RFD or ballot to heart, in the end I just want you to succeed and learn as much as you can. I love the members of this community dearly, and I want everyone who partakes to have a good time that they will take with them for the rest of their lives.

I debated for a couple years in high school. I think debating is meant to improve not only critical thought but also clear communication, so try to keep that in mind. I don't like spreading, I have a really hard time understanding it. Not a fan of kritiks, but I'm open to anything so long as you feel you can elucidate enough. Otherwise for the debate, it's y'all's world for that hour and a half, I'm just living in it.

I am a former high school and collegiate debater. I am an attorney and an assistant debate coach at Shawnee Mission North.

Since I flow on paper, you may want to slow down. Please be clear while speaking. If I stop flowing, you are not being clear enough. I do not want to be on your e-mail chain. I am holding you accountable for the articulation of all arguments. I am not simply going to follow along on a laptop while you arguably read the entirety of the cards.

I am open to all forms of argumentation EXCEPT critical arguments. If you make a critical argument, your team will lose.

Please don't try to shake my hand.

Please be nice to each other.

Sincerely,

The grumpy old man who wants you off of his lawn

Hello! For the record, I absolutely love debate and this community, so above all things, I want both teams to have fun both inside and outside the round.

Tl;dr: I would consider myself a policymaker with an emphasis on stock issues; however, I do find a place for more technical debate arguments such as kritiks or theory in my paradigm. If you are clear and concise with your arguments and use even the smallest bit of critical thinking and common sense you will be fine with having me as a judge. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me!

Experience: I am a four-year debater at Olathe Northwest. I have only competed in the Open/KDC division for policy, but I can understand and will listen to most arguments. I am well versed in the Arms Sales topic because I too am debating on it. I have judged quite a few times at other novice tournaments and for practice rounds at my own school. I have also competed in LD, Congress, WSD, and Extemp so my experience with speaking events and debate, in general, is much broader than just policy and each of those experiences has shaped my opinion about debate and communication in general.

Speed: DO NOT SPREAD. I am a debater with dyslexia, and it affects my reading and listening comprehension. If you spread, I legitimately cannot understand what your arguments are and that usually isn’t a good strategy. I can handle moderate speed but anything on the verge of spreading (aka a rate of speaking of which you were taught to speak at) I will not keep up with.

Roadmap: Please give an off-time roadmap before all speeches except for the 1ac. However, you should not be making any arguments in the roadmap. It should just be an order you would like my flows in.

Flow: Tell me where and which flows you want me to be putting arguments. For example: do not say “on the circumvention flow” because that means less than nothing. Is this regarding solvency, the advantages, a counterplan? I don’t know because you aren’t telling me which usually also means I don’t know, as a judge, the relevancy of the argument in this round. Just keep a clean and orderly flow and you should be fine. Along with this please signpost when you are moving onto a new flow.

New in the 2NC: I do not like new off case or on case arguments (this means you didn’t cover any case in the 1nc) in the 2NC. The ONLY time I can justify new anything in the 2 is if a team is not answering specific questions in CX and then reveals a blatant link into Topicality or Theory. I just feel like new in the 2 is severely un-strategic for the negative team because it leaves arguments underdeveloped.

Fiat/Plan: I believe fiat is always granted to the affirmative whether or not they reserve it in the plan. Along with that, I strongly believe in durable fiat. The debate should be about whether or not the plan is going to work, its impacts both good and negative, and whether or not it's a good idea NOT whether or not it'll pass through the government. I don't believe there is one definitive way to write a plan so plan plank arguments/mandates/aspec usually fall flat with me especially if the team answers such questions in cross-ex.

Topicality: I like a quality T debate, but that being said only if it's quality. I think topicality is extremely important if there is a clear breach of the resolution’s limits. However, as the 1NC you should not be reading me the first substantial definition you find on open evidence by Words and Phrases. Be clear and concise on what your definitions are in the round and how exactly they shape the Resolution. For me, Topicality should be a framing argument for how one should view the topic. Tell me why you believe this is better for education or fairness or really just better for debate in general. I do recognize, however, that Topicality should maintain fairness for both teams in round so I will not vote on a Topicality argument that is clearly unreasonable. Topicality is there to help maintain the rules not for someone to use to bend the rules to how they want them.

