Debate: I debated four years in high school (1977-1981), and one year at university (1981-1982). I am a tabula rasa judge. I generally accept any arguments regarding the aims and methods of academic debate. Absent such arguments, I assume the point is decide whether or not to adopt the resolution.

I do believe, however, that debate is an educational activity. I therefore construe good speaking to be that which will work later in life. The law courts and the political stump, the classical models for debate, still frame my view of the activity.

I do not read speeches. I only listen, although I may ask to look at evidence after a round. The speeches should therefore be intelligible.

Finally, I base my understanding of debate rules on the published KSHSAA rules. I do not see how rules informally promulgated by the debate community can bind contrary to the official rules. Absent cogent arguments to the contrary, I therefore believe that each team has two constructive speeches, meaning new arguments can be raised in 2AC and 2NC; that rebuttals are a place for new evidence on points already raised; and that the Affirmative bears the burden of proof and the Negative enjoys a presumption.

Forensics: I did not compete in forensics, but I have served as an assistant forensics coach. I have judged at about a dozen tournaments. There are still some events I have not judged. I look for clear, articulate presentation, convincing acting in events stressing that, and good organization of material. In the more rhetorical events, such as Impromptu, Original Oration, and Extemporaneous Speaking, I listen for distinct thesis statements and good topic sentences, with effective transitions between topics.

Currently Coach in Korea, They mainly do parli and LD here, so I have been removed from the policy scene for almost a year now. However I do coach some one on the Korean national team.

derby debate coach 2 years 2018-2020

debated at campus for 4 years and 1 year in college.

LD: value criterion debate is the most important, each debate should say something along the lines i achieve my V/C as well as access my opponents value better. if the V/C debate goes unaddressed by both sides i default to who spoke prettier. your case should support your V/C. Case debate is import in proving your opponent cant access their V/C. that being said if the V/C debate is close/even I will then look to evaluate the case.

PFD: very traditional this isn't policy, dis ads plan text K's are a quick way to lose my ballot. I prefer a slightly above conversations speed level.

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

CFL update: IF it looks like I am not looking at the computer while you are speaking I have two monitors, one to follow on and read ev, one to watch the debate.

T-aff should be topical, if neg goes T I feel like it should be all in T or no T in 2nr at all. neg needs to impact t out and weigh it also just saying they aren't topical they lose is not okay, explain why topically is bad what is the tool we use to weigh it and what happens when we don't use this tool.

K- I'm good with most K's however don't assume I know the lit of them. explain it well. the alt is the most important thing on the k, if I don't understand how the alt solves or the alt doesn't make sense I probably wont vote on it.

CP- I'm good with most cp's i don't like topical CPS, However, I am open to hearing anything as long as you can defend it.

as far as theory goes I'm good with you making theory args but most of the time reject the arg not the team is sufficient for me to not vote on the argument.

condo- is really the only thing that I would vote on if there is actual abuse. not just bad time management.

disads- I like more true scenarios. I'm okay and should be able to follow most disad story lines. parts of the disad that I value the most in order

link>unqi>IL>impact>

case- case is important, one important thing to not do is on solvency; try or die doesn't makes sense to me if this is the only argument you have on Solvency. you either win the solvency flow or you don't its not try or die. Losing the solvency flow will lose you the round.

framing- if there is no framing analysis I default to impact calc. Just because you win the framing arg doesn't mean you win the round it means I weigh the round though that lens, yes it does help your odds of winning but doesn't insure it.

last notes- I find my self looking down when people are speaking its not out of disinterest its because it helps me focus better on what your saying and not on an annoying tick you may or may not have.

High School Debate/Forensics – Shawnee Heights (2014-2018)

College Policy Debate (NDT/CEDA) – Wichita State (2018-2022)

Previous Assistant Debate and Forensics Coach at W. East and W. Southeast

Current Head Debate/Forensics Coach at Wichita Southeast High School

Email: kaylab222@gmail.com

I like clean, organized, and well thought out debates that focus more on the depth of the arguments. I also value and reward teams that engage in high levels of clash and attack the warrants of the evidence. I am a policy centric judge, that has coached all types of debate styles. That being said, do what you are comfortable with. However, I am best in debates that revolve around some sort of policy or plan. The best way to win my ballot is doing clean line-by-line and explain why the weight of your arguments matter more than that of the opposing team.

