Put me on the email chain: bastianethan3@gmail.com

Criminal Justice 2020-2021: Limited lab assistance. I helped write the Abolition K aff, so that's what I'm most familiar with. Assume I don't know acronyms for the time being. I'll vote for who wins, but it should be noted that I don't find "cops good" to be inherently persuasive.

Experience: At the time of writing, I have competed in four years of policy debate, and now compete as a Junior with KU. I have run ridiculous politics arguments that win rounds, but I have also run a performative Irigaray aff, followed by a performative Trans People of Color Rage aff, so I am down for all kinds of arguments. I will admit that currently I am debating more on the policy side (check my aff for this year).

General: I default to an offense/defense paradigm. I am sympathetic to tech over truth in the context of dropped arguments, but I think that the claim that an arg is "dropped" is overused. I'll protect the 2N. 2AR lies can be justified, but it's a steep battle. I rely heavily on the flow as a judge, so please tell me where you are and what arguments you are answering. Please tell me what I should vote on and why, because I too hate judge intervention. I am very expressive with my face so you will likely know what I am liking or not liking. Flashing/email is not prep, unless it is excessive. Keep chatter between speeches to a minimum, we're on the clock. Don't be over-powering or dick-ish in CX. Let your partner talk.

Speed: Go for it, just please be clear on tags and slow down on analytics - especially theory. I can flow pretty well, but nothing feels worse than knowing I need to give a competent RFD on T when I can't be sure I got all of your arguments.

T: I view T debates as two competing models for debate. Reasonability isn't really persuasive to me unless it is dropped/undercovered. Fairness is an impact unless you win otherwise. Impact work please, why do I vote for limits? Why is precision an impact?

FW/T against aff: Fairness is an impact until proven otherwise. Be aware of the terminal level when doing impact calc, IE how does collapse of the activity/fairness compare to the impacts of their aff. Debate is at its core a competitive activity, but I think that it also offers unique educational opportunities. If you go for only one of those aspects as an impact, explain it's interaction with the other aspects of the debate. In these debates I generally let the aff weigh their case as offense unless otherwise persuaded and will also default to competing interpretations as mechanisms for both teams to resolve their offense. Please have a TVA, though in some cases it may not be needed.

FW(aff) against K's(neg): If your framework is "K's bad for debate", I will not grant you much ground. "Let us weigh the aff" is usually a better route in my opinion. "Only links to the plan" is acceptable, but you have to debate still. Defend your method, IE policy debate education good, predictions good, role-playing good, Etc. My personal idea of what framework ought to look like is that the aff needs to defend its reps, but the aff can also weigh the impacts of the case against the impact of each link. More leaning over time to assumptions-based links being bad.

Theory: My threshold is pretty high on theory, higher than T. I err neg on conditionality, dispositionality, and perfcon arguments. I think perfcon is best deployed as link non-uniqueness for reps or rhetoric args. I can be persuaded by condo if the aff can prove the pertinence of the abuse (IE Two Cps and a K with T and one or more DAs is definitely enough for me to begin considering in round abuse), but rarely as just another piece of offense because you could fit it in the frontline. Show me what strategic options you've lost as a 2A. ASPEC is generally pretty ridiculous, but in round abuse is persuasive. If you read from the troll a-z spec file or anything in the troll vein of theory I will likely not be voting for you. I dislike most PICs, but particularly condition CPs and Delay CPs. Fifty-State Fiat: as this has become a contended issue on this topic, I will say that while I generally err neg on theory I can be convinced fifty-state fiat is unrealistic or bad scholarship.

DA's: I love ptx DA's. Explain and defend the internal link scenario clearly. I am willing to vote for a DA without a counterplan with sufficient defense and turns case arguments.

CP's: The counterplan should solve some part of case. I likely won't judge kick unless you tell me to and/or it's dropped. I personally dislike CP's that use multiple planks to FIAT out of solvency deficits, and think there may be a theory debate to be had on that question. If you use a sufficiency framing explain what that means in terms of the aff and how that changes how I evaluate the debate. See above for where I stand on theory debates.

K's: Impact out each link. Explain in depth why links are DAs to the perm -making a blippy assertion has never seemed like enough to me. Explain your alt. I will default to it as a frame to evaluate the debate rather than a CP unless told otherwise. If you win offense against the alt, explain why it matters. I find this direct response to the theory combined with weighing case to be quite persuasive. Explain in depth and minimize jargon, I have a decent knowledge of most literature bases but much less so of jargon associated with a given theory. Side note: Death good is a pretty bad arg so at best you could get a low-point win with a very irritated rfd out of me afterwards when reading it.

K's on the aff: I personally think this is just part of debate and that "K's bad" generic framework is pretty outdated. Cross-apply the above. My specific comments would be that I prefer you to affirm the resolution and prove relevancy to the topic. Explain what your aff does and how it relates to your harms, and on what level I should evaluate it (IE in round, exportable method, hypothetical imaginary, etc.) Explain to me what you think debate should look like v FW, as I will weigh two interpretations at the end of the round. I am willing to weigh your aff in that decision. You get a perm unless you get whooped on theory. I like method debates.

Tim Ellis
Head Coach - Washburn Rural High School, Topeka, KS
Updated July 23
Email chain - ellistim@usd437.net, fiscalrizztribution@googlegroups.com

Introduction: Hello, debaters and fellow educators. I am Tim Ellis, and I am honored to be here as a judge at this high school policy debate tournament. My background includes [briefly mention your educational and professional background relevant to the debate topic or communication skills]. My role as a judge is to evaluate your arguments, critical thinking, and communication abilities, while maintaining a fair and unbiased approach to the debate.

Debate Philosophy: I believe in fostering an environment where students can express their ideas passionately, engage in respectful discourse, and develop their critical thinking skills. I encourage debaters to focus on clear and logical arguments, evidence-based analysis, and effective communication. Substance will always take precedence over style, but effective delivery can enhance your message.

Argumentation: I value well-structured arguments that are supported by credible evidence. When presenting your case, it's important to clearly define your position, provide relevant evidence, and logically connect your arguments. The use of real-world examples and expert opinions can significantly bolster your points. Remember, the quality of your evidence matters more than the quantity.