Stock Issues: I will listen to basically all arguments, but stock issues hold a special place in my heart. For the record the main stock issues I was taught were Inherency, Solvency, Advantages, and Harms (in some circumstances). It is very rare I vote on inherency or harms unless it is very clear that the affirmative’s plan already exists or the harms that the affirmative is trying to solve for do not exist either. A dense Solvency flow (especially with solvency turns/advantage turns) makes me very happy! I think the use of critical thinking is very important on a solvency flow from both teams. Don’t just rely on cards, but rather think deeper and truly engage with the other team’s evidence. It should not be “they said but I said” argumentation. I will not vote on presumption unless you tell me to.

Disads: I will listen to basically any impact on a disadvantage. Prove to me how a team links/doesn’t link and show how your impacts outweigh. Impact turns are well received by me. Generic is fine as long as you explain the link.

Counterplans: Just perm the cp please… like please. Also, an effective argument against a perm is not “but it’s not permable”. Why is it not permable? Have a written-out plan text for the cp.

Framing: I think impact framing adds a lot to a debate, but contrast to popular belief framing does not dictate how I MUST vote. Both teams should use framing to explain why I should prefer certain impacts or shows how other impacts are less likely or less impactful. I do find framing less believable/usable as a judge if you do not make impact calculus argument alongside it though.

Theory/Framework: I will listen to theory/framework, but I am not that well-versed in a lot of these arguments so please walk me through them and help me understand what you are arguing. I will not listen to disclosure theory unless you can specifically prove abuse presented by the non-disclosure.

Kritiks: I think kritiks can be very interesting and add a lot to debate, but I personally do not know a ton about the literature base out there for most kritiks so if you run one please:

a) Explain it to me in-depth. If I do not understand what I am voting for I am not going to vote for it.

b) KNOW YOUR OWN LITERATURE. If you don’t know what you’re running, then I certainly don’t.

I don’t think all kritiks link to all plans. Please show exactly how the specific plan and its actions link to your k. Also, the alt is overwhelmingly most often the weakest part of the k, but if you provide a solid alt it is a very good way to sway me neg.

Likes:

1) Clever arguments

2) In-depth analysis

3) Hospitality food

4) Quality/credible authors

5) Rebuttals that help clearly crystallize the round

Dislikes:

1) Bulldozing/gaslighting in cx

2) Date debates (I know there are instances why it matters but please outline to me why that difference matter)

3) "My partner will cover this in their next speech" (all debaters no matter their position should know and understand the arguments they are running in the round, so they should be able to answer clarifying questions. I will remember if you said your partner would answer a question and then they don't. It's not a reason for my decision but it certainly grinds my gears.)

4) Lying/contradictions

5) Coaches debating me over my rfd (if you have questions about my decision, ask me yourself)

WARNING: If there is blatant disrespect or rudeness in the round, I WILL NOT shy away from immediately signing the ballot. All people are welcome in the debate space and as long as I have some semblance of control it will remain that way. Be careful with your rhetoric because you (most likely) do not know your opponent so please use trigger warnings when applicable and watch gendered language unless previously discussed with your opponents. I understand if there are slip-ups, so in the event that there is some kind of "incident" please just apologize and move on. Such an event will only impact my decision if it continues. In summary, please be kind and courteous to your opponents and respect all individuals and their experiences.

Former three year debater at Olathe South High School and current assistant coach there as well.

I've debated in both KDC and DCI divisions so I'm down for any style of debate.

Big Picture:

Tech>Truth

Judge instruction is very important to me. I want to flow the round with minimal judge intervention, this means that I want you to explain to me why I should prefer your arguments, what I should vote for in the round, etc.

This means that you should run with what you feel the most confident and comfortable with. However, if you don't provide me with a way to vote in the round I will just default policy maker.

Personally, I believe that debate is a game of offense and defense. Offense for both teams is very important to win the round for me.

Impact Calc is a must.

A team is much more likely to win my ballot if they have a clean flow. This means having great signposting, line by line, and clash.

Extending and explaining warrants would be nice.

I understand that this is a competitive activity and for me it's cool to be laid back but I request that the debaters are still respectful to each other inside or outside the round.

If you have any questions about my paradigm or my decision, please feel free to ask me anything.

Disadvantages: While it is true that the more recent your uniqueness is, the more likely I am to weigh your argument and the DA but old-ish ones work fine too. That being said, I hate when a team just says that I should prefer their evidence because the opponent's card is "outdated". The team must explain to me in context as to why it matters that one card is newer then the other (what about the more recent world has changed?). Obviously the more specific your link, the more likely I am to weigh the DA but generic links work too if you make them. I feel that lately debaters have been treating these types of debates as separate piece from the case flow. Both teams should articulate how/why the DA interacts with the case. This includes impact calc which is severely under utilized. I'm most likely to vote on this flow if its connected to the aff case instead of being a floating argument for me to evaluate. Aff teams should also be looking to turn disads into advantages for the case instead of only playing defense. I am also a huge fans of both link and impact turns on disads and take them very seriously if the aff plans on running them in the round. If the aff does end up going for or winning on a link or impact turn, just make sure to fully explain to me what means for the debate round as a whole. I want you to treat it as if you have just won a new free advantage for your case.

