I'm a fourth-year debater at Wichita East where I've mainly debated Open. I'll honestly listen and vote on any argument that's well-made and extended throughout the round. When it comes to speed, goes as fast as you want just be clear. Keep in mind, speed doesn't make your arguments any more valid. I'm looking for more than who can talk the prettiest when I make my decision. Focus on development of arguments and complexity rather than presentation.

Be nice. Any racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or anything of the likes will not be tolerated and will lose you the round. Use common sense.

With that said, have fun!

Hello! My name is Maitri Ajmera and I use she/her pronouns.

Speech docs to maitriajmera@gmail.com

Wichita East '20

While I did a decent amount of nat circuit debating in high school, I'd be best described as a DCI level debater (I also generally preferred and was more successful in extemp and congress). I have a pretty good understanding of how debate works at a high level but I have not judged enough (at all) to say that I am capable of judging very technical debates. I will do my best to keep a tight flow and will evaluate arguments on the basis of tech>truth. While I'm familiar with spreading, given that this is my first time judging since graduating high school, I would recommend that you go slower unless you are very confident that you can be extremely clear while spreading. I'll clear you twice but after that, I'll dock your speaker points. I most often went for some combination of a DA, CP, and case but also did go for the fem K and the cap K a decent amount of times. Warning: I have very little experience with very technical Ks and I'd advise you not to read them. This especially applies to kritikal affirmatives. Of course, while I am open to hearing them and firmly believe that K affs are a very valuable part of this activity, I don't think I have the expertise to judge them in a way that will be favorable to you. I also don't love T or theory but will still definitely listen and vote on it if you win it. I will default to competing interps > reasonability but all of my predispositions are still very malleable. I also have absolutely no topic knowledge on criminal justice so your arguments might require a bit more explanation than normal. As long as you do your best, I will also do my best to understand your arguments.

Good things: clash (!!!), updated wikis, impact calc, condo, specificity and logical link chains, strategic cx questions, and evidence quality and comparison.

Bad things: clipping (it's cheating!!), arguments without warrants, arguments without impacts, shadow extension, stealing prep, unintelligible speed, and affs with no connection to the topic.

All in all, do what you do best and I'll do my best to accommodate to you. As a former debater, I know how much energy is put into this activity and I hope that I'll be able to facilitate fun and educational debates!

I'm Dan, I'm a senior at Derby, this is my 4th year debating. I do a lot of open competition because I play football. I will understand all your arguments unless they just don't make sense. Feel free to go however fast or slow you desire, just talk about it before round with your opponent. If they can't go super fast I will allow you to spread for the constructives but don't be a jerk because it makes me uncomfortable when people cry. I like case arguments and solid DA's on Neg. On Aff you better answer solvency properly, because I'm not one of those guys that even if there is a chance that we help we should do it.

T- You have a novice case list, but I understand if someone runs something weird like reducing finger pistol sales from Saudi Arabia, otherwise good luck with T

CP- Sure but be competitive

Jerk- I understand there are some rounds when the other team drops everything, if something like that happens you have probably already won, no need to berate them just tell me why you won

RFD- Tell me why you win, I won't figure it out for you

I was a fourth year debater in high school and will be fine with any arguments. I default to policy maker.

Debate how you want to debate I am pretty lenient with any argument. I like when a team directly clashes with another instead of just spreading out cards. (Basically give a little bit of an under view.)

Any speed is welcome but with online judging I would recommend an high-flow open spread.

Stock Issues are important and those include: Topicality, Harms, Inherency, and Solvency.

Kritiks are fine if a team is able to elaborate on them and defend them well.

Counter-Plans are fine as well and I will live it up to the debate teams and conditional arguments on acceptable but I am open to theory arguments.

Theory arguments are fine as well but if you spread through 3 or more of them please include them in the flash to me I will leave the abuse argument to the other team if they want to make that argument.

I Default to Tabula Rosa:

I love to see theory debate around framing and arguments revolving around my duty as a judge and I think that burden debate is extremely important. However, if these things don't take place then Ill implement my own value criteria when I consider your impact calc. Unless you tell me otherwise I think that comparatively advantageous is a reasonable standard.

Tech VS Truth - How it affects my evaluation of the flow:

I don't appreciate the weaponization of spread and the over-evaluation of cards that are inherently trash. However, it is important that you clearly state if you are kicking out of arguments otherwise you are at the mercy of me blatantly accepting the tech of you dropping argument no matter the truth of what a team brings up against your dropped argument. Manage your flow, but focus on the flow being a sign that you are clashing on evidence, not splattering cheep recut cards hoping that a team makes a tech error that causes them to lose the round.

Arguments:

Solvency ++++

I'm a strong believer that solvency determines the weight I give to you (SOLVING) for the impacts you bring up during the round. Unless it's fairly convincing I generally don't believe solvency take outs.

Inherency -

UNLESS YALL DEBATING A BILL THAT'S BEEN PASSED, then I generally find inherency a waste of time. AFF if someone gets you on inherency that's pretty bad.

DA ++

DA = Good, DA that runs into a larger narrative about why the AFF is bad = Major brownie points. Important notes: your link chain should tell me a story that you can explain when pushed on. If you can't explain your link chain in cross-X then it's going to take a major tech mess up from the other team for you to get anything on the DA. Also really protect that link on the DA if your the NEG because otherwise, the aff is going to swat that DA away with ease.

CP +++

Counter-plans are good if it is modifying existing policy all the better, I think CPs are at the heart of policy debate. But if you run, RCP, Delay CP, then your wasting valuable speech time.

Our Komrade the K +++

I think kritical debate that around the heart of the topic is awesome so that being said linkage isn't very important to me on the K as long as you can establish a narrative between the case and the K. I think that everyone should experiment with the K during their debate experience. I prefer functionality in an alt, that doesn't nessisarly mean solving for the impact completely, but rather creating change which is comparatively advantageous with the status quo. We ain't gonna hollow out capitalist structures by being big brains.

This being said... I don't vote on the K in the round if it is used because.

-The opposing team belongs to a certain socio-economic, ethnic, or gendered group

-The excuse for you being a well-developed source on the K is because you belong to a certain socio-economic, ethnic, or gendered group. If you are then that's great and I am proud of you for finding advocacy, but it doesn't replace a well-rounded knowledge of lit.

Perms ++

Good test the competitiveness in multiple ways. Multiple perms are good. That being said don't run nine perms hoping another team drops one because that's not real debate and I won't vote on that.

Turns ++++

Double Binds ++++++

LOVE a good double bind, combines clever strategy and exemplifies both tech and truth simultaneously! However, if you just go up there and start throwing around the phrase every time the other team makes a contradiction then I won't take you seriously.

Topicality

If its needed do it, if it's not, don't waste our time (although double blinds between a link and T are accepted strategies)

Theory +/-

I think that theory is an important part of a debate.

Spec +/-

I refuse to treat spec like topicality its not a voter issue. I do think it plays into solvency and it can be used to establish links.

Other things about myself:

R.E.S.P.E.C.T your opponents and teammates. Please try your hardest to use their correct pronouns, I will try my hardest as well, we are all imperfect, we all make mistakes, but have integrity.

Pronouns - it no way affects what you call me what you want.

If you want to bash religious institutions go ahead, if you want to question the truth behind an entire system of belief go ahead. If you think religion is inherently immoral and its the opioid of the masses then lay it all out, I will vote for it. But I will not tolerate being xenophobic in your classification of a religious group. Anti-Semitism and Islamaphobia are not cool. Making offhand comments about the character of a religious group is not cool.