Clash and Refutation: Debates thrive on clash – the direct engagement with your opponents' arguments. I expect debaters to engage with opposing viewpoints by directly addressing their arguments, demonstrating the weaknesses in their logic, and offering counterarguments supported by evidence. Effective refutation requires a deep understanding of your opponents' case, so take the time to dissect their position and refute it cogently.

Communication: Clear communication is key to conveying your ideas persuasively. Speak confidently, enunciate your words, and maintain a steady pace. Avoid jargon or excessive use of technical terms that might alienate those unfamiliar with the topic. Remember, effective communication isn't just about what you say, but how you say it – engaging with your audience is crucial.

Etiquette and Sportsmanship: Respect for your opponents, your partner, and the judge is non-negotiable. Keep your focus on the arguments and ideas, rather than personal attacks. Maintain a professional demeanor throughout the debate, and remember that good sportsmanship is an integral part of the debate community.

Time Management: Time management is essential. Respect the allocated time limits for your speeches, cross-examinations, and rebuttals. Effective time allocation allows for a balanced and comprehensive discussion of the issues at hand.

Final Thoughts: Debating is a valuable skill that extends beyond the walls of this tournament. Regardless of the outcome, embrace the learning experience. Constructive feedback is intended to help you grow as debaters and thinkers. I am here to provide a fair assessment of your performance, and my decisions will be based on the quality of your arguments, your ability to engage in meaningful clash, and your overall communication skills.

I am looking forward to witnessing your insightful arguments and thoughtful engagement. Let's engage in a spirited and enlightening debate that enriches all of us. Best of luck to each team, and may the discourse be both rigorous and rewarding.

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

T-USFG

Impact weighing and comparisons are very important to how I decide these debates. If I think that both teams have some point of offense they are both winning, it makes it difficult to decide these debates if there isn’t any discussion of the other teams impact. If you solve their impacts, your impact turns them, or anything else related to that then please point that out. However, less is more when it comes to the number of impacts you are extending throughout the debate. One really well developed impact or impact turn is much better than three or four less well developed ones.

I also think it’s important for affirmative teams to have a clear tie or relationship with the topic. I find it harder to be persuaded to vote for affirmatives that I don’t think have a lot to do with the topic in some way. How you do this is up to you, but just make it clear to me.

In the past, I have voted on various impacts from and on framework. Personally I have been more of a fan of clash impacts than fairness, but I don’t think that should discourage you from going for whatever impact you feel most comfortable with.

Topicality

More explanation needed if you go for reasonability. Most of the debates I have judged where the aff goes for reasonability are very surface level extensions from the one sentence you said in the 2AC.

DA’s

Not much to say here. Read them and go for them when you can/want to. Where I start evaluating the debate for disad vs. case debates is very dependent on the disad and what arguments you are making a bigger deal about. If there is a lot of push back from the aff on the link and this is where you spend most of your time in the 2nr/2ar, I will probably start by evaluating the debate there. If impacts/their comparisons seem to be where a lot of time is spent, then I will start thinking about that first.

K’s

Debating case is very important. Having arguments that you think not only implicate the aff but also help your links are nice. Sometimes I feel like whenever a team goes for case arguments it feels detached from the rest of the debate on the K. IF you can make them connected somehow that would be good.

Have a reason for going for whatever framework arguments you are going for in the last speeches. This goes for the aff and the neg. So many times I have felt like people are just extending framework because their coaches told them to and not because they think there is reason why it is important for how the judge evaluates arguments at the end of the debate.

If you have a bunch of what seems to be conflicting theories in the cards you are going for and extending on the neg, please make it clear why what you are doing is okay. Alternatively, affirmative teams should be pointing out when they think the things the negative has said don’t make much sense.

CP’s

Again, read them and go for them when you can/want to. I don’t think I have very many predispositions about certain counterplans at this point in time. I think this just means that if you think a certain counterplan automatically beats an affirmative, I would prefer it if you showed it in the arguments you are making and the evidence you are reading. A counterplan that seems to be very solvent when explained, but lacking in evidence or that just generally has under highlighted cards will be harder to win in front of me.

A really good solvency deficit that aligns with whatever advantage you are going for in the 2ar is more important to me than you going for a bunch of different arguments that are less well developed.

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.

Margo Johnson

Debated for four years at Blue Valley Southwest

Senior at the University of Kansas but am not debating. I judged a ton when I was a freshman and sophomore, but it's been a sec since I've judged and I know literally nothing about the 2019-2020 topic.

Speaker positions in high school: 2A/1N

Top level

1. Tech > truth

2. A dropped argument is a true argument only if it’s extended with a warrant.

3. Impact calc plays a large part of my decision.

4. Read a plan text and defend it.

5. Disclosure is good.

Topicality

Affs with a plan – I evaluate topicality under competing interpretations, but I can be persuaded by reasonability. I find limits the most persuasive standard. I think fairness is a real impact. The neg should have a case list and topical version of the aff, if possible. Most times I'd rather vote on a disad than topicality, and I don't think I'm the best judge for a super techy T debate, but if you're winning the flow and if the aff just isn't T I'm happy to vote on the argument.

Affs without a plan – I think affirmatives should defend a plan text with the United States federal government as the actor. I think the state is generally good. I think the state is redeemable. I don’t think reading structural violence impacts and defending the state are mutually exclusive. If your aff is contrary to anything aforementioned, I’m not the best judge for you. I’m easily persuaded by framework/T, especially topical version of the aff. That being said, I still will vote for an aff without a plan. If the neg does not win the framework/T flow on a tech level, I'll vote for the aff. However, in a debate where both teams are being competent, I'm more neg leaning on the argument. Easiest neg ballot is a combination of winning the state is good + topical version of the aff + no aff solvency + your interp. The roll of the ballot is to vote for the team who won the debate.

Counterplans

I like counterplans a lot, especially if they’re textually and functionally competitive and have a solvency advocate. Judge kick is fine. Solvency is not a net benefit to a CP. You need actual offense. In a CP+DA debate, I find myself almost always looking at the disad first and then I evaluate the CP. So if you've probably won the CP but you haven't won the disad, I will have a harder time voting for the CP.