Topicality: I believe that the best style of T debate is one where the main focus of the debate is around the standards and voters of T. In order for me to vote on T, I would need a team to put a heavy amount of the debate on the standards or voters. For me, T is not an automatic voting issue, if a team does a well enough job on the voters flow, I can be convinced that it doesn't matter if the aff isn't topical since there is no reason to vote for T. Also, I fully believe that T is not a reverse voting issue. If nothing else is specified, I default competing interps over reasonability.

Counterplans: I think the best way to convince me whether to or not to vote on a counterplan is do compare the solvency of the aff to the solvency of the counterplan in order to prove which one solves the impacts better. I'm cool with all types of counterplans such as PICs, delay, consult, etc. I find myself leaning towards the negative's side on the argument of whether or not some counterplans are abusive or not. That being said, I'm willing to vote on any type of counterplan theory if done right. Perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy.

Kritiks: The Kritiks that I have a decent amount of knowledge or experience with are security, militarism, capitalism, set col, and anthro. Don't just expect me to know everything about the K and make sure to really go in depth in explaining how it works. My preference on links is pretty generic as I would prefer you to use specific links but generics are fine as long as you are prepared to defend them. For impact, I would want you to do lots of work on how that impact affects the case by doing case turns or impact calculus. Even though it is important to include some work on the alt by including some good comparative solvency in it, it is not the most important thing for me. While having a good alt would obviously make the K a lot stronger, I would be fine for voting for a K with a weak alt if the impact is fleshed out enough to completely outweigh or turn the aff case. If your impact is just destroying the other team, then I don't really think you need that good of an alt but just make sure you give me some kind of an alt such as reject the aff so I have some kind of alt to even vote on. Even though I am not that big on the alt, I do need some kind of an alt in order for me to vote for the K.

Kritikal Affirmatives: A lot of my thoughts here are similar to my thoughts on Kritiks as well. This does not mean that I won't vote on K-Affs as I have before. Overall, I think the most important thing to K-Affs to me is judge instruction. Specifically, the aff team needs to tell me what I am voting for and what my ballot does for the debate round and how that ballot or the 1AC solves. This means that role of the ballot is very important to my vote and should be clear what it is in the 1AC. I prefer that your K-Aff is related to the resolution somewhat instead of just debate as a whole and for the aff team to be fully explain what they are exactly rejecting or critiquing.

Framework: When I debated, this was my favorite part of the K debate so I do enjoy seeing a good FW round. How I feel about FW debates is pretty much the same way as I feel about T debates. While it is of course important to talk about all of FW, I believe that the majority of the debate should be on the standards/voters/impacts of FW. The debates of FW should be impacted out to not only this debate round, but also debate as a whole. I think the best way for teams to argue FW is for them to use their impacts on the flow as offense. Unless the neg can make a really compelling we meet argument, I find it extremely hard to see myself voting for the neg on K if they lose FW.

Theory: Unless the other team is obviously extremely abusive in the round for whatever the reason, for me theory is a hail mary. That means that if you go for it, you better go all the way and make it the voting issue in the round. For less abusive theory arguments, I generally default reject the argument over reject the team but I am willing to reject the team if I am convinced so. Specifically on condo, I do find that my threshold for condo is extremely high, I believe that debate is ultimately a game and the neg has every right to take advantage in this game and run as many off-case positions as they want. That doesn't mean I won't vote on condo though, the aff just needs to have an argument explaining why this model of the game is bad for debate as a whole.

On Case: The only real arguments for me for the on case are purely solvency based ones. Lately, I have been finding it very hard for me to vote for a negative team with no offense and their sole argument being that the case doesn't solve. If worst case scenario for passing the aff is simply that it doesn't solve while best case scenario is gaining X and Y impacts, then I'm gonna feel pretty comfortable voting aff. For me, solvency deficits mainly help you win your probability arguments on impact calc. Besides solvency, I think that case turns are very useful as on case arguments as well. Overall, solvency arguments can be effective, but offense is also needed as well in order to gain my ballot.

Speed: I'm cool with spreading or going as fast as you want as long as you're clear and slower on tags, authors, analytical arguments, and theory. I expect for debaters to slow down a bit if they are reading from a pre made block on their computer. That being said, I don't expect perfect clarity with spreading but I want at least to understand it somewhat so it's not just straight gibberish.