RACISM bad

SEXISM bad

If you want to debate eastern vs western values and make it clear that it's not about race or religion then that's chill. (I.E. Western liberalism V Eastern authoritarian models = Good | "Judeo-Christian dominance" V "Cino Supremacy" = VERY BAD)

I'll vote for whatever you tell me to vote for, but I will default to policymaker if not held to any framework. I'm good with pretty much every argument y'all throw out – if you want to go hard in the paint on something weird, whether that's stock issues or game theory, win the framework discussion and I will vote for it. except aspec and other bad-faith arguments. for these, use your better judgment. if something is clearly BS, don't run it and pretend that it's not, please.

speed is cool. please signpost/keep the flow clean. it makes everyone's life easier. I know this year is weird because everything is online & due to connection issues I might not be able to catch everything you say – if this happens, I will fill in the best that I can off of the speech doc. if I still have holes, I will ask both teams after the speech for what was said in the hope that at least some of the competitors were able to hear it. be honest, please. if I figure out that you lied about what was said (either by you or an opponent) during an internet lapse, you WILL lose. no questions asked. if only the team giving the speech was able to hear, I'm not sure what I'll do. we can hash that out in round. just know that if you end up dropping/undercovering something because of connection issues, I will give you *some* leeway in the very next speech to address it. I know that probably isn’t perfectly fair, but I think it's the best that can be made out of a bad situation.

finally, I know next to nothing about this year's topic, so please be cognizant of that. throwing around acronyms is probably going to confuse me if no one ever tells me what they stand for. during the immigration year, some teams would talk about H-1B visas for an entire round without ever explaining what they actually were. I don't need you to hold my hand, just tell me what stuff means the first time you say it and I'll catch on. the same goes for Ks, although in a different form. I'll piece together the argument the best that I can off of the speech doc, but a little 15 second elevator pitch at the end of the 1NC giving me the basics in layman's terms will be good for everyone.

feel free to ask me any questions before the round.

I am a fourth-year debater, I usually compete in Open/KDC, but I am a Tabula Rasa judge, so if the opposing team failed to answer something and you believe you should win on that, you have to tell me. But, I don't deal with rudeness and will count you down for that. Also, If you are kicking an argument, let me know. I will not do the work for you.

IMPORTANT: Make sure you do Roadmaps and Signpost

Speed - Moderate speed is preferred, but you can go slightly faster than moderate as long as I can understand you.

Arguments - In terms of arguments, I am fine with really anything as long as it is not offensive (racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.)

Cross-Ex - I am comfortable with either Open or Closed Cross-Ex, just decide between the teams what you would both prefer.

K's - I am comfortable with K's as long as you can explain them and you know what you're reading, I don't want to hear a K just because you think it's what I want to hear.

CP's - In terms of CP's, If you run them right and can explain why it would be better than the aff's plan, you can read them.

DA's - I'm comfortable with any Disadvantages the Negative Team decides to run, try to find a link that specifically goes with their case.

Topicality - Only run T if you truly and wholeheartedly believe the aff is untopical, T debates are super boring when it's obvious the affirmative team falls under the res.

Overall, I will vote for whoever does best at telling me why they should win the debate.

I have been debating for about 3 years and have mainly been debating in the open division but I have been to a few varsity tournaments.

T- I do like competing interpretations and believe that if you run topicality then you should go for it in the 2NR and nothing else or else not enough work has been done in my opinion. Put it at the top of every flow

K- I don't mind the K debate. Please explain your alt clearly and what the criticism is. You must also explain why I should vote for the alt.

CP- I love counterplans because they cause competition and I believe that they are good for education. Remember POST. DON'T FORGET THEORY ON THE CP. Condo is fine with me.

DAs- Explain the link

Impact turns- These are fine with but if you run them you must prove that outweighs the competing impact

If have any questions you can email me at dilloleg@usd260.com and yes I would like to be on the email chain if possible

Hello, I'm Nathan, a high school senior at Wichita East High School.

This is my fourth year debating-- I don't compete at the varsity level; instead, I compete at the KDC/Open level, which means I'm generally comfortable with any argument you're running as long as you are able to explain the argument well. The only argument I'm not completely comfortable is K's--I'm open to hearing K's but you're most likely not going to win on that argument.

i debated at kapaun mt carmel for 4 years including national circuit debate. i debate at trinity university. add me to the email chain jacobdoolittle12@gmail.com. if you still have questions after reading the below content ask me.

top

i default a policy maker under util framing unless i am told otherwise

tech over truth

saying or doing racist, sexist, homophobic etc thing is never ok – you will auto get lowest possible speaks and will probably lose the round

if you talk about sexual assault or suicide you should give a trigger warning before the round

plan affs

these are the affs i have the most experience with and know the most about. i am not a fan of soft left affs because of the framing pages. that being said, you can still read soft left affs in front of me but you still need to answer the da with more than framing.

planless affs

i do have experience reading planless affs and am fine judging them. i am sympathetic to neg arguments that the aff doesn’t get perms on the k. i do not have much experience when it comes to performative affs but am fine with them as long as you dont steal the other teams belongings as part of your performance.

da

i love a good da debate. i was a 1n 2a for all 4 years so i took a da most debates. turns case is important. should have a specific link to the aff in the block whether carded or logical

cp

i think the neg gets to read as cheaty cp as they can make and it is the aff job to prove why the cp is cheating and why that is bad. 2nc cp are fine with justification.

k

im fine with these. the types of ks i have the most experience with are queer pessimism, cap, deleuze and legalism. like i said in the planless aff section, i don’t have a lot of experience with more performative ks.

t/framework

first off i don’t think fairness is a terminal impact but rather an internal link to education. most debates framework is not the most strategic argument against k affs and as i said in the k aff section, i am sympathetic to the neg arguments that the aff doesn’t get perms. any t argument is viable but the threshold for abuse is higher for some like t-should.

theory

i think theory is underutilized in high school debate. i am someone who will vote on more extreme theory arguments as long as you have a clear interpretation and standard. any theory argument can be a reason to reject the team but some arguments will have a lower threshold for the other team to win reject the argument.

I've debated four years at Derby High School.

If you have any questions: hassebri05@gmail.com

Overall: Speed is fine. Please put me on the email chain. Please be clear. I lean policy but critical arguments are great too. What ever you do just make sure you give good explanation and impact calc. The debate will go a lot faster if early on you make it clear on what I should be voting on. Don't just read mass amounts of evidence and make sure your line by line is clear. CX is basically a speech so treat it as such, it's 3 min where you could poking holes in your opponents case or making key arguments, I highly value CX.

Case: Case debate is very important and clearly undervalued. Case turns are great. Make sure you have ink on all pieces of the case, don't just grant them an advantage at least give your self some options going into the block or else you're just talking in circles.

DA: Specific links are always better than generics. Obviously how I evaluate the impact depends on who does the impact calc and prove to me that the link will trigger the impact before the aff can solve for their advantages.

CP: Counter plans that focus on the agency of the affirmative and or the immediacy of the affirmative are probably cheating, but that is your job to call out. Don't just spout off a bunch of perms without explanation. Perm theory is fine but it is more of reason to reject the perm rather than a reason to reject the team.

Topicality: There is room for a good T debate especially if there is proof of in round abuse through the aff no linking out of the DA base on substantiality Obviously make sure you impact out T and explain your voters, please do not just say "this is a voter for fairness and education" and then move on. I will vote for T but if you are going to go for T then just go for T not the buffet.

K: I am fine with critical affirmatives or Kritiks. Please explain your links and impacts, don't assume I know the literature because I most likely don't. I have gone for the K before. K's I have either ran or read about: Set Col, Nietzsche, University, Anthro, Cap and Derrida, but please explain what your alt does or why it doesn't have to do anything. I think Frame Work is definitely a good answer to the K because in the end a K v K debate gets very messy.

Yes, email chain: sohailjouyaATgmailDOTcom

PUBLIC FORUM JUDGING PHILOSOPHY IS HERE

Update:

- Probably not the best judge for the "Give us a 30!" approach unless it becomes an argument/point of contestation in the round. Chances are I'll just default to whatever I'd typically give. To me, these kind of things aren't arguments, but judge instructions that are external to making a decision regarding the debate occurring.

BIG PICTURE

- I appreciate adaptation to my preferences but don’t do anything that would make you uncomfortable. Never feel obligated to compete in a manner that inhibits your ability to be effective. My promise to you will be that I will keep an open mind and assess whatever you chose. In short: do you.

- Truth > Tech, but RELAX: All this means is that I recognize that debate is not merely a game, but rather a competition that models the world in which we live. This doesn’t mean I believe judges should intervene on the basis of argumentative preference - what it does mean is that embedded clash band the “nexus question” of the round is of more importance than blippy technical oversights between certain sheets of paper - especially in K v K debates.
Don't fret: a dropped argument is still a concession. I likely have a higher threshold for the development of arguments that are more intrinsically dubious and lack warrants.

