inactive

Spring Hill Tournament: This is my first time judging online so please be patient. Additionally, this is my first tournament on this topic so please don't assume I'm in the topic literature like you are. Please explain acronyms, etc.

Background: I did four years of policy in HS in Missouri. I then did mostly parli in college for SIU

then Washburn.

General: I hate it when people don't start with a strategy. I'm ok with people initially deploying two or

three potential strategies but the collapse has to happen and happen early. Likewise I enjoy the aff

building offensive answers into the aff and using them. Argument interaction has to happen. Clash is

good. I probably shouldn't have to say that, but I do. I am open to any argument, but as with anyone

else I do have particular biases.

Specifics:

Counterplans- pretty much the only thing that should be said here is that I prefer unconditional

counterplans, but if nobody checks the status, feel free to kick it. If you do go for condi good, you

better be damn good on theory. However, this does not mean I want to hear you say condi bad as some sort of pre-empt

Kritiks/performance- I am down. Biggest problem I have with these debates is when someone just tries

to buzz through the debate. This means I probably won't give much weight to “x leads to dehum”

unless you explain the process in which a person is stripped of human status, and why that is likely to

outweigh something. Dehum justifies all violence isn't good enough. Also, I believe if someone reads a

procedural that says you should not have access to your K you should not be able to justify the K using

the K. If you want to k the procedural on different grounds, that’s fine but I am very very very

susceptible to “your answers to our procedural are illogical and beg the question”.

T- I default competing interps, but I'm open for anything. Please impact your standards debate.

Disads- please explain interaction between the disad and case. Be strategic. Read the disad to get

somewhere more than just an impact.

Case debates that actually clash on a warrant level (not just the tags)are the key to my heart.

Don't be rude. Your speaks will be dramatically affected.

I know this philosophy doesn't really give a super amount of insight. If you have questions, please ask.

I would rather let you know I'm not a fan of an argument instead of listening to too much of it. Once

again, do anything you want to in the debate round. Its just a game.

My email is cam.cassil.ict@gmail.com and if my computer is charged and on me, I would like to be included on the email chain.

Experience: I debated three years in high school at Newton High School and 3 years in college at Wichita State University.

Paradigm: I have experience in Advantage vs Disadvantage debates, Kritik vs Kritik debates, and everything in between. If reading Baudrillard really fast is your thing, that's cool. If your strategy is usually a Politics DA and case at a speed that is comfortable for you, that's great. If you don't defend the resolution that is okay, but the 1AC should be topic directional. By this I mean: if there isn't any topic unique education, I will probably lean negative on framework.

Things that impact speaker position/points: Being rude or snobby towards teammates or opponents will negatively impact position/points. Any hostile or discriminatory comments/behavior will result in a round loss. Speeding through blocks that you didn't flash to the other team or myself will negatively impact position/points and increase the likelihood I miss something you say.

I've coached for 10 years, I currently serve as the Executive Director of Portland Urban Debate League, I coach at Franklin HS and Centennial HS, and I have judged very few rounds on this topic as I typically am tabbing tournaments.

Put me on the email chain mallory@portlanddebate.org

*Everyone should be respectful. If y'all are rude/racist/homophobic/ableist/sexist etc. I consider that a reason to drastically reduce your speaker points. You can be nice and still win debates. If y'all aren't reading a content warning and describe trauma/violence/etc that need a content warning, I will seriously consider giving you an auto loss.

Overall: Tabula rasa, default policymaker. I prefer you go at a moderate speed and slow for tags. I'm probably not your ideal K or counterplan theory judge. I understand the basics of Ks and some of ideologies, but I tend to get lost without robust, slow explanations at every level of the flow. I flow CXes of K debates to help with my understanding of what is going on. On T- I default to competing interpretations. If you’re not rejecting the topic, you should be topical.

Framework vs non-traditional affs: If you think the aff should be topical, tell me why your model of debate is better than theirs. I prefer external impacts, but will still evaluate fairness as an impact if you go for it.

Specific Arguments

Aff: Need to have a method through which you solve your impacts, if you’re topical, that means you’re using the USfg and have a plan. If you’re reading a K, I want a clear articulation of how your advocacy is adopted/changes the debate space/matters in terms of impacts.

Case Debate: You don’t need carded evidence to point out solvency deficits of the aff. Analytics are generally smarter and more true than the arguments that take you 20 seconds to read the card.

Clarity>Speed: I’ll say clear once, but if you don't slow down you run the risk of me missing arguments that are key to you winning the debate. Please don’t assume you can go as fast as you want just because I’m on the email chain. SLOW on theory/T/analytics. Embedded clash in the overview is nice, but don’t put all your answers to the line by line there.

Cross-x: I flow cross-ex, and I think you should have a strategy for cross ex that helps you set up or further your arguments. If there is truly a part of the aff that is confusing, go ahead and ask for clarification, but your CX shouldn’t give the other team an opportunity to re-explain entire arguments.

Topicality: Describe to me what type of debate your interp justifies, and what type of debate theirs justifies. Whose interpretation of the resolution is better? Impact T out, for example limits in a vacuum don’t mean anything, I want you to explain how limits are key to your education and fairness. I could be persuaded to vote on reasonability, but for the most part think that competing interps is the best paradigm.

Disadvantages: Link controls the direction of the disad. Specificity over generics.

Counterplans: Presumption flips aff if the 2NR goes for the CP. I would judge kick the CP even if not explicitly told by the 2NR, unless the 2AR tells me a super cool reason why judge kick is bad that I haven't heard yet.

Kritiks: Run what you want, articulate what the alt is and how it solves for the impacts you’re claiming. Not enough teams explain HOW the alt works, which I think is devastating when compared to an aff’s clear mechanisms for solving their harms. A conceded root cause explanation or a PIK (“alt solves the aff”) would be a way to win my ballot if explained well. The floating PIK needs to be clearly made early on for me to evaluate it. I’m most familiar with fem, anthro, and neolib, but would listen to other K’s.

Theory: I rarely, if ever vote on theory. Mostly because most teams don’t spend more than 1 minute on it in the final speeches. If the aff thinks the neg reading 7 off was abusive, then the 2AR should be case + condo bad. Dedication to explaining and going for the argument validates it as a reason to consider it. If you spend 30 seconds on extending a dropped ASPEC argument, I’m definitely not voting on it.

+0.5 speaks if you tell me your zodiac sign

I debated for four years at Eisenhower high school. I am now an assistant there and have been for three years. I debated 2012-2016. When I was debating my style depended based on the judge, so I've gone for everything from T to Ks. On the affirmative I mostly ran a K aff that had a plan text.

You can put me on the email chain if you're setting one up: dillonlee626@gmail.com

I prefer medium to moderate speed and any slower. Not rapid. Please and thank you :)

I'm fine with most arguments. Here are some specifics.

T- I don't think that the aff has to be untopical to lose T. I think that if the neg has a reasonable interp and is better on the flow (and goes for T for 5 minutes in the 2nr) then, the aff can still be topical and lose on T. AKA please read T every round.

FW vs a K Aff - Will defer aff most of the time. If the neg says "policy good" read me a policy DA or CP against the aff to access any education impacts derived from policy debate.

Put me on the email chain: BijanEsfandiary@live.com

Debated 4 years at BVW

Debated 1.5 years at JCCC.

ULTIMATELY DEBATES ARE DIRECTED BY THE DEBATERS. MY BELIEFS ON ARGS WON'T MAKE ME VOTE YOU DOWN UNLESS I SPECIFICALLY MENTION IT.

I have bad ears due to surgery so you need to be very clear for me on analytics.Tech > Truth - K debate has exceptions

If a person says any ableist or gender discriminatory remarks - even by accident - I will lower your speaks.

IF YOU SAY ANYTHING RACIST WITHIN THE ROUND YOU LOSE THE ROUND. RACIAL SLURS WILL MAKE ME STOP THE ROUND INSTANTLY. IF IT IS A PANEL I WILL JUST STOP FLOWING.

You can ask for me to view evidence after the round.

I am open to ethics arguments. Example: "After my speech, the round ends and you decide whether there has been an ethics violation, and then vote if you think there was a violation." If its a panel there must be a group decision to end the round.

DA

Impact calc, time frame, and magnitude. Address these adequately.

For me, whoever wins the impact debate, wins the debate.

CP

Please read competitive CPs and have solvency advocates. International fiat isn't a thing without solvency.

Please please please please don't read delay CPs.

Topicality

Go for it

I will listen to the argument: "The 1AC is a Kritik of their Topicality." Many people don't like these arguments but I do.

Make the arg structural fairness outweighs procedural if K team.

Framework

Explain why ontological or material conditions come first. If you win the framework debate I have to evaluate the round and the results of actions through that framing. This is the first place you should start to win my ballot unless you are going for specific in round abuse arguments.

K

Assume I know nothing and explain it within the round.

Only literature I am pretty versed in is Buddhism, and I will understand most things you are articulating. Most of my knowledge is on Zen Buddhism specifically. Things like terminal nature, interdependence, impermanence, Buddhist methodology, and dualisms I understand and you wont lose me on in the theory side. You will lose me on MU to be honest though.

I also somewhat understand Afro-Pess and I default to non black people should not be reading black authors.