Speaks: I decide speaks based upon argumentation not necessarily presentation. Obviously some speaking ability is factored in, but I’ve gotta be fair to the 1As out there.

Hi,

I’m Alina. My pronouns are she/her. I was mostly a block boy when I debated but I do prefer judging lay style debate rounds. I’m fine with Ks and like open cross x and all that stuff whatever you want to do I just think the most important thing is to have fun.

email: gracemechler@gmail.com (she/her), please do not hesitate to email with any questions or concerns

Debated at Free State High School for 3 years (graduated in 2020)

I am most familiar with KDC style debate and a more medium-speed speaking style, but I am cool if you want to talk fast too. If you choose to spread or talk fast, please use clarity! Additionally, I am fine with whatever you choose to run as long as you explain it well. I am not very familiar with Ks, so if you choose to run one, please explain it well. I like to see a good explanation of impact calc and a productive cross ex.

I am unfamiliar with this topic, and have never judged it before, so please try to explain the more complex arguments :)

Bigotry/ hate speech of any kind will absolutely not be tolerated. Be respectful to your partner and opponents, and although debate can sometimes be stressful, try to have some fun!

I'm okay with any argument being run. I don't particularly enjoy hearing theory arguments and would prefer if they related back to the case material. I understand this is not always possible and am still willing to vote on them should they be compelling. I love impact calc and will most likely vote on that. Whoever makes the world a better place at the end will more than likely have my vote.

Another side note is that if I do not hear an argument then it will not be factored into the voting process. With this in mind, please speak at a conversational speed (I understand that some speeches may need to be a bit faster) and signpost. If I am not flowing, you are likely going too fast.

Current Assistant Coach: Lansing HS

Former Head Coach: Thomas More Prep Marion Jr/Sr HS, Bonner Springs HS

High School Policy: 4 Years - Champs

EMAIL CHAIN - kelli.henderson@usd469.net (yes, I would like to be included on it)

Speed - I’m flexible. I prefer to be able to understand you and have clarity with your words. Make that happen for whatever that looks like for you. If I can’t understand you or follow, it will be obvious that I’m zoning out. I will listen to whatever you choose to say, however you choose to say it. Make it count.

Preferences - I’m a fan of line by line. Tell me where to put it on the flow and tell me why it matters. I like Impact Calc. I typically default to policy maker and like stock issues if no one is directing me how to vote. I like to see direct clash, I believe that quality evidence matters, and having a cohesive and clear vision for the round is a plus.

All in all I try to keep an open mind to the arguments being made as long as they are not blatantly false/illogical. I want you to debate how you know how to debate I do not want an altered version based off of what you think I want to hear.

Some Specific Argument Notes:

If you do not make clear your position and why I should vote a particular way, I will more than likely default to policy maker.

Case: I love a good case debate! Be sure to have smart analysis of what is being presented in the round. Do not overlook plan.

Topicality: I like topicality and believe it is an under used tool. I want standards/voters. Do not run T just for the sake of running T. I want it to be logical and well constructed.

Disads: I value a strong link. Impact Calc. is important. If running something along the lines like Nuc War, it had better be strong and well constructed for me to consider it.

CPs: They’re not my favorite. I prefer specific solvency over generic CPs. You can still win a CP debate but please make sure it is truly more beneficial.

Kritiks: I enjoy philosophy but it needs to actually make sense. Explain the logic of the K to me if you want to win it. If you are not able to clearly explain your literature, do not go for it.

Theory: You must be able to thoroughly articulate why Theory matters and what the actual impact is. I will listen to it. I will weigh it accordingly. Not my favorite.

Things that I do NOT like or will not tolerate:

Being disrespectful - Your words matter. Use them wisely, properly, and be in good taste.

Abusing prep/flash times - be honorable and courteous.

Falsifying evidence - just don’t.

Please put me on the email chain annikavaughn7@gmail.com

I was a two-year debater at Olathe South but did forensics for four years. I judge quite often and can keep up.

As long as I have access to the evidence being read, I do not mind spreading, just slow down for tags and authors.

As far as arguments go for the most part, I am a stock issues judge. I do love topicality, if it is run well.

Above all else:

1. Please be respectful one another. Disrespect will not be tolerated, and you will be voted down.
2. Have fun! If you aren't having fun, you aren't doin it right!
3. Keep the debate educational, I would also like to learn during the round.

Have fun! I'm excited to watch you debate!