Cool counterplans – advantage counterplans, executive CPs, states CPs

Bad counterplans – process CPs, consult CPs, delay CPs, word PICs

Questionable counterplans – PICs, international CPs

Theory

Theory is generally a reason to reject the argument, not the team. I guess the only exception to this is condo. I have a very high threshold for voting on condo if answered and think 3-4 conditional advocacies is fine. Sure, I'll evaluate no neg fiat. Cheap shots are cool.

Kritiks

I don't particularly prefer kritiks, but if you win the flow, I'll vote for them. I am not well versed in critical literature. I’m fine with neolib, security, imperialism/colonialism, and biopower debates, but past that you run the chance of losing me, and it'll be difficult for me to vote for any kritik but those listed above. I really don’t want to listen to an identity debate. And I really really don’t want to listen to any high theory debates like Deleuze or Baudrillard or psychoanalysis or anything like that like please no strike me now.

Aff – Weigh your aff! I’m usually persuaded that the aff outweighs and turns the kritik. As I mentioned, impact calc is really important. Make sure to answer K tricks because that is a place I will vote and voting on fiat is illusory will make me v sad. Also explain how your perm functions. If you’re going for perm do both, you need to explain how the plan and the alternative functions in the world of the affirmative. If I don’t know what your perm does, I can’t vote for it.

Neg – You need to have a clear link to the aff. Links to the topic and links of omission aren’t links. Links should be generated off the mandate of the plan or the plan’s advantages. I need to know what your alternative does. If you’re into using lots of fancy long words in your alt text but aren’t into explaining what that actually means, I will be more persuaded by no alt solvency. I hate do nothing alts. I think the best alts access institutions. Don't concede case in the 2NR. I most likely won't vote for you if you do that. Although I didn’t read kritiks on the neg often, I read soft left affs my senior year and wouldn’t consider myself a util hack.

K v K debate – No

Disads

DA+case and CP+DA debates are my favorites. I love politics. Turns case arguments are really important. Link shapes uniqueness. The aff should take advantage of the DA if the neg improperly kicks out of it.

Update: This is still accurate. I am actively coaching / cutting cards on the HS topic.

Put me on the email chain: david.kingston@gmail.com --- Makes life easier.

Hi, I'm Dave.

I debated 4 years in High School in Albuquerque, NM. I graduated in 1989.
I also debated for 4 years in College at Arizona State and transferred to UMKC. I won CEDA Nationals and graduated in 1994.
After that, I was a grad assistant at the University of North Texas and coached debate for 2 years.
and then got married and took my wife's last name changing mine from Genco to Kingston.
and then was a grad assistant at KU for a couple of years.
and then was the Assistant Director at UMKC until 2000.
From 1994 until 2000 I taught at a bunch of camps.
I've helped out several college teams here and there in the last 5-6 years.
I am currently cutting cards and coaching Blue Valley Northwest on the high school topic.

If you have any questions ask.

TL/DR: I really don't have a preference for what you do in a debate round. I've judged a ton of them over the years. I suggest you do something that you do well.

K: Everyone wants to know if I'm ok with "the K" or "the criticism" or a "performance". Sure. That sounds good to me. I understand those types of arguments. I've become more up to date with some high theory and race/structural Ks. You do you. I don't hold them against you.

CP: You don't have to answer the aff if the Counterplan solves all of the aff and you should point out what disads/turns are net benefits to the counterplans. I do not default to judge kick. I default to you're stuck with what you go for unless you make some argument about it. If you make an argument about the counterplan being condo, then you have to kick it unless you make judge kick args.

DA: They're good. Uniqueness, link or impact defense, and foundational warrant comparison are all good ways to help resolve things. Please don't read generic impact stuff that doesn't take the context of the round into account. It helps my decision and comments if you differentiate your warrants or find ways to compare your link to the turn or vise versa. Do I believe in zero risk? Kinda. Dropped args are probably zero risk. But I default to the arguments made about risk. Generally though, I default to some risk on a contested debate unless the resolution of the arguments is made very clear (Uniqueness goes the wrong direction, dropped args with some analysis, deeper warrants etc.)

T: If you have a good interp you can defend and can do standard debating well, I'm willing to hear the debate.

K Affs: I have been more in touch with this style of debate in recent years. I'm pretty neutral in FW debates. If you're aff vs FW, isolate a couple pieces of offense and you should be all right.

Theory: I don't care about how many or what kind of condo if you can defend it.

Round Comments:

I try to stay neutral in my judging and vote on things said in the round, not things that I make up about things you say. I'll make things up if that's the only way to resolve stuff, but I never feel good about it. Don't make me feel bad, plz.

I don't care how fast you go as long as you don't have mush mouth and I can understand it.

I try not to be a jerk about prep time, please don't be a jerk about it either. That being said, we do have to have a debate and it does have to finish on time, so don't steal prep.

Also, don't clip cards. I read along in the speech doc.

Don't flash docs that contain a ton of cards you're never going to read, and don't mess with the speech docs (remove navigation, purposefully try to avoid sharing, or do other random crap that is borderline cheating). The other team gets to see everything you read, and vice versa.

None of that doesn't mean that you can expect me to ignore arguments that aren't in a speech doc. If it was said, it's an argument. You should FLOW.

I don't like posturing between speeches and during CX in debates. If you have comments to make about the way the other team is debating or the arguments they choose, then you should make them as an argument in a speech.

Speaker Points: I'm trying to achieve more clarity about how I assign speaker points. This should give you a good idea about what I'm thinking when I assign them. This is a bit of an upward departure from points I have given in the past. Basically, I'm looking at points as a consideration of whether or not I think the debating you did was of elim rounds quality or that your performance was worthy of putting you on track to win a speaker award. I have my standards, but my points will probably end up being .2 or so higher than I have given in the past.

Bonus speaker points if you find a way to win that doesn't assume you win all of your arguments.

Have fun and Good Luck!