I’ll vote for whatever you want to read. I like creative arguments and find rounds to be more enjoyable when teams directly clash with one another instead of card dumping and shadowing extending into the 2nd rebutalls. The difference between a good team and a great team is the ability to think critically during rounds and make strategic choices. Don’t go for the buffet 2nr because you think you are winning everything. This is an easy way to lose a round and I’ve seen it a lot this year. If you read any kind of theory argument you should put some thought into your interp and understand that if you are responding to any theory argument you need to actually debate and not read your 13 point block at hyper speed and hope that they drop a standard. In my eyes a good debate happens when teams understand their evidence, their arguments, and strategically prioritize arguments that they think will win the round.

Go go as fast as you want. Read what you want. I want to see a debate where teams show they put the time and effort in outside of round and use that effort to be persuasive and technically proficient.

I think debate is a game. I think the way you win a game is to leverage your advantages while removing your opponents opportunities. Do not be afraid to go for 5 minutes of theory if they didn’t respond well. Don’t be afraid to go for the K, I went for it a lot.

Have fun and put your hard work to bear.

Email: thomasdb8@gmail.com

Experience:

I've been involved in the KS HS Debate Community off and on for over 20 years. I've been a competitor, a coach, and a frequent judge.

Argument Preferences:

I'm not strong on K literature.... which means that I'm just not as able to "do work" for you as I would be on a PX disad (or whatever). You have to explain your arguments. I'm not really up on performance/project debate (or whatever you'd call the Social Justice/Structural Violence/Wilderson arguments). That said, I have an open mind. Be ready to explain.

I don't have a strong opinion about framework. I will vote on it, you have to win it.

More of a policy hack to be sure. My "paradigm" is Policy Maker with a little Offense/Defense mixed in. Defense matters to me, particularly solvency/internal link arguments.

Will vote on T and Counterplan theory but you have to win them... and explain your arguments at a reasonable speed.

Style Preferences:

I can handle speed for sure... But I'm old af, so slower is probably better. I think too much emphasis is put on speed and efficiency... debaters would be well served to slow down, explain arguments and make connections with your judge. You will be punished for not heeding "Clear" calls. This is sounding like I'm not fine with speed debate, which is not true. Speed is fine... but as I've gotten older, I find it to be overrated. If speed is your thing, go ahead. It is highly unlikely that you'll be the fastest debater I've ever judged.

Signposting and keeping the flow clean will result in great speaks from me. I love a great, clean, line by line debate... but they rarely if ever happen anymore.

Don't be mean. Don't call people out for real world events (I don't care about your drama, not even a little). Be nice. Be funny.

Good Luck and Have Fun.

Competed:

2011-15 – Lawrence Free State, KS, Policy (Space, Transportation, Latin America, Oceans)

2015-17 – JCCC, KS, NDT/CEDA (Military Presence, Climate Change); NFA-LD (Bioprospecting, Southern Command)

2017-20 – Missouri State University, MO, NDT/CEDA (Healthcare, Exec Authority, Space); NFA-LD (Policing, Cybersecurity)

Coached:

2016-17 – Lawrence High School, KS, (China Engagement)

2017-19 – Olathe West High School, KS, (Education, Immigration)

2019-22– Truman High School, MO, (Arm Sales, CJR, Water)

2020-Present– Missouri State University, MO, (MDT Withdrawal, Anti-Trust, Rights/Duties, Nukes); NFA-LD (Climate, Endless Wars)

2022-23- Truman State University, MO, NFA-LD (Elections)

2022-Present - The Pembroke Hill School, MO, (NATO, Economic Inequality).

Always add:

phopsdebate@gmail.com

Also add IF AND ONLY IF at a NDT/CEDA TOURNAMENT: debatedocs@googlegroups.com

If I walk out of the room (or go off-camera), please send the email and I will return very quickly.

Email chains are STRONGLY preferred. Email chains should be labeled correctly.

*Name of Tournament * *Division* *Round #* *Aff Team* vs *Neg Team*

tl;dr:

You do you; I'll flow whatever happens. I tend to like policy arguments more than Kritical arguments. I cannot type fast and flow on paper as a result. Please give me pen time on T, Theory, and long o/v's etc. Do not be a jerk. Debaters work hard, and I try to work as hard as I can while judging. Debaters should debate slower than they typically do.

Evidence Quality X Quantity > Quality > Quantity. Argument Tech + Truth > Tech > Truth. Quals > No Quals.

I try to generate a list of my random thoughts and issues I saw with each speech in the debate. It is not meant to be rude. It is just how I think through comments. If I have not said anything about something it likely means I thought it was good.

Speaker Points:

If you can prove to me you have updated your wiki for the round I am judging before I submit the ballot I will give you the highest speaker points allowed by the tournament. An updated wiki means: 1. A complete round report. 2. Cites for all 1NC off case positions/ the 1AC, and 3. uploaded open source all of the documents you read in the debate inclusive of analytics. If I become aware that you later delete, modify, or otherwise disclose less information after I have submitted my ballot, any future debate in which I judge you will result in the lowest possible speaker points at the tournament.

Online debates:

In "fast" online debates, I found it exceptionally hard to flow those with poor internet connections or bad mics. I also found it a little harder even with ideal mic and internet setups. I think it's reasonable for debates in which a debater(s) is having these issues for everyone in the debate to debate at an appropriate speed for everyone to engage.

Clarity is more important in a digital format than ever before. I feel like it would behoove everyone to be 10% slower than usual. Make sure you have a differentiation between your tag voice and your card body voice.

It would be super cool if everyone put their remaining prep in the chat.

I am super pro the Cams on Mics muted approach in debates. Obvious exceptions for poor internet quality.

People should get in the groove of always sending marked docs post speeches and sending a doc of all relevant cards after the debate.

Disads:

I enjoy politics debates. Reasons why the Disad outweighs and turns the aff, are cool. People should use the squo solves the aff trick with election DA's more.

Counter Plans:

I generally think negatives can and should get to do more. CP's test the intrinsic-ness of the advantages to the plan text. Affirmatives should get better at writing and figuring out plan key warrants. Bad CP's lose because they are bad. It seems legit that 2NC's get UQ and adv cp's to answer 2AC thumpers and add-ons. People should do this more.

Judge kicking the cp seems intuitive to me. Infinite condo seems good, real-world, etc. Non-Condo theory arguments are almost always a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I still expect that the 2AC makes theory arguments and that the neg answers them sufficiently. I think in an evenly matched and debated debate most CP theory arguments go neg.

I am often not a very good judge for CP's that require you to read the definition of "Should" when answering the permutation. Even more so for CP's that compete using internal net benefits. I understand how others think about these arguments, but I am often unimpressed with the quality of the evidence and cards read. Re: CIL CP - come on now.

Kritiks on the Negative:

I like policy debate personally, but that should 0% stop you from doing your thing. I think I like K debates much better than my brain will let me type here. Often, I end up telling teams they should have gone for the K or voted for it. I think this is typically because of affirmative teams’ inability to effectively answer critical arguments

Links of omission are not links. Rejecting the aff is not an alternative, that is what I do when I agree to endorse the alternative. Explain to me what happens to change the world when I endorse your alternative. The aff should probably be allowed to weigh the aff against the K. I think arguments centered on procedural fairness and iterative testing of ideas are compelling. Clash debates with solid defense to the affirmative are significantly more fun to adjudicate than framework debates. Floating pics are probably bad. I think life has value and preserving more of it is probably good.

Kritical Affirmatives vs Framework:

I think the affirmative should be in the direction of the resolution. Reading fw, cap, and the ballot pik against these affs is a good place to be as a policy team. I think topic literacy is important. I think there are more often than not ways to read a topical USfg action and read similar offensive positions. I am increasingly convinced that debate is a game that ultimately inoculates advocacy skills for post-debate use. I generally think that having a procedurally fair and somewhat bounded discussion about a pre-announced, and democratically selected topic helps facilitate that discussion.

Case Debates:

Debates in which the negative engages all parts of the affirmative are significantly more fun to judge than those that do not.

Affirmatives with "soft-left" advantages are often poorly written. You have the worst of both worlds of K and Policy debate. Your policy action means your aff is almost certainly solvable by an advantage CP. Your kritical offense still has to contend with the extinction o/w debate without the benefit of framework arguments. It is even harder to explain when the aff has one "policy" extinction advantage and one "kritical" advantage. Which one of these framing arguments comes first? I have no idea. I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why these types of affirmative should exist. Negative teams that exploit these problems will be rewarded.

Topicality/procedurals:

Short blippy procedurals are almost always only a reason to reject the arg and not the team. T (along with all procedurals) is never an RVI.

I am super uninterested in making objective assessments about events that took place outside of/before the debate round that I was not present for. I am not qualified nor empowered to adjudicate debates concerning the moral behavior of debaters beyond the scope of the debate.

Things that are bad, but people continually do:

Have "framing" debates that consist of reading Util good/bad, Prob 1st/not 1st etc. Back and forth at each other and never making arguments about why one position is better than another. I feel like I am often forced to intervene in these debates, and I do not want to do that.

Saying something sexist/homophobic/racist/ableist/transphobic - it will probably make you lose the debate at the worst or tank your speaks at the least.

Steal prep.

Send docs without the analytics you already typed. This does not actually help you. I sometimes like to read along. Some non-neurotypical individuals benefit dramatically by this practice. It wastes your prep, no matter how cool the macro you have programmed is.

Use the wiki for your benefit and not post your own stuff.