- As a former coach of a UDL school where many of my debaters make arguments centred on their identity, diversity is a genuine concern. It may play a factor in how I evaluate a round, particularly in debates regarding what’s “best” for the community/activity.

Do you and I’ll do my best to evaluate it but I’m not a tabula rasa and the dogma of debate has me to believe the following. I have put a lot of time and thought into this while attempting to be parsimonious - if you are serious about winning my ballot a careful read would prove to serve you well:

FORM

- All speech acts are performances, consequently, debaters should defend their performances including the advocacy, evidence, arguments/positions, interpretations, and representations of said speech acts.

- One of the most annoying questions a judged can be asked: “Are you cool with speed?”
In short: yes. But smart and slow always beats fast and dumb.
I have absolutely no preference on rate of delivery, though I will say it might be smart to slow down a bit on really long tags, advocacy texts, your totally sweet theory/double-bind argument or on overviews that have really nuanced descriptions of the round. My belief is that speed is typically good for debate but please remember that spreading’s true measure is contingent on the number of arguments that are required to be answered by the other team not your WPM.

- Pathos: I used to never really think this mattered at all. To a large degree, it still doesn’t considering I’m unabashedly very flowcentric but I tend to give high speaker points to debaters who performatively express mastery knowledge of the subjects discussed, ability to exercise round vision, assertiveness, and that swank.

- Holistic Approaches: the 2AR/2NR should be largely concerned with two things:
1) provide framing of the round so I can make an evaluation of impacts and the like
2) descriptively instruct me on how to make my decision

Overviews have the potential for great explanatory power, use that time and tactic wisely.

While I put form first, I am of the maxim that “form follows function” – I contend that the reverse would merely produce an aesthetic, a poor formula for argument testing in an intellectually rigorous and competitive activity. In summation: you need to make an argument and defend it.

FUNCTION

- The Affirmative ought to be responsive to the topic. This is a pinnacle of my paradigm that is quite broad and includes teams who seek to engage in resistance to the proximate structures that frame the topic. Conversely, this also implicates teams that prioritize social justice - debaters utilizing methodological strategies for best resistance ought to consider their relationship to the topic.
Policy-oriented teams may read that last sentence with glee and K folks may think this is strike-worthy…chill. I do not prescribe to the notion that to be topical is synonymous with being resolutional.

- The Negative’s ground is rooted in the performance of the Affirmative as well as anything based in the resolution. It’s that simple; engage the 1AC if at all possible.

- I view rounds in an offense/defense lens. Many colleagues are contesting the utility of this approach in certain kinds of debate and I’m ruminating about this (see: “Thoughts on Competition”) but I don’t believe this to be a “plan focus” theory and I default to the notion that my decisions require a forced choice between competing performances.

- I will vote on Framework. (*This means different things in different debate formats - I don't mean impact framing or LD-centric "value/value criterion" but rather a "You must read a plan" interpretation that's typically in response to K Affs)That means I will vote for the team running the position based on their interpretation, but it also means I’ll vote on offensive responses to the argument. Vindicating an alternative framework is a necessary skill and one that should be possessed by kritikal teams - justifying your form of knowledge production as beneficial in these settings matter.
Framework appeals effectively consist of a normative claim of how debate ought to function. The interpretation should be prescriptive; if you are not comfortable with what the world of debate would look like if your interpretation were universally applied, then you have a bad interpretation. The impact to your argument ought to be derived from your interpretation (yes, I’ve given RFDs where this needed to be said). Furthermore, a Topical Version of the Affirmative must specifically explain how the impacts of the 1AC can be achieved, it might be in your best interest to provide a text or point to a few cases that achieve that end. This is especially true if you want to go for external impacts that the 1AC can’t access – but all of this is contingent on a cogent explanation as to why order precedes/is the internal link to justice.

- I am pretty comfortable judging Clash of Civilization debates.

- Framework is the job of the debaters. Epistemology first? Ontology? Sure, but why? Where does performance come into play – should I prioritize a performative disad above the “substance” of a position? Over all of the sheets of paper in the round? These are questions debaters must grapple with and preferably the earlier in the round the better.

- "Framework is how we frame our work" >>>>> "FrAmEwOrK mAkEs ThE gAmE wOrK"

-Presumption can be an option. In my estimation, the 2NR may go for Counterplan/Kritik while also giving the judge the option of the status quo. Call it “hypo-testing” or whatever but I believe a rational decision-making paradigm doesn’t doom me to make a single decision between two advocacies, especially when the current status of things is preferable to both (the net-benefit for a CP/linear DA and impact for a K). I don't know if I really “judge kick” for you, instead, the 2NR should explain an “even if” route to victory via presumption to allow the 2AR to respond.
“But what about when presumption flips Affirmative?” This is a claim that I wish would be established prior to the 2NR, but I know that's not gonna happen. I've definitely voted in favour of plenty of 2ARs that haven't said that in the 1AR. The only times I can envision this is when the 2NR is going all-in on a CP.

- Role of the Ballots ought to invariably allow the 1AC/1NC to be contestable and provide substantial ground to each team. Many teams will make their ROBs self-serving at best, or at worse, tautological. That's because there's a large contingency of teams that think the ROB is an advocacy statement. They are not. Even more teams conflate a ROB with a Role of the Judge instruction and I'm just now making my peace with dealing with that reality.
If the ROB fails to equally distribute ground, they are merely impact framing. A good ROB can effectively answer a lot of framework gripes regarding the Affirmative’s pronouncement of an unfalsifiable truth claim.

- Analytics that are logically consistent, well warranted, and answer the heart of any argument are weighed in high-esteem. This is especially true if it’s responsive to any combinations of bad argument/evidence.

- My threshold for theory is not particularly high. It’s what you justify, not necessarily what you do. I typically default to competing interpretations, this can be complicated by a team that is able to articulate what reasonability means in the context of the round, otherwise I feel like it's interventionist of me to decode what “reasonable” represents. The same is true to a lesser extent with the impacts as well. Rattling off “fairness and education” as loaded concepts that I should just know has a low threshold if the other team can explain the significance of a different voter or a standard that controls the internal link into your impact (also, if you do this: prepared to get impact turned).

I think theory should be strategic and I very much enjoy a good theory debate. Copious amounts of topicality and specification arguments are not strategic, it is desperate.

- I like conditionality probably more so than other judges. As a young’n I got away with a lot of, probably, abusive Negative strategies that relied on conditionality to the maximum (think “multiple worlds and presumption in the 2NR”) mostly because many teams were never particularly good at explaining why this was a problem. If you’re able to do so, great – just don’t expect me to do much of that work for you. I don’t find it particularly difficult for a 2AR to make an objection about how that is bad for debate, thus be warned 2NRs - it's a downhill effort for a 2AR.
Furthermore, I tend to believe the 1NC has the right to test the 1AC from multiple positions.
Thus, Framework along with Cap K or some other kritik is not a functional double turn. The 1NC doesn’t need to be ideologically consistent. However, I have been persuaded in several method debates that there is a performative disadvantage that can be levied against speech acts that are incongruent and self-defeating.

- Probability is the most crucial component of impact calculus with disadvantages. Tradeoffs ought to have a high risk of happening and that question often controls the direction of uniqueness while also accessing the severity of the impact (magnitude).

- Counterplan debates can often get tricky, particularly if they’re PICs. Maybe I’m too simplistic here, but I don’t understand why Affirmatives don’t sit on their solvency deficit claims more. Compartmentalizing why portions of the Affirmative are key can win rounds against CPs. I think this is especially true because I view the Counterplan’s ability to solve the Affirmative to be an opportunity cost with its competitiveness. Take advantage of this “double bind.”

- Case arguments are incredibly underutilized and the dirty little secret here is that I kind of like them. I’m not particularly sentimental for the “good ol’ days” where case debate was the only real option for Negatives (mostly because I was never alive in that era), but I have to admit that debates centred on case are kind of cute and make my chest feel all fuzzy with a nostalgia that I never experienced– kind of like when a frat boy wears a "Reagan/Bush '84" shirt...