Kyra Larson
kyra.larson13@gmail.com

*For Congressional Debate at Nationals 2021*:

I did Congressional Debate all 4 years of high school and was a two-time National Qualifier in Senate. I was a National Semi-finalist in the Senate in 2017. I primarily did Senate, but sometimes House.

A congressional speech should have structure, evidence, and most importantly be a debate. Other speakers and their arguments should be contextualized in your speeches, specifically later in the debate. I dislike repetitive debates and recommend that if you are repeating a point that you justify it and do it well.

Policy Debate:

Last Updated: June 2021
Debated at Olathe Northwest for 4 years (2014-2017) Attending University of Kansas for my PhD
Assistant Coached at Lawrence High School for 2 years (2017 Fall-2019 Spring)

The Basics
1. First and most importantly tech over truth (almost in every case, exclusions at the bottom)
2. I'd rather you explain the warrants of your evidence, than reading 3 more cards that say the exact same argument
3. I can comfortably keep up with fast debates, they are what I preferred in high school, but go at what pace is best for you. Don't spread if you can't do so clearly
4. Affirmatives with excessive advantages/impact scenarios and/or extensive negative strategies are acceptable, but preferably the debate will condense at some point
5. I will default to weighing the K against the aff if no other framework arguments are made

T:
Any strategic 1NC will run a T arg, that being said while I often extended it into the block it was a rare 2NR for me. It's very possible to win this debate, but it is very technical and the violation needs to be justified. There is an argument to be made for both competing interpretations and reasonability. You're losing in the 2AC if you fail to have both a we meet and a counter-interpretation. I've found that education and fairness are both highly valuable, and based on the debating have voted in favor of both. Standards-wise limits and ground are your best bet if you're doing something else, why? Do not run an RVI in front of me I'll be annoyed and simply question why such a stupid thing is occurring

DAs:
Specifics DAs will always be preferred to generics, but I understand the need to run them and will likely vote for them often. Bringing a DA into the block should include an overview, as much turns case arguments you can manage, and a lot of impact work. The Politics DA was my favorite and most frequent 2NR in high school. Just bc I loved them and they bring me joy doesn't mean I know your hack scenario, so please explain. All DA debates should include discussion of uniqueness, link, and impact

CPs:
Every CP you could think of is acceptable to run in front of me. CPs in the block should include overview of what the CP does to solve the aff. The affirmative team-the more creative the perm the more rewarded you will be, but it MUST be supplemented with explanation that isn't prewritten blocks from camp that you spread at me. Doesn't solve arguments are definitely your best bet. Negative-I won't kick out of the CP for you sorry not sorry do the work.

Ks:
It is critical that there is link and alt articulation. If the negative team is failing to engage the aff's arguments that is the easiest way for a K team to drop my ballot. When it comes to the K line-by-line is essential. I'm comfortable with Kritiks it was, after the Politics DA, my most common 2NR in high school and the argument I often took in the block. I'm well-versed in Fem, Legalism, Neolib, Heidegger, and Colonialism. If not listed, I'm not versed in literature of other Ks so it is is YOUR job to do a sufficient explanation. Simply running Ks in high school does not make me a K judge-you still have to do the work. I hate lazy K debates.

Pace:
I'm comfortable keeping up with fast debates. Take it back a notch on tags, T, and theory please. I'll say clear once and then if you continue to be unclear your speaks will suffer.

Theory:
More often than not Condo is good, but the aff can also win this debate. Other than that I don't hold many other default theoretical positions and tech over truth means these debates usually come down to technical skill.

K Affs:
If the right judge was present, I would read these in high school. They're educational up to the point you can relate it to the resolution. Framework is the best argument against them

Random:
1. Open cross is acceptable, but nobody is going to like it if you're all yelling over each other at once
2. I want the docs however they're being exchanged
3. Jokes and some non-targeted sassiness is humorous, but only in regards to arguments. If it's at a debater you're going to be very sad when you see your speaks
4. Death good was an argument I ran in high school. I'm adamantly opposed to it now. If you run this argument in front of me you will lose the debate no question
5. Have questions? Email me or just ask in the room (:

Email chain: lily.coaches.debate@gmail.com

About:

• Currently based in Taiwan and coaching debate for the ADL. That means I am staying up all night when I judge at US tournaments. Please pref accordingly
• Debated in college at the University of Kansas, 2017-2022 (Healthcare, Executive Authority, Space, Alliances, Antitrust). I majored in math and minored in Russian if that matters.
• Debated in high school at Shawnee Mission Northwest, 2013-2017 (Latin America, Oceans, Surveillance, China).

Top:

• If I can tell that you are not even trying to flow (eg you never take out a piece of paper the entire debate, you stand up to give your 2NC with just your laptop and no paper) your speaks are capped at 27.
• Please don't call me "judge." It's tacky. My name is Lily. Note that this does not apply to saying "the role of the judge."
• In the words of Allie Chase, "Cross-x isn't 'closed,' nobody ever 'closed' it... BUT each debater should be a primary participant in 2 cross-xes if your goal is to avoid speaker point penalties."
• I would prefer to not judge death/suffering/extinction good arguments or arguments about something that happened outside the debate.
• I might give you a 30 if I think you're the best debater at the tournament.
• High schoolers are too young to swear in debates.
• Don't just say words for no reason - not in cross-x and certainly not in speeches.
• If you are asking questions like "was x card read?" a timer should be running. Flowing is part of getting good speaker points.
• The word "nuclear" is not pronounced "nuke-yoo-ler." If you say this it makes you sound like George Bush.
• Shady disclosure practices are a scourge on the activity.

Framework:

• I judge a lot of clash debates. I'm more likely to vote aff on impact turns than most policy judges, but I do see a lot of value in the preservation of competition. Procedural fairness can be an impact but it takes a lot of work to explain it as such. Sometimes a clash impact is a cleaner kill.
• TVAs don't have to solve the whole aff. I like TVAs with solvency advocates. I think it's beneficial when the 2NC lays out some examples of neg strategies that could be read against the TVA, and why those strategies produce educational debates.