Refusing to disclose.

Reading the 1AC off paper when computers are accessible to you. Please just send the doc in the chain.

Doing/saying mean things to your partner or your opponents.

Unnecessarily cursing to be cool.

Some random thoughts I had at the end of my first year judging NDT/CEDA:
1. I love debate. I think it is the best thing that has happened to a lot of people. I spend a lot of my time trying to figure out how to get more people to do it. People should be nicer to others.
2. I was worse at debate than I thought I was. I should have spent WAY more time thinking about impact calc and engaging the other teams’ arguments.
3. I have REALLY bad handwriting and was never clear enough when speaking. People should slow down and be clearer. (Part of this might be because of online debate.)

4. Most debates I’ve judged are really hard to decide. I go to decision time often. I’m trying my best to decide debates in the finite time I have. The number of times Adrienne Brovero has come to my Zoom room is too many. I’m sorry.
5. I type a lot of random thoughts I had during debates and after. I really try to make a clear distinction between the RFD and the advice parts of the post-round. It bothered me a lot when I was a debater that people didn’t do this.

6. I thought this before, but it has become clearer to me that it is not what you do, it is what you justify. Debaters really should be able to say nearly anything they’d like in a debate. It is the opposing team’s job to say you’re wrong. My preferences are above, and I do my best to ignore them. Although I do think it is impossible for that to truly occur.

Disclosure thoughts:

I took this from Chris Roberds who said it much more elegantly than myself.

I have a VERY low threshold on this argument. Having schools disclose their arguments pre-round is important if the activity is going to grow/sustain itself. Having coached almost exclusively at small, underfunded, or new schools, I can say that disclosure (specifically disclosure on the wiki if you are a paperless debater) is a game changer. It allows small schools to compete and makes the activity more inclusive. There are a few specific ways that this influences how ballots will be given from me:

1) I will err negative on the impact level of "disclosure theory" arguments in the debate. If you're reading an aff that was broken at a previous tournament, on a previous day, or by another debater on your team, and it is not on the wiki (assuming you have access to a laptop and the tournament provides wifi), you will likely lose if this theory is read. There are two ways for the aff to "we meet" this in the 2ac - either disclose on the wiki ahead of time or post the full copy of the 1ac in the wiki as a part of your speech. Obviously, some grace will be extended when wifi isn't available or due to other extenuating circumstances. However, arguments like "it's just too much work," "I don't like disclosure," etc. won't get you a ballot.

2) The neg still needs to engage in the rest of the debate. Read other off-case positions and use their "no link" argument as a reason that disclosure is important. Read case cards and when they say they don't apply or they aren't specific enough, use that as a reason for me to see in-round problems. This is not a "cheap shot" win. You are not going to "out-tech" your opponent on disclosure theory. To me, this is a question of truth. Along that line, I probably won't vote on this argument in novice, especially if the aff is reading something that a varsity debater also reads.

3) If you realize your opponent's aff is not on the wiki, you should make every possible attempt before the round to ask them about the aff, see if they will put it on the wiki, etc. Emailing them so you have timestamped evidence of this is a good choice. I understand that, sometimes, one teammate puts all the cases for a squad on the wiki and they may have just put it under a different name. To me, that's a sufficient example of transparency (at least the first time it happens). If the aff says it's a new aff, that means (to me) that the plan text and/ or advantages are different enough that a previous strategy cut against the aff would be irrelevant. This would mean that if you completely change the agent of the plan text or have them do a different action it is new; adding a word like "substantially" or "enforcement through normal means" is not. Likewise, adding a new "econ collapse causes war" card is not different enough; changing from a Russia advantage to a China, kritikal, climate change, etc. type of advantage is. Even if it is new, if you are still reading some of the same solvency cards, I think it is better to disclose your previous versions of the aff at a minimum.

4) At tournaments that don't have wifi, this should be handled by the affirmative handing over a copy of their plan text and relevant 1AC advantages etc. before the round. If thats a local tournament, that means as soon as you get to the room and find your opponent.

5) If you or your opponent honestly comes from a circuit that does not use the wiki (e.g. some UDLs, some local circuits, etc.), I will likely give some leeway. However, a great use of post-round time while I am making a decision is to talk to the opponent about how to upload on the wiki. If the argument is in the round due to a lack of disclosure and the teams make honest efforts to get things on the wiki while I'm finishing up my decision, I'm likely to bump speaks for all 4 speakers by .2 or .5 depending on how the tournament speaks go.

6) There are obviously different "levels" of disclosure that can occur. Many of them are described above as exceptions to a rule. Zero disclosure is always a low-threshold argument for me in nearly every case other than the exceptions above.

That said, I am also willing to vote on "insufficient disclosure" in a few circumstances.

A. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy your wiki should look like this or something very close to it. Full disclosure of information and availability of arguments means everyone is tested at the highest level. Arguments about why the other team does not sufficiently disclose will be welcomed. Your wiki should also look like this if making this argument.

B. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy. Debaters should go to the room immediately after pairings are released to disclose what the aff will be. With obvious exceptions for a short time to consult coaches or if tech problems prevent it. Nothing is worse than being in a high-stress/high-level round and the other team waiting until right before the debate to come to disclose. This is not a cool move. If you are unable to come to the room, you should be checking the wiki for your opponent's email and sending them a message to disclose the aff/past 2NR's or sending your coach/a different debater to do so on your behalf.

C. When an affirmative team discloses what the aff is, they get a few minutes to change minor details (tagline changes, impact card swaps, maybe even an impact scenario). This is double true if there is a judge change. This amount of time varies by how much prep the tournament actually gives. With only 10 minutes between pairings and start time, the aff probably only get 30 seconds to say "ope, actually...." This probably expands to a few minutes when given 30 minutes of prep. Teams certainly shouldn't be given the opportunity to make drastic changes to the aff plan text, advantages etc. a long while after disclosing.

Hey y'all - I assume you're here to figure out how I evaluate debate - all of that information is included below.

Addendum for College LD:

I think most of this information will apply to LD - most of my experience with LD is from the Kansas High School circuit, which is traditional in comparison to the National College circuit, but hopefully my description of how I evaluate policy arguments will help! Also please feel free to ask questions!

A few things about me as a person:

First and foremost, I would appreciate a content warning for domestic violence and sexual assault. Thanks!

Second, I am no longer coaching in high school. I’m typically average 5-10 rounds a year on the high school topic now that I don’t coach. I sometimes coach and judge NFA LD. I remain current on politics, the economy, international relations, etc. I previously coached at Topeka High and Shawnee Heights. I debated the space topic, transportation infrastructure topic, and Latin America topic. I divided my paradigm into several categories - an overview of my paradigm, a list of arguments and how I feel about them, and general framing concerns. Any questions? just ask

Third, I’m open to different speeds, but I am telling you right now that I will be unable to flow top speed without a speech doc. Additionally, be cognizant of the fact zoom can make you less clear. Also, I will not do the work to flow top speed theory, overviews or general analysis - slow down when you want me to pay attention. I'll be fairly apparent when I stop flowing. If it is especially bad I will clear you. I want to be on the email chain - hannahjohnson93@gmail.com

Overview:

I'm open/willing to hearing any type of argument (performance, critical, semi-critical, policy, etc.). If y'all don't provide me a framework for how to view the round or a Role of the Ballot that is clearly articulated and developed, then I will default into a policy maker mindset. If y'all are rude to each other, I will write about it on your ballot and most likely dock you speaks, ranks or even give you the L depending on the severity of your actions. I am easy to read as a judge so if you see me stop flowing or looking annoyed it probably means what you're doing is rude or doesn't make sense to me. I'm fine with speed, but clear tags and analysis are appreciated. I want you to be empowered to debate what you want to debate in front of me - this is your round, not mine.

How I evaluate Debaters and their actions:

I've developed a zero-tolerance policy if debaters are rude to any of the debaters in the round - expect a reduction in speaks or losing the round due to your behavior. You are accountable for the way you act so I don't feel like warnings are necessary. Additonally, I hold you accountable for the arguments you choose to read. Therefore, if your arguments are sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or targeted towards any person or group in a negative-way, expect a reduction in speaks or losing the round. If you have questions about this, please ask me before the round starts - I want to make debate educational and inclusive.

Affs:

I'm open/willing to listen to any type of affs. Non-T affs are fine IF they are rejecting the topic. If you are Non-T and upholding the use of the Fed Gov, you better have good T blocks written. Any aff needs to provide me with a clear method of how you solve and a way I should view the round.

Topicality:

When I wasn't taking politics in the 2NR, I was probably taking T. Every level of the T flow is important to me so you must extend and explain interp, standards and voters. Saying "we access fairness and education best" isn't going to win you the round. You need to tell me HOW you access fairness and education the best. I enjoy Topical Versions of the Aff, Case Lists and Core of the Topic args. If you can explain to me why your interp is better for fairness/education in this round and in debate in general, you'll have an easy time winning my ballot. Also, I probs default to competing interps.

Disads:

Generics are fine, but I prefer them to have case-specific links (analytical or carded). When I was in high school, I ran politics disads and would often take them into the 2NR so I'm fairly confident in my ability to understand them.