When debating on the affirmative, what I look for is a team that can articulate a story about what the plan is, how the plan solves, and what the advantage of the plan is. I am noticing more and more in debate rounds that teams are not extending each part of the AFF, with explanations of all the moving parts. Even if the neg does not respond to a part of the aff, your job as the aff is to still extend that argument if you want to keep it viable.

If you are going to read topicality, there are a few things to consider. First, I am a judge that is a sucker for in round abuse. Even if you have to bait them into giving you the link on your ground/limit’s arguments, it is something that I am willing to vote on.

I love a good CP/Net Ben/DA Debate. This is the debate I am probably the most comfortable in, and the best judge for. The only thing I ask for in this type of debate is for the negative to explain how the CP solves the link on the DA/Net Ben, I am not going to be this gracious and do the work for you.

I don’t have a preference on whether teams go for theory or topicality. The biggest thing I look for in these types of debates are 3 things: 1. Proven in-round abuse, I don’t really care for the hypotheticals of “well this could happen” I want to know why the other team violated the rules so egregiously that it made this debate impossible for you to win. 2. Voters, this is something that is being overlooked and I am not sure why. Tell me how and why I should evaluate this argument in the context of the debate. 3. On topicality, I am more apt to vote for T if there is some version of a TVA – especially if you make an argument as to how the tva solves the advantages.

I don’t have much thought on K Debate, well-articulated links and solvency is what I look for in a K debate. I am not the most familiar with K literature, so please make sure to articulate any complex components of solvency or any buzz words.

Other niche thoughts, be nice to people, don’t steal prep, please signpost, analytics is not a part of a roadmap (what are the analytics about?), and have fun.

Questions? Ask me before the round.

Zachary Brown

He/Him/His

zrbrown@gmail.com
Updated: Sept 2019

Background:
8 years debate experience 2000-2008 (Derby HS, Wichita State University)

11 years coaching experience 2007-2018 (Assistant coach- Wichita East HS, Wichita State University, Head Coach- Hutchinson HS)

I am no longer as active as I used to be and I have not coached or judged extensively for the last few years. Explain your topic acronyms and argument jargon.

I think the topic is important but what the "topic" means is open for discussion. Debate is an important forum and I support efforts to discuss ways to make the community better.

I feel that respect and inclusion are fundamental values. Be mindful of the people in the room. Be nice! I have no tolerance for rude, disrespectful, and exclusionary behavior. Don't like it? Strike me. Debate is a game. Play to win, but have fun!

I don't care what kind of arguments you make, just make it a good one. I am not impressed by teams who copy the latest trends and arguments from a college or national circuit wiki without fundamental knowledge on how to execute those arguments. I like innovative arguments and I've voted for some wild stuff, but know your argument and do it well. I appreciate gutsy decisions and well executed strategy. I miss case debate.

At the risk of being a luddite, I don't like to call for cards and I don't want to get your speech doc. Debate is a communication activity and too many debaters rely on the speech doc to make arguments that the were not clearly made in a speech. I don't want to read the evidence unless I have to. Usually if I call for a card that means that there is a fundamental disagreement about contents, suspicion of clipping, or unclear argumentation. Evidence quality matters a lot to me. The most underutilized skill in debate is good evidence comparison. Give me reasons to "prefer your evidence". It is the job of the debater to explain their arguments in a way that is understandable and flowable. Rate of delivery doesn't matter to me, but clarity does.

I know there is lots of other stuff to discuss. Just ask me before round if you have any questions.

6.2.5

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coach @ Asian Debate League

Debated 4 years at Kapaun** Mount Carmel in Wichita, Kansas, 2017

Debated 4 years NDT/CEDA/D3 at University of Kansas, 2021

Email chain: gaboesquivel@gmail.com

I treat judging debate with the same love and care that I treat my job. I love what we do.

My biases:

I lean aff for condo. Some might say too much. I might expect a lot from you if you do go for it.

I didn't go for K's much but I really like debating them vs my policy aff. More than policy v policy debates. Links are the most important thing for me. Impacts are a close second. I value consistency between the scale of the links and impacts i.e. in round impacts should have in round links.

I strongly bias toward "The K gets links and impacts vs the aff's fiated impacts" unless someone delivers a very persuasive speech. I can be persuaded that making a personal ethical choice is more important than preventing a nuclear war.

I lean toward affs with plans. Fairness concerns me less than usual nowadays. I like research/clash impacts.

I will read evidence and vote for evidence in debates where things are not settled by the debater's words. This happens frequently in T debates and impact turn debates.

Status quo is always an option=judge kick

How I judge:

I work hard to listen and read your evidence. I am honest about what I don't understand. I am patient with novices.