Topicality vs policy affs:

• Speaker point boost if your 2NC has a grammar argument (conditional on the argument making sense of course).
• If you're aff and going for reasonability, "race to the bottom" < debatability.
• Case lists are good.
• The presence of other negative positions is not defense to a ground argument. The aff being disclosed is not defense to a limits argument. This also goes for T-USFG.

Counterplans

• When people refer to counterplans by saying the letters "CP" out loud it makes me wish I were dead.
• As a human I think counterplans that advocate immediate, indefinite, non-plan action by the USFG are legit, but as a judge I'm chaotic neutral on all theory questions.
• Conditionality: I'll give you a speaker point boost if you can tell me how many 2NRs are possible given the number of counterplan planks in the 1NC.

Disads

• Read them
• Politics DAs are fun. Make arguments about polling methodology.

Ks

• I feel like I have a higher threshold for Ks on the neg than some. I'm not a hack and I will vote for your K if you do the better debating, but I also think arguments that rely on the ballot having some inherent meaning are corny unpersuasive.
• I dislike lazy link debating immensely, primarily because it makes my life harder. Affs hoping to capitalize on this REALLY ought to include a perm/link defense in the 2AR.
• Explain how the alt solves the links and why the perm doesn't.
• Affs should explain why mooting the 1AC means that the neg's framework is anti-educational. Negs should explain why the links justify mooting the aff.
• Case outweighs 2ARs can be very persuasive. The neg can beat this with discrete impacts to specific links+impact framing+framework.
• Speaker point penalty if the 1AR drops fiat is illusory - at the very least your framework extension needs an education impact.

Lincoln-Douglas:

• If there is no net benefit to a counterplan, presumption flips aff automatically.
• I do not think permutations are cheating.
• An argument is a claim and a warrant. If you say something that does not contain a warrant, I will not necessarily vote on it even if it's dropped. In the interest of preventing judge intervention, please say things that have warrants.
• Most neg theory arguments I've watched would go away instantly if affs said "counter interpretation: we have to be topical."
• RVIs are not persuasive to me. Being topical is never an independent reason to vote affirmative. The fact that a counterplan is conditional is never offense for the negative.

Very infrequent judge, I did debate in High School, judged throughout college and post-grad.

I am employed as a Data and Policy analyst, be as technical policy-wise as you wish. I am not an expert on debate, so be clear. Have fun!

Updated: December 8th, 2023.

If you want to look @ what I used to judge like, feel free to. I'll use some of this as a reference to when I'm judging, but keep in mind this paradigm is now 4 years old. Also a bit cringe-worthy.

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

Ryan Reza

Debated Policy @ Washburn Rural HS (2014-2018)

Lover of food and liberalism and Tim Ellis

Email: RyanReza12@gmail.com

Updated: 9/7/2019

What's up! First off, don't be rude in round! If you're outrageously rude in round it will be very hard to win my ballot. Be nice, and have fun. Debate is an activity where everyone should be enjoying their time, that is why it was created. Not for you to flaunt around your arrogance.

General

-Tech over truth, must have warranted arguments.

-Debate arguments that you are most comfortable with!

-I won't do your work for you

-Use CX to your benefit, I'm a big fan

-If you have non cringy puns in your intros I respect you more

-I don't know a lot about this topic yet, so explain acronyms you might use or specific theories etc. Else I won't know whats happening probs

Speed

Listen I'm a little out of the whole speed thing. I am going to assume you're faster than I was in HS, however, if you are clear I will be able to follow along. If you are not clear, I will say "clear". If you do not become clear after I have said it, I'll wait a couple seconds then stop flowing.

Theory

-Reject the arg, not the team for all instances besides maybe condo

--For Condo there should be some pretty heavy in round abuse, and you have to prove it to me. Don't just read blocks, use your head.

T

I'm a fan of topicality. But because I'm lazy and Tim worded it well enough here is an excerpt from his paradigm

Topicality is usually a question of competing interpretations, but just like anything else in debate, you can persuade me otherwise. I tend to think that debaters are not great at explaining the offense that they have on T flows, and particularly, how offensive arguments interact with one another. All too often the neg will go for a limits DA and the aff will say precision, but no one will discuss which one has more value in creating a stable model for debate. Reasonability is an uphill battle for me, but I find myself being more persuaded by it as neg teams get worse and worse at extending an impact to their T argument. As far as spec debates, I usually find them quite dull, and it will take a pretty egregious violation or a crush of a spec debate for me to vote against someone for not specifying agent, funding, etc.

Thank you for listening to Tim's ted talk

FW

Ha I'm not too familiar with this aspect of debate. If you run an aff w/o a plan text that is perfectly fine. All you have to do is explain it to me and why your standard of debate is better for the activity and whatnot. If you just give me depth less arguments about how debate sucks now and the USFG is bad then it will not be an easy ballot to win. I will most likely lean negative in these types of debates, because fairness typically aligns towards the neg in these debates. But the negative team needs to do work if they want to win. Having offense on case and on top of that adding external impacts is important. Don't just throw together BS arguments at the end of the round, you'll need to do work to win.

Regardless, you do you. Explain your arguments, answer the other team's. You'll gain a ballot. Probably.

Kritiks

I am not to well versed in K literature, however, that does not mean I won't vote on it. Traditionally, if the team does a good job of explaining the world of the kritik and how the kritik is good, then they will be fine. If you read a K just to confuse your opponents, you will also confuse me.

-I think you should try and explain to me how the K looks in the debate, whether that is the post plan implications or whatever is happening in the round.

-Explain the alt well. That is probably important. Having good links to the aff is a plus, if it is a bunch of SQUO stuff it won't be very convincing.

-If the neg goes for FW be sure to explain the argument throughout the debate. And have a specific interpretation for me to vote on.

DAs

Big fan. Big fan. Big fan. I love me a good Disad.

-Try and have specific Links

-Politics DAs are pretty good. They might not make sense a lot of the time but you know

-Be sure to cover Case along with the DA. That is a pretty spicy combo in my eyes

-Have a nice internal link chain. I wanna know why doing the aff causes the world to explode into a ball of fiery doom

-Not too sure what else to say. Explain the world of the aff and how the DA trumps all Aff benefits

CPs

CPs are good. CP + DA is always good. I'm not super technical and informed on CP theory but:

-Delay CPs, probably bad

-Consult/Conditions CPs, def bad unless they have a specific solvency advocate

-Cut the other team's solvency advocate and make it into a CP. That is pretty spicy.