Counterplans:

I am fine with listening to any CP, but you have to be able to answer why PICs are bad, Delay CPs are bad, Condo is bad, etc. I will vote on any of these arguments depending on the level of abuse in round. Otherwise, when running a CP have a clear net ben. Also, I'm fine with CP funding planks. I don't buy 2NC CP amendments, but I'll only vote against them if the aff makes an arg - make sure your plan text read in the 1NC makes sense and isn't just "the 50 states (insert plan text here).

Kritiks:

I'm not familiar with most K lit so you'll want to develop clear analysis about the K. I am most familiar with Neolib, Cap and Security, but my familiarity DOES NOT mean I will do the necessary analysis of cards for you. In the rounds I've watched so far this year, framework has been underutilized by teams. Read framework!!! Explain your alts - your alt solvency is important and I won't vote on a blippy extension of Zizek.

Framework:

You need a clear interp of what the framework or Role of the Ballot should be. There needs to be clash on the framework about why the aff/neg team's framework is good/bad for debate and for education/fairness in the round.

Fringe Args:

I'm not the judge to talk about aliens/wipeout/goos/etc in front of, but if you still feel inclined to do so, impact out your illogical args logically.

Generic Framing:

I view debate as an educational activity. I want the best education and most fair experience for both teams. Use this framework when explaining your theory arguments. Otherwise, anything you do to directly harm a debater in round will be counted against you because it conflicts with the aim of using debate as an educational tool.

In General—

Put me on the email chain-- kathrynlipka16@gmail.com

I debated in high school, briefly in college, and have been coaching with Lawrence Free State & Pembroke Hill off and on for 6+ years.

I don't think it is my job as a judge to call for evidence, kick CPs, decide how I should evaluate the debate, etc. It is your job to tell me these things. This means impact calculus plays a significant part in the way I evaluate the round—please do it. I default to moral obligation claims. Warranted extensions or it probably isn’t an extension.

I don’t put up with rudeness, racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, or ableism -- these are worthy of losing a ballot and certainly a reason to dock your speaker points.

I expect debaters to do whatever they are best at and/or have the most fun doing in front of me-- debate is not an event for conformity.

My speaker point scale (taken from the KellyThompson):

29+ - you should receive a speaker award in this division at this tournament

28.5+ - you should be in elimination debates at this tournament, and probably win one or more of those rounds

28 - you are competing for a spot to clear but still making errors that may prevent you from doing so. Average for the division/tournament.

27.5 - you are slightly below average for the division/tournament and need to spend some time on the fundamentals. Hopefully, I've outlined in my notes what those are.

27 - you are in the wrong division or at the wrong tournament in my estimation.

Topicality—

If you’re going for T it should be the entire 2NR. If it is not, you’re not doing enough work. I evaluate education and fairness as impacts, so treat them as such. I am more persuaded by education. I am fine with creativity to make the aff topical, but at a certain point would rather you just reject the resolution than squeeze your way into a nonexistent “we meet” arg. I think rejecting the resolution is fine and switch side debate is typically not a winning argument. If you can prove that your education is best in the round I am willing to listen to what you have to say.

DAs—

Specific links pls or be really good at storytelling

CPs—

Generic bad. I think smart and well-developed PICs are a good way to control offense in a debate. Don’t assume doing theory and a perm is enough to get out of the CP. I default to sufficiency framing so I need clear reasons why the aff is more desirable. Blippy word PICs and delay CPs are annoying.

Ks—

Most familiar with neolib/fem/anthro. You need to explain what the alternative does specifically—even if it is inaction. I like to hear “in the world of the alternative…”. I need to know why the aff is uniquely bad. Permutations are always valid, but often poorly executed and cause severance. Severance is probably bad. If I have to do a lot of work just to understand your jargon and what the K is I’m not the judge for you.

Theory—

I have a higher threshold for voting on theory, it needs to be the center of the rebuttal if that is what you want. I almost always view theory as a reason to reject the argument not the team. Obviously, I can be persuaded otherwise. Severance is mostly bad. Condo is mostly good. K’s are not cheating. PICs are good but also sometimes not. Slow down on theory.

I am a HUGE SpeechDrop truther, please do not use an email chain.

I am the head coach at De Soto (KS).

Tech/Truth, Ev Quality

For both of these things, I try to limit judge intervention as much as I possibly can. I'm probably 70/30 tech v truth and I think your evidence should actually say what you claim it says. That being said, because of my intervention philosophy, you need to call this out deliberately in the round for me to evaluate it. I will absolutely vote on "untruthful" arguments if there are no responses (or responses too late in the debate) claiming otherwise. However, I am increasingly realizing how much I dislike meme-y arguments in debates so at least make an attempt to say things that are moderately real, otherwise I might embrace my grumpy old man mentality and vote it down on truth claims.

K

I will listen to and evaluate critical positions. I have become a lot more K-friendly over time, but please don't interpret that statement as a green light to read something just because you can. Accessibility is a very important (and, in my opinion, undervalued) part of any kritik. As such, be very explicit on what the role of the ballot is and what the intended impact of the alt and/or performance is. I will vote on no link to the K and I will default to policy impacts if told to do so. Don't be a moving target or change advocacy stances between speeches (obviously you can kick out of the K but some of those things might haunt you on other flows). Perf con arguments are very persuasive to me.

CPs

Competition > nearly everything else. For this reason, I really have a hard time voting for advantage CPs. I am typically persuaded by PICs bad arguments unless the neg can prove competition/lack of abuse in round. Be sure to have a clear net ben (internal or external) and articulate what it is: I've seen far too many CPs without them gone for. For the aff, I don't love hearing a laundry list of every perm you can think of. Read and articulate perms that actually test competitiveness (i.e. "perm do the aff" isn't a thing) and explain how the actions can coexist.

DAs

DAs should be unique. Generics are good but link quality is important.

Condo

I have no threshold for the amount of conditional CPs or Ks or whatever the neg wants to run. However, if the aff wants to read abuse or condo bad I will certainly listen to it. Watch out for those pesky perf cons.

T

Explain your definitions and make sure the card you use has warrants that actually state (or strongly imply) your interp. Competing interps need to be evaluated in terms of both the definition's contextual value to the resolution as well as the warrants of the definition read. Explain your limits/ground. No laundry list here; articulate how exactly in-round abuse has occurred or how what the plan text justifies is bad. Explain your voters. If you want to read and actually go for T, I need to see contextual work done early and often.

Theory (General)

In terms of other theory arguments like spec, disclosure, etc. I need to have clear voters. Make sure to articulate the sequential order of evaluation when multiple theoretical stances are being taken. On this note, RVIs are a *silly* thing and I will *begrudgingly* vote for them but they need to be weighed against the initial theory claim well.

CX

I don't flow CX. I view CX mainly as a means to generate (or lose) ethos in the debate, not necessarily to win arguments on the flow. Don't make this a shouting match please, otherwise I'm just going to ignore both teams and nobody wants that. We're all friends here.

Speed

I am okay with speed. However, if your argument is 1) intricate and requiring significant analytical explanation 2) not in the speech doc or 3) rooted in accessibility literature slow it down. It will help you if I can understand what's going on. I'd prefer you be organized, clear, and slow instead of messy, unintelligible, and fast. I won't ever give up on your speech if you have a hard time with clarity, but just know I may not pick up all of your arguments (obviously a bad thing for you).

I debated at Olathe Northwest and am a Senior at KU (not debating). Fourth year assistant coach at Olathe West. My email is matt.michie97@gmail.com

Top-Level: Racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, etc. are unacceptable. Use content warnings before starting speeches and put them in speech docs when applicable. Being mean to your partner is an extremely easy way to lose ranks/quals.

Speed: I think debates are better for everyone when you slow down for tags/cites/theory. Other than that, speak at whatever speed you like while still retaining clarity. Speeding into an incomprehensible slurry in the text of the card will at best dock your speaker points and at worst severely cost you on the flow; I am not going to just flow your speech doc's tags, I am going to flow what you say. I will say clear if necessary. *This is ESPECIALLY true in a virtual debate. If you are reading at the same speed you would in-person, you will be incomprehensible.

Everything below are just my preferences. I don't really care what arguments you read, as long as they're good.

Topicality: I default to Competing Interpretations. I think teams should be topical. If your aff isn't topical, you should tell me why your aff is better for debate than a topical one, rather than why topicality is bad. You should be as specific as possible about your offense, on both sides. Don't bother with your impact turns.

General Theory: I have no particular leaning one way or the other on most theory args, except that conditionality is good. That doesn't mean don't read condo bad if you want to, you just can't read and barely extend your block shell and expect me to have any interest in voting on it. Your argument should make a broader statement on debate rather than a specific objection to something in-round.

Disadvantages and Impact Turns: The link debate is probably more important than anything else in a DA. I mostly read/went for disadvantages/impact turns in High School, so this kind of debate is what I am most versed in.

Counterplans: I don't necessarily have a problem with any particular type of counterplan, but Aff teams should probably be reading a lot more CP theory than I usually see. I wish I saw more teams make more perms than just "do both," and I especially wish more teams actually utilized their perms effectively past the block.

Kritiks: Don't assume that I'm familiar with all terms of art/authors. I think “reject the aff” or “do nothing” alternatives are not very compelling but that doesn’t mean I won’t vote for one. I feel like most K debates I see are incredibly weak on the Alt debate on both sides. Links of omission are not links. Evidence here matters immensely. I feel like teams take each other's K cards at face-value way too often. A lot of these cards on both sides of any K are total gibberish, you should be pointing that out to me.