KRITIKAL DEBATE

I know enough to know that kritiks are not monolithic. I am partial to topic-grounded kritiks and in all reality I find them to be part of a typical decision-making calculus. I tend to be more of a constructivist than a rationalist. Few things frustrate me more than teams who utilise a kritik/answer a kritik in a homogenizing fashion. Not every K requires the ballot as a tool, not every K looks to have an external impact either in the debate community or the world writ larger, not every K criticizes in the same fashion. I suggest teams find out what they are and stick to it, I also think teams should listen and be specifically responsive to the argument they hear rather than rely on a base notion of what the genre of argument implies. The best way to conceptualize these arguments is to think of “kritik” as a verb (to criticize) rather than a noun (a static demonstrative position).
It is no secret that I love many kritiks but deep in every K hack’s heart is a revered space that admires teams that cut through the noise and simply wave a big stick and impact turn things, unabashedly defending conventional thought. If you do this well there’s a good chance you can win my ballot. If pure agonism is not your preferred tactic, that’s fine but make sure your post-modern offense onto kritiks can be easily extrapolated into a 1AR in a fashion that makes sense.
In many ways, I believe there’s more tension between Identity and Post-Modernism teams than there are with either of them and Policy debaters. That being said, I think the Eurotrash K positions ought to proceed with caution against arguments centred on Identity – it may not be smart to contend that they ought to embrace their suffering or claim that they are responsible for a polemical construction of identity that replicates the violence they experience (don’t victim blame).

THOUGHTS ON COMPETITION

There’s a lot of talk about what is or isn’t competition and what competition ought to look like in specific types of debate – thus far I am not of the belief that different methods of debate require a different rubric for evaluation. While much discussion has been given to “Competition by Comparison” I very much subscribe to Competing Methodologies. What I’ve learned in having these conversations is that this convention means different things to different people and can change in different settings in front of different arguments. For me, I try to keep it consistent and compatible with an offense/defense heuristic: competing methodologies require an Affirmative focus where the Negative requires an independent reason to reject the Affirmative. In this sense, competition necessitates a link. This keeps artificial competition at bay via permutations, an affirmative right regardless of the presence of a plan text.

Permutations are merely tests of mutual exclusivity. They do not solve and they are not a shadowy third advocacy for me to evaluate. I naturally will view permutations more as a contestation of linkage – and thus, are terminal defense to a counterplan or kritik -- than a question of combining texts/advocacies into a solvency mechanism. If you characterize these as solvency mechanisms rather than a litmus test of exclusivity, you ought to anticipate offense to the permutation (and even theory objections to the permutation) to be weighed against your “net-benefits”. This is your warning to not be shocked if I'm extrapolating a much different theoretical understanding of a permutation if you go 5/6 minutes for it in the 2AR.
Even in method debates where a permutation contends both methods can work in tandem, there is no solvency – in these instances net-benefits function to shield you from links (the only true “net benefit” is the Affirmative). A possible exception to this scenario is “Perm do the Affirmative” where the 1AC subsumes the 1NC’s alternative; here there may be an offensive link turn to the K resulting in independent reasons to vote for the 1AC.

aditi kiragi

*disclaimer* - if you use that iphone timer that everyone gets upset about, please don't, thx :)

- debated at andover central ('20)

- i haven't judged any rnds in this topic yet so i'm not familiar with all the args and the norms so keep that in mind.

- add me to the email chain: aditikiragiATgmailDOTcom

- feel free to email me after the rnd if you have any questions.

- i was both 2a/2n over the four years so take that as you will.

tldr - i haven't been exposed to this year's topic so explain things clearly, without using buzzwords, and you'll get my ballot.

big picture and random thoughts

- you do you. i'm open to almost any argument as long as you explain it clearly.

- speed is fine as long as you're clear. not a fan of unclear spreading and i'll probably yell clear twice before i put my pen down. go slow on tags and theory bcs i need more pen time.

- collapse down to only 1 argument in the 2nr.

- tech > truth. (some issues are obviously truth > tech so don't be an asshole about it)

- smart analytics are fire and they're underappreciated :)

- fire cxs are great and i think it's binding.

- please don't steal prep, not a fan and i'll dock points if you keep doing it.

- be nice to everyone and you'll get good speaks.

- good jokes will be appreciated :)

topicality

- i ran it quite often on both sides. don't go for it unless you truly believe the aff isn't.

- if you do go for it, spend all 5 mins on it.

- not familiar with t db8s with this topic so write my ballot for me in the 2nr and you'll get my ballot.

disads

- i prefer specific links to the aff but i've also won db8s with generic links so just be smart about it.

- spend time on ! calc even if you're winning this flow coming out of the block.

counterplans

- you most likely need to have an external net ben to win this but if you have an internal one, do the work and explain it clearly and you'll win it.

- perms are merely tests of mutual exclusivity, they don't solve and it's not a third advocacy for me to evaluate.

- explain why the cp clearly solves better than the aff.

- if the aff wins the nb, i'll probably give them more weight on pdb unless you prove so otherwise.

kritiks

- if you run a k and you use a bunch of buzzwords to explain your advocacy, i probably will not be too happy about it.

- i'm a policy db8er so i never ran k affs, which means you're going to have to write out my ballot for me to win this.

- k's on the neg is fine, but don't assumer i am familiar with the args.

- i'm not the best judge for k affs or k v k db8. if you plan on running one, you might have to do a lot more work and if you have any specific questions, just ask me before the rnd.

(please for the love of god, don't run brodrillard)

framework

- the tva has to solve the aff.

- i haven't been exposed to fire fw db8s so keep that in mind before you assume that i just know things.

-top-

tldr: read whatever you want but policy is my forte - feel free to email me if you have questions

put me on the email chain: d3lett@gmail.com

call me dom and use they/them pronouns

wichita state university: 2018-now

coach at maize high school

-o/v-

certain issues can and should supersede tech such as clipping cards or egregious ethics violations - however, most debates i judge don't involve those issues - i default to tech over truth - initially evaluating presented arguments at equal merit is the most consistent, impartial mechanism i've found to provide competitive equity - evidence matters a lot to me - i tend to think specificity and author qualification should act as a filter for claims/warrants

clash is crucial - how you prioritize arguments alters how i connect the dots to determine a decision - provide judge instruction and organization - the more you focus on explicitly characterizing the direction of the debate, the more my rfd will sound like your 2nr/2ar

i reward nuance and depth - more pages covered tends to mean less time developing substance/structure - narrowing the debate allows for greater engagement - impacting out warrants makes comparison for me much easier

insert graph joke here

-fw-

i tend to think resolutional action is good but i can be convinced otherwise - capacity to debate matters to me - it's why clash is possible - limits and grounds are good - they provide the foundation for clash - portable skills/subject formation are important, but i'm not sure i understand why it's unique to debate - the interp is your model of debate - defend it - definitions are vital in helping me understand your model's mandates/effects

for the aff: explaining how your counterinterp uniquely generates offense (e.g. explaining why affs under your interp are important) and generates defense (e.g. quantifying affs under your interp) help me conceptualize weighing clash vs your model - i appreciate the "no perms and you get links to your disads" strategy - it seems to resolve a substantive portion of clash offense but becomes less convincing the more generic neg ground is eliminated

for the neg: explaining internal link turns are important - quantifying limits/grounds to demonstrate loss of clash is helpful - procedural fairness/switch side is often a compelling way to frame decision-making, but i'm not opposed to the mechanism education style fw if that's your expertise - the tva is a useful defensive resource but requires development and evidence

-t-

many of my preferences for fw apply here

reasonability makes little sense as an argument in and of itself - read it as a limits bad arg (argument diversity, topic development, research innovation, etc) - arguments for interp precision are often pretty compelling

-disad/case-

i like detailed link/impact explanations - focus on evidence comparison will be rewarded

-cp-

i like solvency advocates (someone who proposes a process of achieving an action to fix a problem) - read them - the more specific, the more legitimate and likely to solve

-k-

it's probably safe to assume i lack familiarity with the nuances of your chosen field of critical theory - do not read suffering/death good - specific link application (e.g. circumvention/internal link turns) and alt explanation will help guide my decision calculus - the aff should get to weigh the plan

-soft left affs-

the cohn card alone will likely never convince me disads should go away - it makes a lot of sense to me to go for critiques of da's/cp's - critical strategies (e.g. technocracy bad) and scenario planning indicts (e.g. tetlock and bernstein) are applicable - i have more experience with the latter