-Word PIC's are annoying

Speaker points (I'm still figuring this out so it could be different in the future and whatnot)

29.4+ -- Straight fire (One of the best I've seen)

29-29.3 -- Speaker Award at the tournament

28.6-28.9 -- Good, no complaints in terms of speaking ability (Above Average/Average - comments will determine)

28.0-28.5 -- Didn't do anything distinctly "wrong", critiques here and there about issues (A bit below average - you're getting there)

27s -- Dropping arguments, ending speeches early, etc. (Needs improvement - but hey you'll get there)

If you get anything below a 27 it means there was something that did not belong in the debate. Meaning rudeness, cheating, etc.

Idk other stuff that is probably important

Don't just say random debate words. Have warrants for every argument you make. BE CLEAR for analytical blocks. Have fun.

-1AR must be fire. It's a requirement

-Make jokes. If they are bad I will dock you speaker points (-.5 per joke), however, if they are good you will get additional points (+.5)

Reminder don't be awful in round.

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.

I've evolved as a judge which has unfortunately been interpreted as I'm inconsistent or unpredictable. As an assistant coach I understand that creates frustration, which I want to avoid, so if there is anything below that is not 100% clear, please ask me prior to the round. I would much rather have a brief discussion and give you some sense of understanding my thought process than you walk away from the round thinking you don't know what you could have done to win my ballot. I assure you, there have been people who have asked and learned how I evaluate, and those individuals found me to be consistent even if it wasn't always in their favor (though it often was).

Let's start with the foundation. Once upon a time I would give myself the label of "games player" because I appreciated good strategy. I still evaluate if I think a team is being strategic or clever, but I am strongly TRUTH OVER TECH. If you tell me that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and your opposition does not respond, that DOES NOT mean I accept something that is not true. I think it is especially critical in an environment of "fake news" or "relative facts" that we champion the truth above spin. So you will find that if your argument is only theoretically plausible, it is going to be much less persuasive than if you stick to simple truths.

This leads me to two conclusions you should be able to draw about how I evaluate a round. 1st, magnitude does NOT overwhelm probability. In fact magnitude rarely plays any part in my decision. I have listened to the same authors for 25+ years predict the next war will be over water or food or that we're all going to starve or that terrorists are moments away from having nuclear weapons. Empirically all of these authors are wrong. The have no credibility with me. Which means I give zero weight to an impact that I have zero probability of believing it will happen. You hear judges say all the time that they are tired of nuke war impacts. You want to know why? Because I have lived my entire life with the doomsday clock at least 7 minutes to midnight. The "experts" have cried wolf for far to long to be believed. The only chance you have to win on magnitude is if you extend very detailed warrants about why this time is different and the facts your author has looked at to draw the conclusions. If you don't know what facts the author looked at, don't bother.

2nd, links and link stories matter much more than uniqueness. I believe students like to debate uniqueness because it is easy. It is eacy to try to find evidence about the current state of the world. What is hard is predicting the consequences of taking any action. This is why solvency and link turns on case are extremely effective as well as indicting internal links on a D.A. to make it go away. I will assign 0% solvency or 0% risk of a link so defense can make an entire flow seemingly go away. This is especially apparent on politics scenarios! Pundits who try to predict elections or votes on legislation are less accurate than the weatherman! I will not assume that just because the Affirmative plan is topical that it will lead to any consequence other than the ones that are by fiat. I have listened to debaters who were incredibly informed on specific congressional leaders and how certain pieces of legislation are being used as a political football, and those debaters were persuasive. If you just aren't that debater, there is no shame in that, but you will find your politics scenario just isn't persuasive.

Let's shift gears and talk a little about topicality. Here is my single belief: the affirmative team must affirm the resolution. When I write affirmative on the ballot that means the affirmative team has successfully convinced me the resolution is true. The affirmative plan is an example of the possible reasons the resolution is true. The affirmative doesn't have to prove all instances of the resolution are true, but at least the affirmative plan should be adopted and if the affirmative plan is an example what could be under the resolution, then the resolution is true. This view of the resolution is nearly non-negotiable (we'll talk about K's in a minute). This means the affirmative plan is a proof of the resolution or it isn't. Period. I don't evaluate if it is fair because that is subjective. There will be an interpretation that I either believe or don't believe, it is always all or nothing. When it comes to competing interpretations, I will walk into the round with an interpretation in my mind (no one is a blank slate) and that will be my default. I can be persuaded that there is a different interpretation, but the reason must be more compelling than an appeal to emotion and warranted in facts. I will admit, topicality is the one place that I will suspend the truth until it is argued. There are countless rounds in which the foundation of an affirmative plan hasn't been established, it isn't prima facia topical, and I don't get to pull the trigger because the negative is silent. That frustrates me because I don't get to vote on what I see is the truth. That doesn't mean run topicality no matter what, because you hurt your credibility by running the wrong violation or running it to run it. It's not a strategic time suck. Both the affirmative and negative need to ask themselves if they would vote on if the affirmative is topical and make their best case. It probably goes without saying, but I believe the plan text must be topical, not the solvency of the plan. I believe the plan text must be sufficient to justify the resolution. If you need to do something in addition to the resolution to show the plan should be adopted, then you have shown the resolution should not be affirmed because it is insufficient.

I said I'd talk about K's, so lets get it over with. For years I said I didn't like them or worst wouldn't even listen to them. I'm much more open minded now, but here is the truth. You have 26 minutes to convince me of some philosophical position that I might not agree with. That is ridiculously hard when I've studied most of these positions for entire semesters, or life long, and have true biases. Flat out, I believe in Capitalism. I've studied Marx, and I happily participate in a Capitalist society. I have voted on Cap Bad because the round called for it, but my default is Cap Good. I could go through several popular K's, but you get the point. You will either 1. have to get lucky and preach to the choir on something I already believe or 2. knock me off my preconceived notion about the world. That's either luck or quite difficult. And I will caveat all of this with one big factor. If you are making a social criticism, you better walk the walk. You cannot be a hypocrite. If you performatively contradict your position, your link to the K will be far stronger than anything you say for your opponents because you should have known better. For example if you say animal suffering is always immoral and you are wearing leather shoes, you better be able to prove the cow died of natural causes! I LOVE to vote against the team who presents a K and link back into it. Speaking of K links, I will not assume the K links, you need to have a story (see my take on D.A.'s). And your alt must actually solve (see my take on solvency).