Framework: I generally don't like extremely generic/limiting framework interps. I default to believing the Aff's role is to endorse an inherent resolution-based advocacy that solves for significant harms, and the Negative's role is to dispute the Aff on the basis of any of those terms, or by expressing the significant harms of the Aff. I feel like many of my decisions end up coming down to the fact that teams let each other get away with way too much here. Framework is not an opportunity for you to read your cool interp block your squad wrote 7 years ago and call it a day. Your framework lays the foundation for how I'm supposed to evaluate the round. Don't let the other team do that for you.

I've been involved in debate as either a competitor, a judge, or a coach for over a decade in both policy as well as Lincoln Douglas debate.

I default to a policy maker paradigm, and if all else is truly equal in the round then that's the side that I'll err on, but I have voted on kritikal arguments before and have no problem doing so again if those are the relevant issues in the round. However when I am making decision on kritikal arguments both framework as well as the role of the ballot are very important to me.

On topicality I err on the side of reasonability, but I've voted neg on topicality many times and you should certainly run topicality if you believe the affirmative isn't topical and you feel like that's the strategy you want to go for. If you do go for topicality, unless your opponent has straight up conceded most of the flow, the majority of the 2NR should probably be on topicality. With voters I have a preference for education.

Theory debates are great. Just be sure to legitimize the theory argument with a reasonable voter. Otherwise I have no reason to care about the theory no matter how well you argue it.

Counter-plans are great. Many of the teams I've worked with (including my own partnership) spend the majority of their rounds going for nothing except a single counter-plan and its net benefit, so I'm very familiar with that debate.

I can probably handle whatever speed you throw at me as long as you remain clear. I give two warnings for clarity before I stop telling you to be clear and just flow whatever I can understand.

If your partner prompts you at all during your speech, know that I will not flow a single word of what they say. If you want me to flow it and acknowledge that it was said in the round, then the person giving the speech has to physically say the words.

Unless a speech, CX, or prep timer is running, there should not be preparation going on for either team. During flashing/emailing time, neither team should be prepping. That includes writing on your flows, reading through evidence, and talking to your partner about any arguments in the round.

The bottom line for me in debate is - be reasonable. Conditional arguments are fine, just don't run a large number of them because that becomes unreasonable. Open cross-ex is fine, but if one partner is doing the vast majority of their team's participation in CX then that is no longer reasonable. Flashing evidence to your opponent off-time is fine, but it should be done in a reasonable time (and obviously flashing to your partner is prep time). When in doubt - just ask me.

Debated for Washburn Rural, 2012-2016

On speed: I am not at all familiar with this year's topic and I have only judged a few debate rounds in the past four years, so I am rusty on listening to spreading. If you are really fast, you should probably not go your absolute fastest.

I believe debate is an incredibly valuable and life-transforming activity. For this reason, I take every round very seriously – and I think you should, too. This means respect your opponents, and each other. It’s ok to be assertive, but there’s a big difference between being confident and being rude.

In the words of Dana Randall: “I believe debate is a unique academic activity. I believe the merits of switch side debate and the in round clash this activity affords mean that it is usually a greater source of education for students then most of their academic courses. I believe that in order to fully realize the merits of this activity debaters should engage in discussions that stem from the resolution. The affirmative team should have a stable advocacy which defends the direction of the topic. Debaters should disclose previously read positions fully. Teams should place the full citation to arguments they have read on the wiki as soon as is possible. Disclosure enhances pre-round preparation, accessibility, the ability engage an opponent's argument, and raises the standard of what qualifies as evidence.”

I have been a 2A almost my entire debate career. I like negative strategies that poke holes in the aff and ask good questions – most of my partner's 2NRs, and mine when I have done them, have been the politics DA, a topic DA, and topicality. My favorite types of debates to watch are ones where the negative has prepared a specific strategy and is well-versed in the technicalities of the 1AC. I tend to like affs that are smaller but solid. I don't like shaky causal link chains in affs, but if the neg doesn't poke holes in them, then I will obviously give the aff the benefit of the doubt on them.

DAs:
I love these – please run them. As much as I love a smart counterplan in the 2NR along with it, I think the best neg teams can go for the squo and question the 1AC’s logic. For example – why does a collapse of one industry in the US mean the entire economy declines? Why does that mean global nuclear war? Deficits in the 1AC’s internal links are often underutilized by the negative on the case in favor of generic impact defense.

Not a fan of politics theory arguments. If the DA's so bad, beat it on substance, not on "the neg dropped intrisicness".
Make sure to use your DA to turn the case at the impact and internal link level. This means impact calc is essential.

Topicality:
I will usually default to competing interpretations – which is why I think topicality debates should be framed as two “counterplans” each with respective net-benefits (education, fairness, etc). Saying “depth over breadth” isn’t an argument – one of the hardest parts about going for T (and answering it), is making sure not to only explain the “link” but also implicate this in terms of terminal impacts (What does lack of education mean for debate? Why is that important? What impact outweighs the other, and why?)

Counterplans:
These counterplans are usually good:

• PICs
• Advantage
• States

These counterplans are susceptible to theory:

• International Fiat
• Consult, conditions, recommend
• Word PICs

I can be convinced either way. I will reward you for specific counterplans that are well-researched and prepared.

Theory:
I did not debate in college and judged very few rounds, so it's been several years since I've thought about debate theory, and I'm rusty. I remember the basics (common args for and against condo, etc.), but don't really remember non-basic theory
Theory should be impacted if you’re going for it – buzzwords aren’t enough for me to vote for your argument unless you explain it.

Kritiks:
I’m not your best judge for these – do not read a K in front of me if your only goal is to confuse the other team and win because of that.
I’m not very well-versed in this literature, but will keep up with topic specific Ks and generics.
If you decide to go for the K, please make sure to explain your arguments very clearly to me. This means being very explicit in CX about what the alt does. I will not vote on something if I don’t understand what it means. I am not familiar with "K-tricks", so do not expect me to recognize your argument and vote on it absent a clear explanation.
I do not want to judge high theory and philosophy.
Links of omission are not links.
Floating PIKs are bad.
Weighing the aff is good - it is difficult for me to ever believe a framework which holds the affirmative to a perfect standard (in terms of epistemology, representations, etc) is one that is fair.
Death is bad - I will not vote for arguments that claim death is good.
Fiat is good - obviously voting aff doesn't usually cause change outside the round, but the notion of fiat allows for intellectually stimulating debates about the costs and benefits of public policy.
A 2AR that says the aff outweighs and the alt doesn’t solve is very persuasive to me, especially if combined with the permutation. That being said, I am sympathetic to new 1AR/2AR arguments if an argument in the 1NC or block is not developed.
For more info, please see the link below.

K Affs:
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=8363

Good luck, have fun, and debate with heart J feel free to ask me any clarification questions before the round.

(Thank you to Elizabeth Cordoves--most of this paradigm is taken directly from hers).

I have roughly 2 years debate experience competing for KCKCC in CEDA, Parli, and LD and roughly 3 years debate coaching/judging experience over a number of years at both the college and high school level.

Generally speaking, I am willing to listen to most styles of debate. I think the topic as more of a locus for discussion rather than a strict place for debate to happen. That being said I can and will vote on both topicality and framework in debate if those arguments are won even against affs that are topical.

You shouldn't feel compelled to adapt to the type of debate that I enjoy. I would much prefer to have a good debate in the style you prefer than a bad debate on the style I prefer. That being said if you do feel compelled to adapt specifically to me I prefer k debate both on the off and the neg as long as it is justified. My preference for this type of debate does not mean you will automatically win framework or T. Even topical affs can lose topicality. Framing usually isn't enough to win an entire debate for you, but can be. Engage substantially with the other teams arguments, don't just rely on framing to give you the W.

I also think things like conditionality and other theory arguments are very good tools to utilize against many affs. My default is probably to competing interruptions.

Finally I feel it is important to mention that I have not been active in the community for awhile and thus might not know all the literature you are referencing, even if those are standard on this topic.

"I used to be with ‘it’, but then they changed what ‘it’ was. Now what I’m with isn’t ‘it’ anymore and what’s ‘it’ seems weird and scary. It’ll happen to you!" -Grandpa Simpson

Name- Preston Peer

School-Goddard High School

# of years debated in HS- 4 What School(s) -Wichita Heights, Wichita Northwest

# of years debated in College- 2 What College/University(s)- Kansas State, Wichita State

Currently a (check all that apply)

____Head HS Coach

X- Asst. HS Coach

____College Coach

_____College Debater

X- Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate

#of rounds on this year’s HS Topic-1 (10ish Novice and JV)

Feelins bout stuff-

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate? - Closest to is a policymaker. It's how I was taught, and where I'm most comfortable. However, I try to be open minded, and you should debate how you are most comfortable. I like being told why and how I should vote.

What do you think the Aff burdens should be? I like things that stick to the resolution. Kritik affs are fine, but you will have a hard time getting my vote if you don't relate to the resolution, or defend a stable "plan text". I'm old and boring: I still think the aff should, like, affirm the resolution in some way. Other than that, I'm open to debate about what the aff should be doing.

What do you think the Neg burdens should be? Prove the aff is a bad idea, or doesn't fall under the resolution. How you want to do that is up to you, but I do have a bias towards a good policy debate.