-theory-

actually engaging in their theory block results in better args, lends credibility, and will be rewarded - most theory doesn't justify rejecting the team - whatever your proposed remedy is, providing a justification for it will be appreciated

condo is maybe good - i like the idea of reciprocity, but aff variety makes being neg tough - if you're aff, i find substance args more compelling than advocacy stuff - if you're neg, i find strategic flex args more compelling than critical thinking stuff

-other thoughts-

misc - don't worry about visual feedback - i'm always tired - i will clear you however many times i feel necessary - please try to increase volume/clarity in front of me as much as you can - feel free to alert me of any concerns about structural impediments you experience that could implicate how i evaluate the round so i can accommodate accordingly

cross-ex - i think anything goes in cross-ex as long as it's the 'asking team' - reading cards, taking prep, bathroom break, whatever - i think the 'responding team' is generally obligated to answer questions if asked - if you ignore and it's not reasonable, you will lose speaks

inserting arguments - generally fine as long as you explain thoroughly - graphs/diagrams/screenshots are cool - i'm far more skeptical of rehighlighted evidence

new arguments - they're almost always justified in response to new args - i grant more leeway to 2nc shenanigans than the 1nr - i think that 1ar's get the most leeway bc of structural time disadvantages and inevitable block creativity

I hold a tabula rasa paradigm with a default to policymaking first and stock issues second. I will immediately default to any framework run in-round and will choose the best-justified framework when two are competing.

I will vote for the neg if they win a stock issue and can justify why this is a reason for them to win aside from "it's a rule of the game."

I will weigh DAs against advantages in terms of impact calculus. If no impact calc is given, I will do it off the top of my head but it will help you less and may or may not favour you.

You must extend everything if you're not kicking it, meaning that I won't vote on a DA or a T if any parts of it aren't extended, nor will I take an advantage into account when weighing advantages and DAs at the end of the round if it wasn't extended. I won't stress about shadow extending, as long as I can tell what cards you're talking about.

I'll vote on CPs regardless of status, though I will also give the win on them to the aff if they can prove condo/dispo/uncondo bad. I'm not saying I won't vote on slimy CPs like delay by a week or consult the Pope's chinchilla, but it'd be awfully easy for an aff team to convince me that they're hot garbage and not to vote for them.

I will vote on most Kritiks if they make sense and aren't completely unreasonable. If I have absolutely no idea what you're on about or you're reading a 1AC that's relies on performance or something of the sort, I won't vote on it.

Finally, I am not a fan of spreading. If I put my pen down and lay my head on the desk, I can't understand you and am not taking any of your arguments into consideration.

Catherine Magaña

cemagana715@gmail.com

I appreciate when debaters show that they care and that they want to be debating and put energy into it. I will put as much effort into my decision and comments as you do into debating. Lots of good can come from this activity so I encourage you to be part of that.

Won't vote on events that happened outside of the round. I am not the person to adjudicate those experiences.

If I cannot hear what you are saying I will clear you once and then stop flowing. You may have made an argument but if you're unclear, the chances I write it down are slim. And if you're not flowing, I'm not flowing.

Don't clip and don't steal prep.

Specific evidence comparison is important, so do more than just surface level analysis. Pull lines out of cards, indict them, anything. People get away with reading lots of terrible evidence - don't let them!

As the judge, I will do my best not to intervene but if I have to come to my own conclusion about something that wasn't debated out then I will explain why I did and what could have prevented that.

CP and DA

If you want me to utilize judge kick then please do not wait until the 2NR to say it. I think zero risk can be a thing. Everything else is game.

K

If you're neg - I find myself persuaded most often by K turns case arguments and specific links. Talk about the aff more. I think speech organization is important here and will appreciate signposting instead of just reading down your document.

I vote for planless affs as much as anything else. Affs should probably be related to the topic. Tell me why spending time learning about x is better than learning about y, especially in that round.

T

I enjoy T debates. These debates can be shallow sometimes so I appreciate contextualization of the aff, in-round abuse, and telling me what precedent would be set by x definition. Not voting on plan text in a vacuum.

Other: Reading every word off of your computer is not impressive or innovative. Speaks will reward the use of your flow.

First and foremost, tabula rasa on everything except wildly abusive debate theory arguments. Tabula rasa prevents my bias or preconceived ideas from corrupting the round, but the teams will also have to work to make a coherent argument; although I do have former knowledge to draw from, if I make a connection between arguments and the team(s) do not, I will actively ignore the connection. Do not make me work to connect the dots between your arguments. Cross-apply this to clash; if you're answering something the opponents said, say so.

Spreading is fine as long as you're clear. If you're spreading analytics, perms, or anything else without evidence, then be ready to give me a flash drive with the arguments. Speaking of which, I may ask for evidence. [Edit in 2020: Not sure how this will work, but if there's a way for me to request evidence, I likely will-- especially if there's contradictions or the quality of the evidence comes into question.]

I'm fine with Kritiks, Counterplans, and theory discussion. Go abstract, complex, all-out with your arguments; any argument the team understands AND can adequately articulate, they can argue.

Topicality, Harms, and Solvency are only voter issues if the negative team says so. If neg runs inherency-- you'd better have empirics or evidence that proves the affirmative isn't inherent; unless the aff is wildly abusive, I'm not voting on inherency.

kya.nethercot@gmail.com ; nethekya@usd260.com

Speaking/Evidence- Talk at a rate that you are comfortable with. Signal me when you are moving from one piece of evidence to another with either a. a clear emphasized "and" or "next" or b. an increase of volume that indicates you are on a piece of evidence. Please do not mumble through the evidence. If you do, I will say "clear." If I can't hear your warrants, the evidence is less persuasive to me. (It will be weighed, but not as heavily as those that are articulated clearly)

Power-tagging (tag that hypes-up a claim without a strong warrant actually backing it up) and over-tagging (giving me a paragraph to flow before your evidence that doesn't provide me with necessary information) is annoying. I'll be listening to the content of the evidence over what you tag it, but I prefer neat labels before the explanation. For example, "No US-China war-- economic interdependence and mutually assured destruction check."

When you extend your evidence, you can reference the author names, but I really prefer if you reference the tag or warrants because I might miss the author. Rebuttals are about persuasion, this isn't a bibliography. (Thanks Daniel Saunders)

Debate is about what YOU articulate to ME. If I wanted to read and compare the warrants of your evidence, I would do it in my own prep. Judge intervention will only be used in rounds where the warrant debate was fire or when the other team calls you out for misrepresenting what the card actually says. Also, if the warrant wasn't represented in the rebuttal, I don't care how good the warrant is.

Extension without a warrant is a shadow extension and I either a. won't weigh it or b. will weigh it as close to nothing. I expect a warrant.

Prep time - Flashing is off-time unless the tournament makes me do otherwise. Don't steal prep. If you do, I'll asking you if you're prepping at first. When I catch you violently typing outside of prep, I will mark down your speaks and update you with a new time after you're done. You may ask questions during prep, but the other team isn't obligated to answer. (questions should only be for CLARIFICATION)

Disadvantages and counterplans - Condo is a voter if the aff wins it. If the neg wins it, I may judge kick the arg. The status quo is always a viable option. I like theory a lot. If you win theory on the aff, you win the counterplan. Intrinsic DAs can be beat on good theory, but it must be persuasive.

Framework vs Critical affs - I prefer topical plans, but I will vote on WELL PRESENTED AND EXPLAINED ones.

I am less persuaded by procedural fairness than education. So what if framework makes the game work? The real question in this debate is "is the game good"? Tell me why policy creates something that is good and why that offense outweighs the impacts of the K. For example, "policy making allows us to access skills, education, subjectives, or whatever... "

TVAs make me more inclined to a procedural fairness debate. Otherwise, I like education offense.

The burden of proof on the TVA is with the neg-- tell me why you're tva solves some of their offense. Explain what parts of the 1ac and 2ac are resolved by the tva in the block. TVA isn't a round winner-- it will be evaluated like a counter plan so you still need offense. SHOW ME WHY THE OFFENSE OUTWEIGHS!!!