Be clear or go slower (7 or 8/10) for online debate otherwise I'll miss the nuance in your arguments. I clear twice before I stop flowing.

I flow and use everything I hear in my decision, and overemphasize what is said in the rebuttals. I'll reference the 1AR speech to protect the 2NR on a 2AR that "sounds new" and I'll reference the block on a 2NR that claims the 1AR dropped something. I'll reference a 2AC on a 1AR that claims the block dropped something, etc.

For a dropped argument to be a true argument it must have been a complete claim and warrant from the beginning. I am not a fan of being "sneaky" or "tricky". Unless you are going for condo ;)

I am persuaded by ethos and pathos more than logos. I find myself wanting to vote for a debater who tries to connect with me more than a debater who reads a wall of blocks even if they are technically behind. When both teams are great speakers I rely more on tech and evidence.

I try to craft my decision based on language used by the debaters. I reference evidence when I cannot resolve an argument by flow alone. PhD's, peer reviewed journals, and adequate highlighting will help you here. If I can't resolve it that way I'll look for potential cross applications or CX arguments and might end up doing work for you. If I do work for one team I will try to do the same amount for the other team. It might get messy if its close, that's what the panel is for, but please challenge my decision if you strongly disagree and I'll tell you where my biases kicked in.

**Pronounced (Kay-pen)

I am an experienced flow judge. I vote off of stock issues, speaking skills and communications. I am okay with counter plans and K's. Speed is okay but it must be clear.

Name: Andrew Halverson

School: Currently, I am not actively coaching, but in recent years I was the Assistant Director of Speech & Debate at Kapaun Mount Carmel High School & Wichita East High School (Wichita, KS). I have moved to work in the real world full-time, but I still keep involved with debate as a Board Member of a local non-profit that promotes debate in the Wichita area - Ad Astra Debate.

Experience: 20+ years. As a competitor, 4 years in high school and 3 years in college @ Fort Hays and Wichita State in the mid-late 90's and early 2000's.

Up to March, I have judged 88 rounds this season - mostly LD and Policy. I only have judged PF at the UK Opener.

**ONLINE DEBATING ADDENDUM - updated 3/4/2022**

In my experience, most tournaments are more than gracious with their prep and tech time leading up the start of a round. Please make sure that all of your tech stuff is sorted before beginning AND that you use pre-round prep for disclosure as well. I'm pretty chill about most things, but these two things are my biggest online debating pet peeves.

ALL Online tournament have pre-round tech time built in. Please be in the room for it. It doesn't take long. If it's something that's no fault of your own that is preventing you from tech time, fair. However, if one of the members of your team isn't in the room during pre-round tech time, it's a 0.5-1 speaker point deduction.

Public Forum Section - Updated as of 3/1/2022

As an FYI, I've coached PFD, but by and large, I'm a Policy and Congress coach. If there is anything that isn't answered in this short section, I advise that you take a look the Policy section of my paradigm or ask questions.

I'm going to assume that I don't know the in and outs of your current topic. Please make sure that you explain concepts that I might not know. I've coached a lot of different debate topics over the years. I know a lot, but I don't know everything.

The typical PF norms for evidence/speech docs sharing are terrible. You must put your evidence/speech docs in the Speech Drop, email chain, or whatever BEFORE your speech starts. Don't do it after your speech or in the chat. Also, don't just put a cite in the chat and tell someone to CTRL+F what they are looking for. This is non-negotiable. Other PFD norms, I'm honestly unfamiliar with. I assume there is disclosure and other things, but I don't know for sure.

I'm probably going to evaluate most debates like I would a Policy debate - without all of the mumbo-jumbo that is usually associated with that activity. In brief, that will probably be an offense/defense paradigm with a heavy dose of policymaking sprinkled in. I like good, smart arguments. Make them and clash with your opponents and you will be at a good place at the end of the day.

Policy/LD Debate Section - Changed as of 6/30/2022

++Since most LD has a policy tilt nowadays, this is a pretty accurate representation on how I would view an LD round. Actual value debate and my thoughts on RVI's, you probably should ask me.

++I do want to add something about the penchant to go for RVI's and other random theory cheap shots in front of me in LD. Just saying something is an RVI or that you get one isn't an argument - it's just describing a thing that you might get access to as an argument. There has to be a reason behind your theory gripe or whatever it is. FYI, usually I have a high threshold for voting on these arguments - unless it's a complete drop (which it won't be the case all of the time). Refer to where I talk about blippy theory debates down below if you want any other insight.