From K's to their cousins the CP. I am old and still believe that a counterplan must be an opportunity cost to the affirmative plan. We can't do the CP and the Aff (mutually exclusive) and the CP is better than the Aff (competitive) so we should do the CP instead of the affirmative. Futhermore the CP must be non-topical or else the affirmative gets to simply say the counterplan is one more example of why the resolution is true. See, the affirmative could present 2 or more plans to prove the resolution is a good idea. They don't do that because it puts them more at risk because they must advocate for everything they present, but they can just freely have the CP if the CP is topical. This is a strong belief of mine so theory to tell me otherwise is not persuasive. This isn't to say PIC's are off limits, it just means the PIC must be extra topical (see my take on why extra T doesn't justify the resolution). There are plenty of strategic CP's that work with this paradigm, but ultimately it needs to be an opportunity cost to the affirmative. CP's can be permed, thus they are not mutually exclusive and therefor not an opportunity cost to the affirmative plan. A CP can link to a D.A. so it isn't competitive. I appreciate counterplans and their usage, but they need to be that opportunity cost to the resolution.

The rest of theory type stuff is a coin flip and situational. I've voted on condo good and bad. I'm willing to pull the trigger on something, but you need to explain it and warrant it. I don't fill in the gaps for blips.

To be clear, I don't fill in anything. Just saying a couple of key words like "perm do both" or "pull the impacts" may not be sufficient. If I understood what you said earlier, perhaps, but I'm not going to insert what I think you mean by shouting out debate jargon. This leads to the overused question of speed. This is a verbal activity. I almost never read cards because I want to evaluate what I heard. If I hear the warrants in a card, great. If I'm not able to process the warrants then all you've done is make a claim in your tag. Speed is very rarely the issue, it is a matter of clarity. And it is unusually pretty obvious if I've given up on flowing. The only time I usually ask for evidence is when I personally am questioning myself on what I heard and I think it is my fault I'm unsure. As far as I'm concerned the authors are there to lend credibility, you are making the arguments, so I'm not going to evaluate what your author said, I'm going to evaluate what you said. If you author lacks credibility, you might as well just say things in your own words. Which honestly is often not a bad thing. I think debaters are way too dependent on quoting an author and treating it like a fact. If your author makes a claim but doesn't warrant it, just because they are an author doesn't make it true. This is more common in K debates where quoting a philosopher is treated like an absolute truth, but it can happen anywhere in the debate. Again, I want the truth over tech, so facts with logical analysis will outweigh a card in most situations.

Finally, I am human. I am biased. I have emotions. Why is this relevant? Because my bias and my emotions can make somethings seem more persuasive than others. Your credibility matters. If you destroy your credibility, you might say you won on the flow, but I'm not believing you so what is on the flow carries no weight. Treating your opponents poorly lowers your credibility. "Put away your impact defense, my card beats them all" is insulting because it shows that you care more about what your opponents think about how cool you are than persuading me that your argument is actually sound. Tag team cross ex tells me through your actions that "I don't trust my partner. My partner is stupid so I'll speak out of turn. What I have to say is more important." That is pretty damning to your partners credibility and frankly makes you a jerk. Prompting arguments says the same thing. Prompting "slower" shows you are trying to assist with something they might not realize in the moment but giving an argument and having them parrot it word for word so it "counts" is about the worst ways to attempt to persuade me. If you cause logistical issues such as being late to the round because what your assistant coach had to say was more important than my time, or stealing prep time while you fiddle with your computer, or take significant time to pass evidence, all of these things I notice and leaves an impression on me. You might be shocked by this, but humans like to reward people they like and punish those they don't like. That isn't to say I'll immediately vote against you because you rearranged the entire room so you could plug in your laptop, but it makes your job harder if I'm rooting against you. Just don't give me a reason to want to vote against you and we'll be fine.

Oh, and I don't shake hands. I'm not as adverse as Howie Mandel, but I prefer not to physically touch strangers. I just don't see any reason to do it. I know you respect me as a human and I respect you as a human without our hands touching.

Updated 1/7/23 for clipping/ethics challenge policy (at bottom)

4 years in Kansas in high school, 4 years at Baylor University, now a grad student and coach at KU and Barstow.

Add me to the email chain please: aewalberg@gmail.com and rockchalkdebate@gmail.com (college only)

Top Level

Do what you do best, I will do my best to be unbiased when evaluating arguments. I tend to take a long time making decisions regardless of the round, so don't read into it.

Judge instruction/telling me how to write my ballot is really important, points will be higher and you'll be more likely to win if you put the pieces together in the 2NR/2AR, are honest about the parts of the debate you're winning and losing, actually make decisions about what to go for, etc.

As I continue to judge, I find myself prioritizing tech over truth more and more, exception being when arguments/debates are violent, unsafe, etc. This means that you might think an argument is totally nonsensical, nonresponsive, etc. and I might agree, but you have to make those arguments in a speech in order for me to consider them when making my decision. If you want me to evaluate the debate through a lens other than tech, you should say that and explain what that means/why that mode of evaluation is better.

I think you should probably have to read re-highlighted ev, not just insert it. Open to persuasion but debates where both teams are inserting re-highlightings without analysis or explanation are negative persuasive to me.

I am generally open to whatever arguments you want to run, the substantive exception is wipeout. More critical arguments about death are fine, but I am not particularly interested in listening to or voting on suffering outweighs any potential for pleasure/we are primed to be afraid afraid of death but should die anyway.