Theory/T - THEORY IS VERY IMPORTANT. I think neg teams get away with too much as far as PICs, CPs, ect go. I will (minimum) kick your arg if the aff explains well why I should and you don't defend it well. Tell me why your interpretation is better on T. In this debate, interpreting limits is the most important thing. Tell me what they limit out and why that's bad and/or let me know what you include, why that's good, and why that good outweighs. Be thorough on theory. 'Condo is cheating because time skew' will never be enough for me to vote or probably even kick.

Kritiks – Framework matters and both the aff and the neg need to make theirs clear in the round. A fantastic k debater can still lose on framework. I need the alt to be articulated well. If it isn't,then it can be evaluated as a linear disad (in the case that you articulate that to me clearly).

Experience - I'm a junior with camp experience. My K familiarity is basic, but I do understand Marxism, some Lacan, set col, identity Ks, and reps ks

Perm - Aff needs to explain why perms solve the links. The aff just saying "perm do both" and repeating it is basically as the same as a claim without a warrant; instead say "the perm solves link this link [blah blah blah], the perm solves link this link,"…” etc. Neg needs to explain why the links are resilient to the perms because perm disads are less than persuasive.

Email Chain: qmnguyen1229@gmail.com

Please include relevant information (tournament name, round, team codes, ect.) in the subject line and speech doc names.

I debated at Wichita East (2015-2019). I then coached + regularly judged (2019-2022). Since then, I have not coached and only judge once or twice a year. I likely know absolutely nothing about the topic or newer debate trends/norms.

When I debated, I was a stereotypical policy 2N – I usually went for a counterplan + disad, never read kritiks, and always went for T-USFG vs K affs. I have very little experience reading kritiks but plenty answering them.

Thus, I am most comfortable and competent judging policy vs policy rounds. I am okay for policy vs K rounds. I will be a very bad judge for K vs K rounds. I do not have an ideological opposition to kritiks but due to my lack of experience going for them you should err on the side of over explanation.

That being said, please debate using whatever speed and arguments you are most comfortable with, and I will do my best to adapt to you. If you provide clear and warranted analysis, explanation, impact comparison, and judge instruction you are likely to win my ballot regardless of your argument style.

If my camera is off, don't start your speech. If you want to email me questions about your round, please do so with haste because I have an awful memory.

Email: okvanessan@gmail.com

Kapaun Mt. Carmel/Mount Carmel Independent '19. I did policy debate for four years.

University of Southern California '23. I did not compete but was still involved with the policy debate team.

General:

Please be kind. I promise I'm not angry or upset, my face is just like that.

Again, I haven't competed since high school and I'm not as involved as I once was: this means I've forgotten lots of jargon and you will need to slow down a bit. The technical nuances of debate aren't as intuitive to me anymore so please explain the implications of your arguments more.

I don't really have any strong opinions on debate other than:

(1) be kind to your partner and opponents, and

(2) debate is a valuable activity and all argumentative styles that allow chances for contestation/clash are essential for that.

If you take time out of your own prep to delete analytics from constructives, you're only hurting yourself.

Feel free to email me with any further questions.

Content:

Do whatever as long as it's not repugnant. If you're unsure whether your argument falls under this category, then probably don't read it.

For what it's worth, I read mainly policy arguments in high school and am not super familiar with critical arguments. If you read the latter, you're going to have to explain your arguments more. Such debates are easier for me to follow if your strategy engages the impact level. Non-USFG affs should have a debate and ballot key warrant. I always went for framework, a topic disad if it linked, or an impact turn against such affs.

I think fairness is the best impact.

I think affs should get to weigh their plan and it will be an uphill battle to persuade me otherwise.

I know very little about the topic. Please keep this in mind if going for T.

I like impact turns. That does not mean death good. That does not mean wipeout. Please.

*LD note: I dislike RVIs.

Good luck! Have fun! Learn lots! Fight on!

Put me on the email chain: sandwiches95@gmail.com (yes I know).

Coach and former debater at Wichita State. I debated at Kapaun Mt. Carmel (2018) in high school.

They/Them

This will be my first year judging college. When I debated I was pretty much exclusively reading policy things. I think that my judging is probably a lot more middle of the road. I really don't care that much what kind of debate you wanna have I just hope it is interesting.

This is both a research and a communicative activity. I will reward well executed rhetoric and good research. I will probably read most cards over the course of the debate but will likely care about specific pieces of evidence only as much as I am instructed to by you all. Judge instruction above everything else.

Fine judge for silly impact turns. I am not asking for you to read bad arguments, but I am expecting you to be able to answer bad arguments.

Be bold and make decisions in the debate. Confidence is valuable. Straight turning things is highly underrated.

I am frustrated by the amount of debates I judge that consist of huge walls of cards and nearly no comparative analysis nor judge instruction. If the 2nr/ 2ar does not begin with an explanation of why you have won the debate, something has gone critically wrong. Good final rebuttals know what they are winning and what they are losing. Reading 10 cards on the link, then listing as many warrants as you can at max speed in the 2nr is not good link debating for me. Please have a "big picture" moment. If you think at the end of the debate I should go read every one of your cards, you probably did something wrong.

Disads

- Aff offense is usually really helpful on disads and can get you out of a jam. Trying to diminish the risk of a disad with a bunch of small arguments is usually less effective than a big defensive argument in the 2ar. Obviously the 2ac should have some diversity.

- Link/ internal link turns case is a big deal. My nuclear war also causes your nuclear war is not a big deal.

- Believing that there is always a risk of DAs/ advantages assumes that A) big mistakes are never made OR B) you can't just be "right" about something. I think both of those are possibilities. Just because you said the word "impact" does not mean there is a risk of an impact. Zero risk is still rare.

Counterplans

- Now I am just going to default to judge kick, but can certainly be convinced its bad if the 1ar says it. If you are a 2N you might want to remind me that it's an option by the 2nr, ideally the 2nc. I really don't want to be put in a position where kicking the counterplan wins the debate for the neg and the 2nr did not tell me I could.

- Conditionality bad is an argument and needs to be answered properly. Barring a big mistake from the neg, you probably need to spend a decent part of the 1ar flushing it out.

- I don't mind big counterplan competition debates on face, but typically 2Ns don't do a lot of debating and just throw as many definitions at the wall as possible. I just want some comparative analysis about why someone's evidence is better or creates better debates.

- "they have conceded sufficiency framing" grandstanding in the 2nr is about as useful as saying that they have conceded the neg gets fiat.

T

- I tend to care more than most about what cards in T debates actually say. I feel like 80% of the time that a T card is good, I have to read a lot of the unhighlighted parts for it to make sense. I tend to care more about evidence quality on T than most other pages. I am a sucker for precision.

Ks vs policy affs

- If the round is just going to be a framework debate that's fine but I do like it when when a case debate happens. If reading 4 minutes of impact defense on case gets you nothing, then don't do it?

- I think that a lot of "soft left" affs are very bad at answering policy arguments and they are banking on you not being willing to read them. It is really cool if you prove them wrong.

- Making you link arguments interact with/turn case can be a rounding winning strategy. This is when actually debating the case will get you far and will probably be more difficult for the aff to answer than another 2nr that is 3 minutes of framework.

- the only stylistic thing I will say is if the 2nc is just gonna be straight down reading text you are gonna have to slow down a bit and make sure I get words like the name of the link down, even if you are pretty clear.

K affs

Framework

- I probably default to thinking about these debates in terms of models, but that seems to be less of the trend from the neg these days. I think it can be interesting when the aff defines some words and goes for a we meet but it usually doesn't get you across the finish line unless the neg messes it up. I am okay with the 2ac going all in on impact turns. These debates typically get hard to decide for me when both sides have very different types of offense and don't instruct me on how to weigh them. Tell me how to judge the debate and you will probably win.

K v K

- Offense is always important but it is at a premium when the disagreements between the aff and the neg get even more narrow. Just give me lots of judge instruction in these debates because I will have less generic dispositions about how to weigh certain arguments. The aff probably should get a perm but who knows what exactly it means to compete.

MISC

- I will not consider inserted re-highlighting of the other team's evidence. Text must actually be READ if you want it to matter. If you read a line of a card in CX and then send it out in the next speech doc, that seems reasonable. If a 1nc on case is just inserting rehighlighting I will be very unhappy.