This is the first time in a long time that I have engaged in rewriting my judging paradigm. I thought it was warranted – given that debates and performances will be all done virtually in the immediate future. My last iteration of one of these might have been too long, so I will attempt to be as brief as possible.

Some non-negotiables:

**If you send a PDF as a speech doc, I instantly start docking speaker points. Send a Google doc or nearly anything else but no PDFs.

**I want to be on the email chain (halverson.andrew [at] gmail.com). Don’t send your speech doc after your speech. Do it before (unless there are extra cards read, etc.). There are a few reasons I would like this to happen: a) I'm checking as you are going along if you are clipping; b) since I am reading along, I'm making note of what is said in your evidence to see if it becomes an issue in the debate OR a part of my decision – most tournaments put a heavy premium on quick decisions, so having that to look at before just makes the trains run on-time and that makes the powers that be happy; c) because I'm checking your scholarship, it allows for me to make more specific comments about your evidence and how you are deploying it within a particular debate. If you refuse to email or flash before your speech for me, there will probably be consequences in terms of speaker points and anything else I determine to be relevant - since I'm the ultimate arbiter of my ballot in the debate which I'm judging.

**Send your analytics as much as possible. This platform for debate can sometimes be problematic with technical issues that can or can’t be controlled. I’ve judged some debate where the 2nc is in the middle of giving their speech and then their feed becomes frozen. Of course, we pause the debate until we can resolve the technical issues, but it’s helpful for everyone involved to have a doc to know where the debate stopped so we can pick up at that point once we resume.

**Don’t go super-duper, mega, ultra full speed (unless you are crystal bell clear). Slowing down a bit in this format is more beneficial to you and everyone else involved.

**For all of those Kansas traditional teams, yes to a off-time road map. Don’t make it harder than it needs to be.

**Be nice & have fun. If you don’t be nice, then you probably won’t like how I remedy if you aren’t nice. Racist and sexist language/behavior will not be tolerated. Debate is supposed to be a space where we get to get to test ideas in a safe environment.

**Stealing prep time. Don’t do it. After you send out the doc, you should have an idea of a speech order and be getting set to speak. Don't be super unorganized and take another 2-3 minutes to just stand up there getting stuff together. I don't mind taking a bit to get yourself together, but I find that debaters are abusing that now. When I judge by myself, I'm usually laid back about using the restroom, but I strongly suggest that you consider the other people in a paneled debate - not doing things like stopping prep and then going to the bathroom before you start to speak. I get emergencies, but this practice is really shady. Bottom-line: if you're stealing prep, I'll call you on it out loud and start the timer.

**Disclosure is something I can't stand when it's done wrong. If proper disclosure doesn't happen before a round, I'm way more likely to vote on a disclosure argument in this setting. If you have questions about my views on disclosure, please ask them before the debate occurs - so you know where you stand. Otherwise, I can easily vote on a disclosure argument. This whole “gotcha” thing with arguments that you have already read is so dumb.

**New in the 2nc is bad. What I mean by that is whole new DA's read - old school style - in the 2nc does not foster good debate OR only read off-case in the 1nc and then decide to read all new case arguments in the 2nc. I'm willing to listen to theory arguments on the matter (and have probably become way more AFF leaning on the theory justification of why new in the 2nc is bad), BUT they have to be impacted out. However, that's not the best answer to a NEG attempting this strategy. The best answer is for the 1ar to quickly straight turn whatever that argument is and then move on. Debaters that straight turn will be rewarded. Debaters that do new in the 2nc will either lose because of a theory argument or have their speaks tanked by me.

Now that’s out of the way, here are some insights on how I evaluate debates:

**What kind of argument and general preferences do I have? I will listen to everything and anything from either side of the debate. You can be a critical team or a straight-up team. It doesn’t matter to me. An argument is an argument. Answering arguments with good arguments is probably a good idea, if the competitive aspect of policy debate is important to you at all. If you need some examples: Wipeout? Sure, did it myself. Affirmatives without a plan? Did that too. Spark? You bet. Specific links are great, obviously. Of course, I prefer offense over defense too. I don’t believe that tabula rasa exists, but I do try to not have preconceived notions about arguments. Yet we all know this isn’t possible. If I ultimately have to do so, I will default to policymaker to make my decision easier for me.