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)? Fast is fine, but I much prefer clear and efficient. Top speed is not as important as clarity and word economy. My ear is bad on its best day, and I'm severely out of practice

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks? They're fine. Specific is always better, but I get it. Run your stuff.

How I feel about case debates? Case debates are the best.

Other Comments/Suggestions:

I've been involved in debate for 15 years, and every year I find out and learn so much more about not just the topic, but debate as a whole. With that in mind, while I do know some tips and tricks, I know that there is always more to be learned, and because of this, I'm not going to try and pretend to be smarter than I actually am. If I don't get your kritikal argument, or weird framework, or whatever other argument, I'm not going to vote for it, and I don't care how dumb I look. You should still be able to explain to a person of mediocre intelligence (me) what the heck you are arguing, and if you can't, I'm not going to do the work for you.

On a similar note, I am loathe to take evidence at the end of a debate, or spend much more than a few minutes at most deciding who won. I am not of the belief that the debaters should hand the judge a messy round and expect them to do the work of finding out who won. I make a real effort to judge based on what is said in the round. With this in mind, i prefer good analysis to anything else. Don't get dragged down too much into the line by line. 1 good argument beats 4 bad arguments in response. Tell me why, how, and where you are winning the debate. Overviews make me happy.

Final note: debate is, by its nature, an adversarial activity. I get that. That doesn't give anyone carte blanche to be a jerk. Be kind and respectful to one another. Ya'll are high school debaters. It is okay to step back and acknowledge the humanity of the other team you are facing. This is important, and you should give as much as you can to win the round, but no ones life hangs in the balance. Being mean, snooty, or condescending hurts your speaks more than being bad at debate. This applies to coaches, too. The "Aloof Debater Affect" everyone puts on at these tournaments is not only unnecessary, it makes you all look ridiculous, too. Lighten up, everyone. Having said all that, debate is a confrontational activity, so you don't have to be saccharine and fake. Sarcasm and deadpan make me happy.

Good luck and have fun to all debaters. Please ask questions for clarity.

Add me to the email chain: alonso.pena91@gmail.com

***The big picture***

1. I have 17 years of involvement with debate. I debated in high school and in college at Garden City (2006-2010) and Kansas State (2011, 2014-2017), respectively. In high school I did "traditional" policy debate, and in college I did critical and performance style debate. I read poetry and talked about queer and trans people of color, Chicanx people, decolonial feminist studies, performance studies, etc. I coached high school debate in Kansas for the last 7 years, and this is my first year coaching at UTSA.

2. Debate is a persuasive activity, so your primary objective should be to persuade me to vote for you.

3. I try to be as open-minded as possible, and I will base my decision on the things that happen in the round. That being said, I embody a lived experience, and I will not pretend that I can separate myself from that. I am a queer chicanx man, and I acknowledge that my positionality influences how I move in the world.

4. Do "you" - Be yourself to the best degree possible, and I will be happy. I believe the beauty of debate is that students get power and control over how they express themselves through argumentation.

5. Please don't annoy me about these two things. Prep-stealing and evidence sharing. When you say you are done with prep, I expect you to be ready to give your roadmap and share evidence.

***The Details***

Disads

Disadvantages are very important and underutilized in debate. I love a good disad debate. To win a disad in front of me you will need (at least) a unique link and an impact. You should explain why the disadvantage turns and outweighs the case, and you should compare impacts. If you're reading politics, then you should know that I am NOT a news watcher, so you should be explaining your politics disad. Also, I generally dislike politics disads because their stories feel like pieced together lies. I'm not saying I won't vote for them, but it'll be an uphill battle for you.

Counterplans

Counterplans are cool. I am more likely to be persuaded by counterplans that do the following: (1) have text that is clear and understandable and/or well explained, (2) solves the affirmative, or at least enough of the affirmative to outweigh the aff impacts, (3) have a net benefit or external impact that only the counterplan can solve.

Process counterplans (such as executive orders CPs, courts CPs, etc.) are typically less persuasive to me, but I will vote for them if they solve the aff and have a net benefit.

PICS (Plan inclusive counterplans) are cool, but they should have some basic theoretical defense as to why PICing out of part of the aff is legitimate and good.

Critiques

I enjoy them. To win a K in front of me you will need to win a framing question, a link to the affirmative, and an impact or implication. You should read an alternative, but I am willing to consider voting for a K without an alternative if you tell me why I should. I have a pretty good foundation on critical literature, but you should not assume I have read your literature base. Dense theoretical concepts should be unpacked. Explain how the alt solves the links/impacts.

On the affirmative, if you don't answer the K's framework I will be less persuaded by the affirmative.

Topicality

I think topicality debates can be really good and fun to watch when they are done well. I am persuaded by the following: (1) A reasonable definition and interpretation (2) A well-defined violation, or an explanation of how the affirmative is outside of the resolution, (3) Standards, or defense of why your interpretation is the best way to determine what is topical/untopical. and (4) voters, or reasons why I should vote on topicality in this particular debate.

If the negative doesn't win standards and voters I am way less likely to be persuaded to vote negative on topicality.

Speed

I don't have the quickest ear any more. I need pen time and I need moments where you are speaking to me and not at me. Spreading on zoom doesn't work for me. I cannot keep up and I'm going to be fully honest about it.

I debated for 4 years at Andover Central High School. I debated at Wichita State University for 4 years. I was an assistant coach at Andover Central for 3 years.

Jodee Hobbs and Chris Loghry have been the biggest debate influences on me. As such, my thoughts on debate are probably derivatives of theirs. Also, Daniel Saunders is my other head, so anything that works in front of him probably works in front of me.

I think debate should be fun. I think debate should be about having fun. If you’re not having fun, I’m not having fun; everyone loses in that world. I have gone for almost every “type” of argument imaginable and would not consider myself partial to any one “style” of debate. I’ll gladly listen to your performance, kritik, DA, conspiracy theory, or whatever. I often get told that I would be at home in the late 90’s and the 00’s. That’s probably not the best way to put it... I somehow have a reputation for being obsessed with “wild arguments” and being a bit of a K hack. I honestly have no clue how I got this reputation. However, if you want to do something of the wall; go for it. I feel that off beat arguments lead to some of the highest quality debates. In my mind the best strategies are those that trap or trick your opponents. As such, I am not much a fan of the “the block read 67 cards, the 1ar read 34” type debates. Debate should not solely be about out spreading your opponent; it should be about out smarting them (This being said, I love strategies that outspread people too. If you want to impact turn somebody, GO FOR IT). I think creativity has all but died in debate (This is a large part of the reason why I hate Cap, Security, Politics, etc.). If you do something original, and I mean original, you’re in good shape. I think that I have a responsibility as an educator to encourage teams to innovate and find their own style/identity in debate. I will heavily reward teams that make clever arguments, think on their feet, and have a good attitude/sense of humor. If y’all want to talk after I give an RFD; I’ll happily give you tips, tricks, and argument ideas. Likewise, if something seemed off in my decision, talk to me about it. I know that I make the wrong decision from time to time; I’m not a robot (or am I?).

Specific Stuff:

Speed: Spreading is an integral part of debate and a necessary skill for all involved. If speed isn’t your thing, it’s cool though (while I think you should be fast, you should also debate how you’re comfortable). If you’re unclear, I will yell “CLEAR” once and if you continue to be unclear I will stop flowing. I must note that there are two spreading styles that I find absolutely unintelligible. First is the “whisper spread,” where kids talk in an extremely soft and high pitched voice. Often times when kids do this I can’t understand a word because they are too quiet. You’ve got to BE LOUD and enunciate. Second is the “clear tags spread.” In this one the tags are really clear but the warrants of the card are unintelligible. If I can’t understand the warrants of a card, it’s functionally the same as not making the argument (I believe an argument consists of a Claim and a Warrant).

CX: CX is one of the most important and underused parts of a debate. Good CX can win a round. I think CX is not a speech (Controversial Right?). I think CX is binding. CX is about making arguments not getting clarifications. With that said, you should ask and answer questions, not just shout at each other.

Disadvantages: DAs are great. Generic DAs are fine, specific links are preferred. Gotta do impact calc. Gotta tell me a story with your DA. AFF: Turns are cool, Add-ons are cool, UQ overwhelms the link is real. Not much to say here.

PTX: This is one of the arguments in debate that I absolutely loathe. It is wholly unimaginative and embodies everything that is wrong with debate. I’ll probably think less of you as a debater if this is a mainstay of your strategy. This does not mean that I won’t vote on politics. Regretfully, I end up voting for a PTX DA more often than not. AFF: All your favorite theory arguments and fiat tricks are live in front of me. If you know what you are doing you can probably make this DA disappear.

Counterplans: CPs need to be competitive. CPs need to have a Net Benefit. Plan Plus Counterplans probably lose to a perm. Consult is probably illegitimate; unless you win it’s not. Multiplank Counterplans could possibly be abusive. I’m a huge fan of tricky PICs. Word PICs are fine. Props if you can PIC out of something not in the Aff… AFF: I live for the perm debate. Complex perms will not only win you debates, they’ll win my respect.

T/FW: Hands down my favorite argument. Predictable Limits, Ground and Deliberation are the only real standards. Everything else is a subsidiary of those three. Quit with this Precision stuff. With that said, I don’t have any thoughts on weather a team needs to be topical. I think K affs and Non-traditional affs either need to win a Counter Interpretation or an Impact Turn to T/FW. T Version is a defensive argument that helps with answering offense predicated off of the Aff being excluded. T version is NOT a CP. PERMING T DOESN’T MAKE SENSE.