- Quick note about speaks. I try to give points that will reflect the outcomes you deserve and I adjust based on the tournament I am judging. I try to consider if the quality of the speeches you gave was what I would expect of a team that was in elimination rounds or an individual that I thought was worthy of a speaker award and adjust to what I think would be required for that outcome. Speaker points are somewhat subjective but I try to give points that are somewhat reflective of how everyone else does them. You can ask for a 30 but I won't give it to you.

I debated for three years in high school, including at state and districts. I am fine with almost any argument (stock issues, advantage/disadvantage, counterplans, Ks), but you must explain why I should vote on a specific issue. If I do not have a specific reason to vote, then I will be forced to default to policymaker, where I vote for whichever policy (plan, CP, Squo, K) has the best DAs/advantages. I judged a fair amount (4 or 5 tournaments) during the arms sales topic, but do not have much experience with the 2020-2021 topic, so do not expect me to know the relevant case info by default.

Other stuff:

Errs: If the counterplan and the plan solve the case identically and neither have a net benefit, I will prefer the plan over the counterplan unless given some reason to do otherwise.

Err: If the plan and the status quo solve equally (i.e., the aff loses completely on solvency/harms/advantages), I will vote for the status quo.

I am fine with generic links, unless the aff can explain why the link is flawed.

I will generally not buy 'rule of the game' arguments.

I will generally weigh topicality and theory arguments over case, but if the neg runs T in the 2NR, it is highly recommended that they go all in.

I don't care one way or the other on condo.

Ks are fine, but I am more experienced with the generic Ks like cap compared to case-specific Ks.

Spreading is fine.

I will not consider new in the 2 to be problematic by default, but I will consider it to be a voting issue if the aff makes it an important issue.

If you have any specific questions, just ask before the round.

Hi! My name is Prakriti, she/her. Head coach at Wichita East High school.

Add me to the chain: prakriti.ravianikode@gmail.com. I'm also fine with SpeechDrop.

Policy:

General--

I will not evaluate anything that happens outside the round.

I follow along the doc - if I see you clipping its an automatic L.

Speed is fine, please add analytics to the doc if you're going fast. If I can't understand you, I will clear you! If I still cannot understand you, I will start dropping the speaks.

If you have any other questions about specific arguments please ask before the round.

I don't like case overviews. Just debate down your flow.

I flow cross-ex! I also stop paying attention to cross-ex and speeches once the timer goes off.

I'll vote for anything. Tech over truth. You should be well-versed in your arguments. Nothing annoys me more when debaters stand up for speeches after the 2ac and just read cards/analytics straight down without interacting with your opponents' arguments. Please use judge instruction and tell me exactly how I should evaluate the round.

Kritik--

More familiar with policy args, as far as K's, I'm familiar with Cap and Fem. Other than that you should over-explain. I am not the best with theory so I will need clear judge instruction and voters for K theory args. Also if you are just using jargon without explaining it, I won't understand what you mean and I cannot vote for it. I want to know what the world of the alt looks like and why I should prefer it to the aff.

Topicality--

I default to competing interps. Explain what your model/interp means for the topic. That will convince me more than generic blocks. Pls slow down on the T flow.

DA--

Impact calc is important!! I evaluate the link level of the DA first and weigh it with the impacts of the aff. I am not very familiar with economic literature. If the 2NR is the Econ DA, please give me a story on what exactly the economy will look like in the world of the aff/DA.

Debated 4 years Wichita East in Wichita, KS graduated 2019

Debating at UT Austin

justin8real@gmail.com

General:

Clipping is cheating- if it's egregious you'll lose with the lowest possible speaks.

I'm down for whatever you want to do (within reason- don’t say/do offensive things), but be ready to defend your actions, justify them, and be able to explain your arguments.

Repeating a tagline isn't an extension.

Calculated and strategic risks WILL pay off with speaks (e.g. kicking the aff properly, impact turns, clever PIC/PIKs). Poorly calculated strategic choices will not.

*Local circuit people*

I'm 99.9% not going to vote on something being a stock issue. This is not to say I won't vote for inherency but that there needs to be a reason keeping affs inherent creates a good model of debate and provides for the best education or fairness in the round, not purely that it's a stock issue.

Also, please don't call me judge. It's just weird.

Case:

I've met very few judges whose feelings are not "case debate is undervalued and underutilized" yet very rarely is this advice heeded. Too often, aff internal link evidence is absolutely horrible yet they're able to get away with essentially anything in rounds. Don't let this happen if you're neg.

K aff's:

Too often I judge rounds where teams have really well written 1AC's with offense built in meant to answer FW or specific K's and then the 2AC stands up and uses absolutely none of what the 1AC set up. Please don't be this team. It doesn't usually factor into the decision but it's frustrating, shows you probably don't know your aff as well as you should, and definitely hurts speaks.

Topicality:

Top level:

CI>Reasonability nearly always (more below). Make sure you explain your internal links- too often it seems like a 2NR will skip from "they hurt limits" to "education is important". In a vacuum, an unlimited topic doesn't affect education- explain how you get there.

Secondary:

1. Reasonability is about whether there is a reasonable debate to be had under the affirmative's model, not about whether the affirmative is reasonably topical (whatever that means). This means the standards debate is still in question when evaluating the round, just with discretion.

2. My threshold for explanation on T debates are pretty high, and you need to win not only the link chain to education or fairness but that education means something more than just "that destroys education". In order for education or fairness to be impacts you need to explain the implications of not preserving them- this is why so many people don't think fairness is an impact because "that destroys fairness- makes it impossible to be aff" isn't a reason to vote negative because there's no implication to hard aff debates.

3. Most T debates revolve around a central framing question (precision, predictability, etc.)- if you're not identifying what you want me to filter the debate through, I will filter it through what I think it should be through, which is probably not what you want. Framing is just as, if not MORE important on T than every other flow.

FW/T vs K affs:

Affs that just act like they're negative when they're aff will probably find it hard to generate offense on FW that isn't solved by switch side. You need to explain switch side though and give actual warrants about why it solves any aff offense.

I feel like reasonability is decent for topic based K affs and find the 'we are a discussion of the topic therefor we are topical' type argument pretty persuasive. This is not to say having a topic link means you win my ballot but rather that when the entire aff is topic based it makes it much easier. This should be a question of advocacy as well- reading the alt from a backfile shell or having a generic advocacy won't really access this, but when the mechanism of the aff is in the direction of the topic you will have a much easier time. That being said, a well thought out TVA could probably solve a majority of the offense you have on FW, so you should probably be making arguments about why form outweighs content and determines the direction of your offense.

If you are not in the direction of the topic, I'm not sure what you're doing if you're trying to do anything other than impact turn on FW. While I admit I am generally a little more neg leaning on questions like predictability good/bad, this is a much more persuasive place to be than "we're predictable enough".

P/ your interp plus our aff makes no sense- it's a debate of models and that model would be a world where every single aff could be about literally anything and say "your interp plus our aff" and win

K's

K debates I judge too often come down to a NL or shoddy link turn and perm which often ends up with me voting neg. Use the aff- it's your main source of offense. There's probably a very low risk of me buying that you have no ability to weigh the aff but it's up to you to frame the debate and help me decide how much to weigh it. No matter what, you should be doing the same level of work to explain your theories whether you think I know it or not. PoMo is fine but don't just copy Michigan KM because you wanna be edgy.

Every K has top level theory that every team needs to answer and should have at least a cursory understanding of. If you don't, it will just generally be hard for you to win the debate.

*kicking the alt*

I would advise against it, but if you must, you better either:

- Be very far ahead on FW to where there is little doubt in my mind that you are winning whatever ethics claims you're going for

- Generate uniqueness for an actual disad- something actually has to meaningfully change with the links/impacts. Linear disads will be an uphill battle

- Have a PIK that was conceded (in the event the 2AC or 1AR makes a PIKs bad arg then it's probably sufficient to answer)

DA's

I really enjoy disad debates and think both teams have a lot of leeway to do what they want here.

Aff: I personally love impact turns on disads in the 2AC and impact turning addons in the 1AR is amazing. Straight turning can be super strategic and will be rewarded if it's the right decision- don't be scared to do it. I find myself pretty doubtful of the possibility that there's 0-risk of a DA except for really bad ptx disads but I guess if you're just going for aff OW it can work.