**Don't debate off a script. Yes, blocks are nice. I like when debaters have blocks. They make answering arguments easier. HOWEVER, if you just read off your script going for whatever argument, I'm not going to be happy. Typically, this style of debate involves some clash and large portions of just being unresponsive to the other team's claims. More than likely, you are reading some prepared oration at a million miles per hour and expect me to write down every word. Guess what? I can't. In fact, there is not a judge in the world that can accomplish that feat. So use blocks, but be responsive to what's going on in the debate.

**Blippy theory debates really irk me. To paraphrase Mike Harris: if you are going as fast as possible on a theory debate at the end of a page and then start the next page with more theory, I'm going to inevitably miss some of it. Whether I flow on paper or on my computer, it takes a second for me to switch pages and get to the place you want me to be on the flow. Slow down a little bit when you want to go for theory - especially if you think it can be a round-winner. I promise you it'll be worth it for you in the end.

**I’m a decent flow, but I wouldn’t go completely crazy. That being said, I’m one of those critics (and I was the same way as a debater) that will attempt to write down almost everything you say as long as you make a valiant attempt to be clear. Super long overviews that aren't flowable make no sense to me. In other words, make what you say translate into what you want me to write down. I will not say or yell if you aren’t clear. You probably can figure it out – from my non-verbals – if you aren’t clear and if I’m not getting it. I will not say/yell "clear" and the debate will most definitely be impacted adversely for you. If I don’t “get it,” it’s probably your job to articulate/explain it to me.

**I want to make this abundantly clear. I won't do work for you unless the debate is completely messed up and I have to do some things to clean up the debate and write a ballot. So, if you drop a Perm, but have answers elsewhere that would answer it, unless you have made that cross-application I won't apply that for you. The debater answering said Perm needs to make the cross-application/answer(s) on their own.

Contact me if you have any questions. Hope this finds you well and healthy - have a great season!!

General Experience: Over 15 years of experience in the Debate & Forensics community (competing, judging, and coaching).

Policy Debate: Tabula rasa with policy roots. Negative conditionality good; love counter-plans. Open to K's and K Affs.

Email: ahinecker1@gmail.com

There is no magic way to win a debate, nor a "correct," way of debating. Be persuasive and make arguments that you see as strategic and communicate them effectively. Debate in the end is a communication and research activity - show those elements in the debate and use them to frame and forecast how I will make my decision. Defend what you will defend, just make sure that it is articulated in a manner that can justify a ballot. I enjoy debates that show a lot of ingenuity and predictions in your arguments relative to your opponents. That being said, I love impact turn throw-downs and risky strategies. In the end, you should default to a strategy that you are comfortable with. The only specific I care about is counterplans - I have become increasing persuaded by theory arguments because I think counterplans are getting absolutely out of hand with what they can do. That's all, just remember, this activity is only what you make of it, and it is about more than just winning. 

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.

I did debate and forensics at East High School in Wichita, KS from 2013-2017.

Some considerations:

I'm fine with students going however fast they want.

I like to have speech docs to track arguments and key warrants.

I mainly stuck to policy and theory related arguments, but Ks are fine as long as the evidence is well cut and it makes sense in the context of the round.

I value line-by-line debate a lot, which means proper signposting and articulate argumentation is always a plus.

-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

Despite the fact I have never been a debater, nor have I ever coached debate, I have been judging debate for 15 years.

As a judge, I value the following:

A logical stream of arguments that are tied to solid evidence and even stronger analysis.

Respect and professionalism between debaters.

Passion for the art of debate.

Insightfulness

Humility.

I do NOT appreciate the following:

Belittling your opponent

Speed-talking--I must be able to follow the argument.

I have 8 years of high school and college debate, and coached debate for two years at a high school. Comfortable with speed, K, debate theory, or any style, though focus on old-fashioned persuasion should not be lost. Generic disadvantages are fine, though there must be some attempt at linkage.

((edit by daughter: he does not mean policy debate experience. He did parli at Brown and was offered a coaching position at Yale, so he's good, yes, but don't read "8 years" and go "oh boy, Baud time!" Lawyer mindset, but also agrees w/ the Rev alt, so take that as you will.))

Name: Tony Nation

School – Kapaun Mt. Carmel HS, Wichita, KS – Assistant Coach

Debated at Emporia State and Wichita State – Been coaching pretty much ever since.

Email: antonynation@gmail.com – add me to the chain

If you’re looking for LD specific, it’s at the bottom. I’d still suggest reading the whole thing.

Prep time ends when you remove the flash drive, stand up and start approaching the other team. Once they have the files, you should be ready to speak. Speech time starts after you have given me the roadmap and begin the actual speech.