Theory: Learn it, Live it, Love it. Don’t fly through your blocks.

Kritiks: This is why you’re here right? I’m familiar with a lot of stuff. I’ve read/ran mostly Anthro, Critical Geopolitics, Coloniality, Levinas, Zizek, Nihilism, OBJ, and Ableism. You should ALWAYS assume that I’m not familiar with what you’re running. I won’t make arguments for you, even if I know the literature base. I like to think that I have a sort of “debate understanding” of a lot of kritikal arguments, where I don’t quite understand the entire body of literature or the overarching theory but I have seen the argument deployed enough to get the general idea of where teams are wanting to go. I think that K debates, particularly at the high school level, are often very non-interactive. K teams like to talk a lot about their theory but not apply it to the Aff. In order to be successful, you must explain how the K deals with the Aff. Examples are encouraged but not always necessary. Some part of the debate needs to make a sort of framework argument that tells me what I prioritize in my decision and/or what my decision means/does. This does not necessarily mean a role of the ballot type claim; most ROBs are nonsensical and extremely vacuous. Likewise, I CANNOT vote for something that I don’t understand. If I don’t get how the Alt functions and/or how the links work; I’m most likely voting Aff.

Other Stuff:

I’m super torn on the “What should debate be” question. I don’t know if you can actually change stuff through debate. I’d love to hear you talk about it though.

Language Ks are my least favorite thing to judge; even more so than PTX. “You said a bad word, you deserve to lose” isn’t the best model for debate. I have no clue why more people aren’t going for PC Bad/Free Speech Good.

I’ll vote on Inherency and/or You don’t solve your Aff.

I think there can be zero risk of a link or impact.

I understand sports metaphors, unlike some of your judges.

I’m super into anything DC Comics.

HUMOR IS ENCOURAGED.

I absolutely HATE it when kids idolize the kid that they are debating. Don’t worship at their feet during the round. Buck up, and beat them down. These people should be your rivals not your idols.

Debate is a fight. You’ve gotta have the EYE OF THE TIGER. If you get offended or ticked off by what people say; you’re probably in the wrong sport.

Nick Schroeder

Assistant coach at Blue Valley North High School

Debated at Washburn Rural High School

Updated 8/24/18

Email chain: schroedernick12@gmail.com

Feel free to ask questions before the round if you need clarification or detail on anything.

I debated for 4 years in high and 1 year in college. I usually judge around 20-30 rounds on each topic and gain more familiar with topic literature as the year progresses. In high school I debated mostly an offense/defense policy style with disads, CPs, case turns, and T. That said, I think debate should be an open intellectual space and am open to at least considering most argumentative positions.

T: My default is to competing interpretations. I believe winning reasonability still requires a resolution of the standards debate to prove the interpretation reasonable. That said, it could be effective in cases that the neg interp is arbitrary or if the aff justifies some interpretive flexibility. I like T debates that have a nuanced discussion of the standards and do a good job of impacting out why a certain interpretation creates a fairer and more educational world to debate in. Emphasizing how each standard internal links to an impact is important. Tying arguments such as precision, grammar, and source credibility to the way those things impact case lists, the research process, and ground division is the most effective way to win my ballot.

Theory: I don’t like deciding debates on small technical concessions on theory but could be persuaded to do so if there is a particularly egregious lack of contestation. I’m usually persuaded by reject the argument not the team but will vote otherwise in cases such as condo where a team successfully argues that the larger debate has been skewed.

K: Not my favorite argument form but not something you should feel apprehensive reading in front of me either. A lot of the K rounds I’ve judged I voted aff because the negative went for framing, link, and impact arguments without advancing much of the alternative. While I understand how the aff’s perpetuation of an immoral system is a form of negative offense, I’m generally persuaded by affirmatives that point to the aff as a method to solve a material problem anyway given the inevitability of whatever structure the negative is critiquing without an alternative. I find that I generally have a high degree of skepticism in the alt’s ability to rupture the status quo, so that is a good place to start for affirmatives. In the same sense, I think it is important that the 2NR on the K doesn’t abandon contesting the truth of the 1AC’s internal links or impact scenarios. In most debates where the block focuses heavily on the K and abandons any ambition of beating back the case, I tend to vote that the aff outweighs. I should say I have limited exposure to critical literature but should follow pretty well regardless. I enjoy framework debates that aren’t arbitrary and self-serving. Also, a good cx on the K from either side is nice to see.

Disad/CP/Case

I am most familiar with these arguments. I am easily convinced that delay, conditions, and consult CPs are cheating without specific solvency advocates to justify them. Solvency advocates in general are important to have when running theoretically questionable CPs in front of me. I think internal link defense is underutilized, and really enjoy seeing a discussion of the affirmative/DA’s logic in CX and rebuttals. If you think something doesn’t make sense, I probably think it doesn’t either. I think responsible scholarship is important, and sometimes entire flows can be defeated with a good CX and a few strong analytics.

Have fun and be nice.

Email chain: lfsdebate@gmail.com

Who Am I: I debated four years at Field Kindley High School in Coffeyville, KS, did not debate in college, and have been an assistant coach at Lawrence Free State High School in Lawrence, KS since 2013. I have a Master's degree in International Relations.

General Approach: Tell me what I should be voting on and why. If you want me to evaluate the round differently than they do, then you need to win a reason why your framework or paradigm is the one that I should use. If no one does that, then I'll default to a policymaker paradigm. I don't view offense and defense as an either/or proposition, but if you do then I prefer offense.

Standard Operating Procedure: (How I will evaluate the round unless one of the teams wins that I should do something different) The affirmative has a non-severable duty to advocate something resolutional, and that advocacy must be clear and stable. The goal of the negative is to prove that the affirmative's advocacy is undesirable, worse than a competitive alternative, or theoretically invalid. I default to evaluating all non-theory arguments on a single plane, am much more willing to reject an argument than a team, and will almost always treat dropped arguments as true.

Mechanics: (I'm not going to decide the round on these things by themselves, but they undeniably affect my ability to evaluate it)

• Signposting - Please do this as much as possible. I'm not just talking about giving a roadmap at the start of each speech or which piece of paper you're talking about during the speech, but where on the line-by-line you are and what you're doing (i.e. if you read a turn, call it a turn).
• Overviews - These are helpful for establishing your story on that argument, but generally tend to go on too long for me and seem to have become a substitute for specific line-by-line work, clash, and warrant extension. I view these other items as more productive/valuable ways to spend your time.
• Delivery - I care way more about clarity than speed; I have yet to hear anybody who I thought was clear enough and too fast. I'll say "clear" if you ask me to, but ultimately the burden is on you. Slowing down and enunciating for tags and analytics makes it more likely that I'll get everything.
• Cross Examination - Be polite. Make your point or get an answer, then move on. Don't use cross-ex to make arguments.
• Prep Time - I don't think prep should stop until the flash drive comes out of your computer or the email is sent, but I won't police prep as long as both teams are reasonable.

Argumentation: (I'll probably be fine with whatever you want to do, and you shouldn't feel the need to fundamentally change your strategy for me. These are preferences, not rules.)

• Case - I prefer that you do case work in general, and think that it's under-utilized for impact calc.  Internal links matter.
• CPs/DAs - I prefer specific solvency and link cards (I'm sure you do, too), but generics are fine provided you do the work.
• Framework - I prefer that framework gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
• Kritiks - I prefer that there is an alternative, and that you either go for it or do the work to explain why you win anyway. "Reject the Aff." isn't an alternative, it's what I do if I agree with the alternative. I don't get real excited about links of omission, so some narrative work will help you here.
• Performance - I prefer that you identify the function of the ballot as clearly and as early as possible.
• Procedurals - I prefer that they be structured and that you identify how the round was affected or altered by what the other team did or didn't do.
• Theory - I prefer that theory gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
• Topicality - I prefer that teams articulate how/why their interpretation is better for debate from a holistic perspective. TVAs and/or case lists are good. My least favorite way to start an RFD is, "So, I think the Aff. is topical, but also you're losing topicality."

Miscellaneous: (These things matter enough that I made a specific section for them, and will definitely be on my mind during the round.)

• I'm not planning to judge kick for you, but have no problem doing so if that instruction is in the debate.  The Aff. can object, of course.
• Anybody can read cards, good analysis and strategic decision-making are harder to do and frequently more valuable.
• Individual pages on the flow do not exist in a vacuum, and what is happening on one almost certainly affects what is happening on another.
• Comparative impact calculus. Again, comparative impact calculus.
• You may not actually be winning every argument in the round; acknowledging this in your analysis and telling me why you win anyway is a good thing.
• Winning an argument is not the same thing as winning the round on an argument. If you want to win the round on an argument you've won or are winning, take the time to win the round on it.
• The 2NR and 2AR are for making choices, you only have to win the round once.
• I will read along during speeches and will likely double back to look at cards again, but I don't like being asked to read evidence and decide for myself. If they're reading problematic evidence, yours is substantively better, etc., then do that work in the debate.

Zen: (Just my thoughts, they don't necessarily mean anything except that I thought them.)