Neg: I think you need a scenario in the 1NC for your DA- it shouldn't stop at an internal link and affirmatives should punish teams who do this. For instance, the Base DA- Street 16 doesn't provide an impact, it just says trump lashes out somewhere, anywhere, who knows? The problem is, the 2AC isn't going to read impact defense to lashout and war with NoKo, Russia, China, Iran, etc. individually, and the lashout itself is the internal link. You need to have a scenario.

*DA v Case*:

You need to very clearly articulate why the DA outweighs and turns the impacts, and have very clear analysis on the case debate. Your framing of the round needs to be great and you also need to have specificity on every level of the DA. It's not impossible, just a lot easier with a CP.

CP:

If you want me to judge kick the CP, you need to tell me. And if you don't want me to judge kick the CP for them, you need to tell me why doing so is bad. Neg teams should be answering reasons why it's bad when they tell me they want me to do it the first time.

I love cheating CP's ngl. The more you can get away with, the better. That being said, the nature of this love also makes me realize they are in fact cheating CP's which means I am inclined to listen to a well constructed theory argument.

So, theory:

1. Keywords here are well constructed theory args. Reading a generic PICs bad shell won't work against most teams who are reading cheating CP's and answering theory often.

2. Most theory args are reasons to reject the arg not the team

3. Condo is probably good but I can definitely be persuaded otherwise. Again, it's a debate of models.

4. In my opinion, if a CP is deemed theoretically illegitimate it is separate from judge kick. Judge kick is done if the CP doesn't meet their burden of proof of a change to the squo when presumption flips (i.e. if it links to net benefit, doesn't solve anything). Judge kick is NOT when it is theoretically illegitimate. If the neg wins that I reject the CP on condo, it's saying that CP never should have been run in the first place, which still means evaluate da v case. If theory is part of the judge kick equation, there is not point for the distinction between reject the arg/reject the team.

put me on the email chain: madeline.rowley@gmail.com

they/them

debated at kapaun mt carmel and wichita east in high school

tldr: do what you want. i was a policy debater in high school but have a general understanding of most k's. i was a 2a and 2n so i don't really feel a big bias.

Basic practice preferences

If you want an email chain - msawyer@tps501.org

I will be flowing the round and that will be the largest decider in our round. Defend/debate all portions of an arguments and that will reflect well for you on the flow. I want to see ya'll interact with the arguments read - if you choose to discount an argument without just refutation, it'll be a yikes for all involved.

I will never vote on arguments which are discriminatory and encourage violence (racism good, ableism good, anti-queer literature, etc.) If you create spaces which encourage violence or are the source of abuse in the round in any way, you will lose this debate. I view my privilege in this round is to protect education and the safety of all debaters - in no way will I sit by and watch another team/debater be attacked for any identity they may possess. Debate space should be a space to act without fear of oppression - I will make sure that is reflected in my judgments and comments. I would rather see ethical debaters than those who read awful arguments in hopes of gaining a winning edge. Be a better person than you are a debater at all times.

I am fine with any speed you choose, but I will hold you accountable for creating a safe and accessible space for the debate to occur. If the practice is used as a way to push a debater/team out of the round, that's a problem. I will not directly intervene in this case, but if the team/debater chooses to critique your process or read in-round abuse theory, I will prefer it.

Argument breakdown

Framework: I will flow what you want from me to either change my evaluation of the round or use it as a critique of debater methods. This can be important at the end of the round if you make it to be. I will evaluate the round as your framework dictates if you give me the solid reasoning as why it should be preferred over default consequentialism. I want to see your ability to interact with the framework throughout the round, not just a one-time read at the end of an aff or at the start of a neg argument. If you are willing to read it, work with it during our time.

Author debates are tedious and boring. Do the work. Do the analysis. Disprove the argument written and presented rather than count on me to judge whether a piece of evidence should be included. Again, I want to see you engage with the evidence as read rather than dismiss it.

Topicality: I love it. A good T debate is my favorite debate to judge and was my favorite argument to run. By default, the aff needs to win the interpretation and work through the standards/voters. Don't discount the argument and make sure to prove T through thorough argumentation.

Counterplans: Always a fun time! As the neg, I feel this gives you automatic offense which can lead you away from the "the aff is still better than the SQ" debates. The thing that will irritate me quickest is the aff simply saying the perm to be argued rather than adding a simple line or two to analyze how that perm performs its abilities within the round and in the world of the aff. Do the work! In my opinion and practice, condo bad can help guard importance analysis space. Go for it! Other theory arguments are chill with me if you provide adequate analysis for how it negatively/positively shapes the round.

Criticisms/Performances: As a debater, I ran a few K arguments and have coached students through lit bases. There is a high chance I will be familiar with the base you are pulling from, but if I am not, I am sure I can understand the argument through the flashed evidence! Any K read should be an advocacy. This means that I want to see these arguments function as something you/the team truly believes and truly are a part of the community the literature bases itself within. Running literature from a community of which you are not a member runs the line of commodification which is bad for many reasons! I am willing to hear any K and will rely on the you to prove link and solvency clearly.

BOTTOM LINE

Debate is about education and learning how to interact with arguments on great topics. I want to see your work, your passions, and your way of debating. Make this activity fit you and your teammate, not the other way around! With as much as I value education, I want you to value and safeguard that education for all involved. This is why I will never vote up a team which places that in jeopardy for the round. As I tell my team: be better people than you are debaters. Never sacrifice parts of yourself for arguments that may seem competitive. Be a part of the reason this community is becoming safer for its members, not a reason people dread the activity.

Recent update: Theoretically, everything below is still true, but note that I've not touched debate in a few years so

1. I probably don't remember buzzwords and definitely don't know any new-fangled args, I reserve the right to vote you down bc you don't tell me what your words mean.
2. My ear is rusty, don't run me out of the room.

Other than that, have fun, win more offense than the other team.

-------------------------

Debated at Wichita East 2015-2019

Email: noahyust at gmail dot com

Affs

K/Planless: This is fine. Have a clear advocacy. Your answers to tusfg should be contextualized to your advocacy not just generic state engagement bad. I've read some PoMo nonsense on aff/neg and setcol on the neg... but you should presume I don't understand your K.

Soft left: I have never heard a "framing contention" compelling enough to make DAs go away. To do that you need to point out specific epistemological flaws in the DA; if you can do that, you probably don't need the "framing contention." I see these contentions as filler to make the 1AC as small as possible; which is is annoying, at least please make the 2AC fun. Also- I've yet to see a card tagged "x comes first" that seriously and literally means that x is worse than extinction. For me, Just sit on the fact that ur impact is the most probable.

Big Stick: sure yes.

Case

Impact turns: yes, more more more

Tusfg/Framework

I think debate is a game, but it can be more than a game. A good TVA makes a neg ballot very easy. Fairness is important to access education, but probably hard to win as an external impact. I dislike debaters making broad claims about their opponent's model of debate when they clearly have no idea what it's like to always read a plan/never read a plan (That's my way of saying be respectful).

T

I need you to paint very good pictures of your and your opponent's interpretations of the topic. Caselists are good but insufficient to accomplish this alone. Good TVAs are always good. I rarely went for T, probably not the t judge you want. I'm not sympathetic to warrantless buzzword spam.

Theory

Condo is probably good. Reject the argument>reject the team. Except in the case of condo. Excessive theory can be strategic but is always annoying.

K

Presume I don't know your lit. Link work is key, I think it determines the strength of your answers to perms and fw args. I dislike FrankenKs. Please, for the love of god, don't make me get out a new sheet for the overview.

DA

Yes, please do.

I think it is possible for a bad DA to be reduced to 0% probability via analytics and recutting ev. I.e. breaking a new Albanian ptx DA does not guarantee you a viable 2NR.

CP

I can be easily persuaded that delay, consult, offsets, and CPs that just rename the aff (see parole from the immigration topic) are theoretically illegitimate.

Affs should impact out each solvency deficit.

I default to judge kick unless instructed otherwise.

Speaks

28.5 is the middle

Things that help: Good jokes, good cadence, clarity, smart strategic decisions, evidence-based CX, having fun

Things that hurt: reading 7 one-line CPs, spreading through theory blocks, being unkind

Misc.

Disclosure is good!

I think like a 2A

don't round/steal prep time

Be nice. I reserve the right to vote you down for [bad things]