I will read along with you in the doc while you are reading cards but I will not read along with the analytics you send, that's not a substitute for clarity or slowing down to give pen time. I also don't generally re-read a ton of evidence at the end of the debate unless told to, your analysis/explanation in round is much more important to me. If I'm in a position at the end of the debate where I have to put things together myself by sorting through a lot of evidence that received very little explanation, neither of us will probably be particularly happy with the decision.

Pet peeves: talking over each other in CX excessively---I cannot hear or understand anyone when this happens especially online, asking what cards were/weren't read in a speech if it's not prep time or cx, not having the email chain ready or sent when round start time hits, stealing prep (if it's not speech, cx, or prep time you shouldn't be typing/talking), calling me by my first name when we don't know each other. They're small things and old grumpy judge complaints, but they'll give you a sizable speaker point boost.

Online Debate

Slow down, be clearer. Make sure you can hear judges/other people in the round so you don't miss people telling you to pause or repeat an order.

Theory

I will vote on it if you win it, but that probably means you need more than one sentence on it in the 2AC. Slow down on these debates. I lean condo being the only reason to reject the team.

T

Slow down some. Impact it out in the 2NR. Don't forget to explain what winning competing interps or reasonability actually means for you.

DAs and CPs

I don't do a lot of topic research, so it'll be helpful for both of us if you do a little more explanation on topic specific things like link stories/solvency mechanisms/etc.

Good analytics can definitely beat a crappy DA. Winning terminal defense/zero percent risk is possible.

Ks

Explain why winning framework matters for you and how you still win the debate even if you lose framework.

You don't necessarily need a material alt to win if you go for framework.

2ACs should explicitly answer each of the link arguments even if it's just by explaining that it's a link to the status quo, a block that can impact out a dropped link argument well is likely to get my ballot as long as they are somewhat ahead on the framework or impact framing debate.

K Affs

Good. I do think it is possible to vote neg on presumption, so specific analysis about aff solvency or method is important. I find myself voting overwhelmingly aff in debates where the negative concedes the aff in the 2NR, so I strongly recommend extending your best 1 or 2 case arguments regardless of what else you're going for.

Framework

Neg: Best neg args are usually about models but can be persuaded it's about this round. Explain why fairness, clash, etc. is an impact and how your model accesses the aff's impacts. A well-developed TVA is great. These debates are pretty hard to win in front of me if you fully concede case.

Aff: Explain what debate looks like under your counter interp or counter model of debate or explain why you don't need a counter model. I am not a huge fan of the 2AC strategy of saying as many disads to framework as possible without explaining or warranting any of them out, two well-developed disads are more powerful than seven one-line ones.

Debate Ethics

If I cannot follow along in the evidence as you're reading it due to clarity issues or I can see you're skipping words as I'm following along, I will clear you once. If you continue skipping words or clipping and the other team does not call it out, I will let the debate continue and give feedback for educational purposes but will drop the team clipping. If you're clipping and the other team does call it out and issues an ethics challenge or otherwise ends the debate, I will end the debate, drop the team clipping, and give feedback based on the debate thus far.

If there is an ethics challenge issued and the debate is stopped, the team who is correct (about the clipping, miscut evidence, citation problem, etc.) wins the debate. Arguments about evidence ethics can be made absent an ethics challenge and without stopping the debate; for example, when connected to a citational politics argument. However, if one team says to stop the round because something is an ethics challenge, the round will stop and the team who is correct about the issue will win.

Arguments that are racist, transphobic or queerphobic, sexist, or that otherwise make the debate violent or unsafe will result in contacting your adults/coaches and a response proportional to/appropriate given what is said.

Competed: Topeka High School (4 years) Emporia State University (2 years)

Coach: Emporia High School (Present)

Please put me on the email chain! rejecttheaff@gmail.com

"I view my role in the debate not as arbiter of truth, but a critic of argument, as such I attempt to divorce myself from relative "truth" values of arguments." - Courtney Loghry (Quoting Chris Loghry)

In general, I think affirmatives should use the resolution as a stasis point for research and argumentation. Whether that is being "T USFG" or using the topic as a starting-point for your critical affirmative. "Topicality" is determined by the debate that takes place. I think intricate T debates are very interesting and competitive. However, I am not as persuaded by "procedural" impacts to Topicality and Framework. I believe fairness is only an internal link to education so you should persuade me why I should prefer your MODEL and the EDUCATION it produces in debate is good. If your interpretation is the affirmative has to result in a government policy action, impact out why the policy and legal education of this model is good/outweighs the affirmatives model. If your interpretation is affirmatives should look for solutions outside of government policy action, impact out why your research model is good/outweighs the negatives model. Also K v. K debate is good. It's 2019, there are other ways to answer K affs other than framework. Doesn't mean I won't vote for framework, just keep that in mind.

I love to see how students interpret the topic and really have no strong feelings about what affirmatives should "do" apart from depart from the status quo. Other than that do you.

I haven't judged a lot of theory debates, but I've been in them and I am willing to vote on it. Conditionality bad arguments are probably more persuasive to me if the negative runs more than 2 conditional args.

DAs- I'm a fan, you should read them. I am more persuaded by specific links. If the links are generic I am usually easily persuaded by link thumpers.

CPs- Great way to capture aff offense. I default to sufficiency framing until I am told otherwise.

Ks-If you read a K please please explain your alternative, and how it functions. This is ultimately a communication activity and if I don't understand your theory, you probably did not do a great job of explaining it, which will make it harder for me to vote for you. Case-specific links tend to be more persuasive. Personally, you can also kick the alternative and just go for the links as DAs to the aff. As long as you prove the aff makes the world worse, and you EXPLAIN YOUR THEORY I don't care if you end up going for the alternative or not. Just do a good job of explaining why the aff can't overcome the links.

Finally if you are responsible for the round starting late, or evidence sharing that takes too long it will definitely hurt your speaker points. Be efficient!

Please give role of the ballot, role of the judge, and other judge instruction.

This is an educational space, and I want everyone to get as much out of each debate as they can. Don't make the debate more difficult than it needs to be for people. Don't say racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or other rude things. It will effect your speaker points. If the other team has made this educational space unfair for you, make an argument about it. I also am not one to care about respectability, be yourself.