• Debate is a speaking game, where teams must construct logically sound, valid arguments to defend, while challenging the same effort from their opponents.
• It's better to be more right than the other team than more clever.
• A round is just a collection of individual decisions. If you make the right decisions more often than not, then you'll win more times than you lose.

I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Assistant Speech and Debate Coach for 11 years.

POLICY:

Please put me on the email chain: mark.skoglund AT gmail.com.

Overall: Tab, default policymaker and policy impact work is generally the most predictable path to my ballot. Tech over truth for the most part though there’s a line somewhere. I often take speech docs to check clipping but I try to not use speech docs for the decision unless there’s no other option. In general I am not a fan of embedded clash; do the work in the round.

Racist/sexist/transphobic/homophobic/ableist rhetoric will lose my ballot.

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I believe that enforcing disclosure with the ballot ends up favoring schools with resources against those without, rather than enforcing any sort of equal playing field. I also will not evaluate “which school has more resources” so I avoid voting on this argument entirely.

Speed: Fine with me, though I don’t judge as much as I used to so help me out on tags. Also if you speed through your theory block at the same rate as card text it’s not likely all going to end up on my flow.

Topicality: Default competing interps. I don’t think I have a particularly high threshold for T, though teams often do one of two things that are bad ideas:

1. Read a “precision bad” block against a “precision good” block and assume embedded clash.

2. Not focusing enough on which interp has better access to the standard and spending all the time on which standard is best.

Other Theory: I’m not likely to vote on blippy theory; do work if you want to win my ballot. Your strategy should not be to read 8 two-line theory arguments hoping the other team drops one.

Disads: I don't care if they're generic, but specific links assist in probability calculus.

Counterplans: If you’re not running a CP you’re probably making a strategic mistake with me. I lean Aff on delay CPs bad and to a lesser extent on consults bad, but I won’t do the work for you of course. I will not judge kick CPs unless clearly told to consider it by a team with justification, and the other team loses the debate re: the legitimacy of judge-kicking.

Kritiks: I’m fine with Ks, though you’ll be far more familiar with the lit base than I am, so help me out. In particular, if you’re going for the alt and I don’t understand what it is well enough, I can’t vote for it. “Reject the aff” is generally a weak alt unless it’s a discourse K or otherwise uniquely justified, but it wins often enough anyway.

Discourse/Reps Ks sidenote: I vote for discourse Ks fairly often when a team has said something exclusionary and do believe there is value in rejecting teams to correct that action in future. That said, there’s plenty of debate that can be had in this area.

***

Congressional Debate -

Experience: I have been coaching this event since 2007. My primary experience is with NSDA.

-Bigotry of any kind is not tolerated.

-Early foundational speeches can be just as important as later responsive speeches.

-When possible, direct clash is important. A late speech on legislation that does not cite/respond to anyone else is almost never very strong.

-When responding to/citing others, try to make it productive. An offhand mention just to prove you're following the debate is fine but doesn't do much to advance the debate forward; work in a response or distinguish someone else's point.

-If you are retreading ground someone else covered, you should clearly distinguish your analysis. Simply repeating past claims indicates someone is either not tracking the debate or is not well-researched and is penalized.

-Crystallization speeches are good when done well but you need to be adding value, typically at the impact weighing/framework level.

-Extending questioning periods is almost never productive (certainly not as productive as the speech we may have been able to have) and if the same competitor is repeatedly making that motion, the ranks may reflect that.

-Being a good, professional, and organized presiding officer is rewarded.

-I believe it is critically important for judges to consider whether a criticism would apply equally regardless of gender. For one obvious example, women are often penalized for the same focused aggression that men are rewarded for. The primary way to combat this is judges being conscious of implicit bias, and I try to ensure that I am fairly applying criticism.

Debated 4 years for Lawrence High School - Policy, LD, and PFD.

Debated 1 year for Kansas City Kansas Community College - Policy and Puff

I will break this down by topic area - might be easier - sorry if unclear just ask me.

BOTH TEAMS NEED TO KNOW ABOVE EVERYTHING ELSE

-Roadmaps and flashing are OFF-TIME.

-I have no preference to open or closed cross-ex, do what you want.

-Do not speak and give arguments if it is not your speech, it's distracting, it's bad debate, and I won't listen.

-If I stop flowing or crumple up/throw away the flow, I've either already voted or I no longer care, just stop.

-Debate how you are comfortable debating - I'm flexible - but don't just refuse to answer an argument because you don't know how.

-Speaks are based on the quality/clarity of your speech - the way you answer stuff.

-If you don't know what you're saying or don't understand the argument you're running - everybody knows, it looks bad, and I don't want to hear it.

TOPICALITY

-I love T debates - they're the best - but T is won and lost in the standards/voters debate. You say that T is a voter (for education/equity/etc.) but no one ever tells me why that's even important or what the impacts to being not topical are. If you wanna go for being not topical means bad debate - fine. If you wanna go all the way to being untopical underlimits the topic and is inequitable to minorities - perfect - take it all the way to cultural genocide if you want to. But for the love of all that is good and holy, please take it somewhere. You have to compare standards - tell me why yours are more important/outweigh or why they apply more to your arguments than the other teams.

-If you say "reasonability" or "judge's discretion", I swear on everything that I will stop flowing T and give it to the other team - you are lazy debating - it is not my job to convince my own self who is topical/not topical and why that's important - I am not paid enough to do so.

-Topicality is NOT an RVI.

-Aff teams: if you wanna say you don't need to be topical - great, that's a bomb debate - but you better be winning why being topical is comparatively worse than being not topical.

DISADVANTAGES/ADVANTAGES
-Please be smart. You only need to take out uniqueness, links, or impacts. For example, I no longer care about uniqueness or impacts if the links are crap.

-If you wanna link turn the crap out of something and steal the other teams’ impacts -beautiful (this is not lazy debate this is smart debate) - the time you could've spent reading impact cards you can spend on something you're actually losing.

K

-I will listen. If you can't explain your alternative/methodology - I'm done. And I mean really explain it, beyond "reject the aff", I need to know that you understand and can explain exactly how your impacts travel outside of the debate room and how your alt works in the real world.

-On the flip side, if you don't argue something against K flow, I no longer care, it's over, you've conceded.

FRAMEWORK

-This better be damn clear. If I don't understand, I'm throwing the flow away. There better be a reason why I should view the debate the way you want me to and it has to be different than what the other team wants - otherwise why are you running this?

COUNTERPLANS

-I ONLY vote for CPs if they prove a COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE TO THE AFF. If they solve the same things, have equal impacts, or aren't better than the aff in some way, I vote aff.

CASE

-Make sure you pull through - even if they don't say anything on it. It's so easy - I'll probably dock your speaks if you don't.

-I love case debates and I will vote on stock issues.

DROPPED ARGUMENTS

-This is only ever important if you make it a voting issue. Go for it, or don't.

NEW IN THE 2

-I'll listen to both sides, I think there is a debate to be had. But it's only an issue if there really is some sort of abuse.

THEORY

-I'm all sorts of good here. You run what you want - but you gotta win it and it needs to be clear.

IMPACT CALC

-I believe in this. Timeframe/magnitude/probability are real issues.

-I believe in theory here. If one of the holy trinity should be held more important than the rest - please say so - I will vote on this,

SPEED

-I don't really buy speed K's anymore since we're all getting copies of the speech docs.

-Do not clip cards because you're reading too fast.

LINE BY LINE/SIGN POSTING

-This is important. This is necessary to keep rounds running smoothly.

SPECIFICITY

-I might listen here. Cross-ex usually checks, but there are times when teams are just making up answers and pulling stuff out of thin air. But if you're going to run this, there better be a damn good cross-ex and abuse if I'm gonna vote here.

ABUSE

-I am only voting here if you make it a voting issue with clear impacts, and I might stop the round depending on how serious the abuse claim is. But then again I might not - you gotta be making this a big ordeal.

I think that's about it. If I've missed something, just ask me before round starts.

Big believer in strict analysis of evidence. Big believer in rigorous proof of claims as a way to limit topic area. So intelligent T debates, prima facie minimal standards--all good. Very interested in source arguments, as they tend to limit the wackiness of kritiks. So if you have an actual grasp of the critical thought involved, use it. Big believer in the old stock issues as minimal requirements for Aff victory. Really dislike grandiose disads with weak links, brinks, etc. Reasonably fast flow, but don't let that be a license for poor quality argument. Greatly dislike rudeness, snottiness between teams. Teams that do not understand their own arguments, evidence, or how the world generally works are at a disadvantage vis a vis those who do. Watch me for non-verbs. I enjoy easy-outs, so I have less to follow and write on ballots, so if you can claim a solid win before the round is done, I'm with you. Teams I admire have strategic minds, are able to take an aerial view of the round, do not become too detached from reality. That said, an uncontested decision-rule will still work. What I dislike and what I will vote on are not mutually exclusive. I may give you the win for something I detest, but I'll be unhappy about it. That should only affect you if you see me again and fail to heed whatever advice I offered on the ballot.

Debated at the University of Kansas (3 years) | Assistant at Shawnee Mission South

TL;DR:

I'm fine with speed. K affs are a legitimate strategy, but I do find myself having a bias for framework (i.e. should things break even - which hardly happens - I would probably vote for framework). K's are fine, but links to plan action are preferable (unless your framework convinces me otherwise). I strongly dislike it when you're being a jerk and your speaker points will reflect this if you are being one.