I would consider myself a pretty decent flow since I use my laptop, but don’t go crazy. If you’re not clear or I’m behind I’ll let you know. The only thing that confuses me is when you don’t tell me where you are and/or are giving some super long overview and haven’t told me that’s what’s going on. So, if you’re giving an overview up top, tell me that’s what you’re going to do.

As far as argument types and preferences, I really don’t care what you run as long as you’re not advocating something offensive (racism/sexism). Spark, wipeout, de-dev, etc. are all ok. Generally, I’m looking for offense. I can’t remember one time I’ve voted for someone with only defensive arguments. I’m generally not going to agree that your defensive cards are a 100% takeout unless there’s a really, really, really, really, really good reason. That being said, I can definitely tell you I’m not a “stock issues” judge. I’d say that if not given direction, I would be best described as a policy-maker.

Notes about specific arguments:

All arguments have a claim and at least one warrant.

I don’t have a pre-conceived notion about conditional arguments. You probably should be prepared to debate that when necessary.

Without a very specific link, I have a hard time believing that your generic criticism means a case won’t solve at all. If you argue that there isn’t any version of the affirmative that will ever work, that’s fair. But you should probably be able to conjure up at least one similar historical example. The worst critical debates are where people just read long card after long card and then only refer back to the author/date. We’ve seen policy actions work in the past, right?

This doesn’t mean I won’t vote for “generic” arguments. I ran them when I debated and coach my teams to run them.

My best advice is to do whatever you need to do to win the round. I’m open to anything.

Other Notes: Humor helps your points. I've given a 30 only one time when I didn't laugh. I don't believe that 'cheating' counterplans are cheating. I think that it's a legitimate test of a policy to discuss when it should happen or why part of it should/should not happen. Legislatures consider both of those things, especially in committee. A clever Haiku is acceptable in the 2NR/2AR. I'd say its acceptable elsewhere, but I don't think your 1AR will have that kind of time. Impact turns? Go right ahead. If you want to tell me that it's cool for a million humans to die because it saves some rare form of slug that has cancer curing venom, go right ahead. I think it's important to weigh impacts. I have four cats. Do with that information what you will. Spec and advocate arguments work sometimes as well. It's part of critical thinking. Not all authors write with the exact same premise. Spending and politics uniqueness should probably be less than 48 hours old (well, newer than the last time we enacted new spending or a similar law.) If you're reading camp uniqueness for spending/politics, I'll be offended. Completely new arguments in the 2s will probably not win you the round. I'll give the 1AR tons of leeway since I remember that struggle. If there is a new DA in the 2 and the 1AR decides to give you a straight turn for Christmas, I'll probably give them a 30, even if they lose. At this point I'm just rambling, but you've gotten a deep insight into my mind. Make it worth your time. I'll leave you with this. If you don't do the work for me and I have to figure out everything for myself, you either won't like the outcome or I'll eventually vote on presumption.

LD – I don’t place any pre-conceived value on a particular model of LD debate. That means that someone doesn’t have a defined value or criterion. You can debate that model, you can advocate a policy, multiple policies, hypotest or run critical arguments. This means you should be prepared to answer those arguments if they are presented. I also have zero preference for speed in LD. If someone goes fast and they are capable of it, then so be it. The only rules I’m going to have you follow are speech times, speech order and prep time. I recently had a long conversation about the place of counterplans in LD. I came out with a couple of thoughts. 1: If the resolution defines an actor (eg: United States) I think the affirmative should be prepared debates about other actors. Example: If the affirmative is defending the USFG should implement a policy, but it's better done at a state/local level, that's a legitimate argument for the negative. You're not going to convince me that it isn't the negative's ground without a really good reason. 2: If while researching, the negative finds a better idea than what the resolution calls for to solve a specific problem, the affirmative should be able to defend their action in comparison. If you want an example, you'll have to wait until after May 5th because I'm not giving my debater's strategy away. My point being, if the affirmative says the US should do x because it will provide educational opportunities to people who don't give them now and the negative is able to say that x is a bad idea compared to y then I think that the affirmative chose the ground and the negative found something within that ground to argue.

I am an old school "Get off my lawn" kind of judge. I have been an assistant debate coach for 18 years and I was a high school debater but not college. I prefer real world arguments with normal impacts nuke war and extinction really annoy me. I hate spreading and will stop listening if you word vomit on me. I can handle speed but double clutching and not clearly reading tags will be a problem. I am being forced to do an electronic ballot but that DOES NOT mean I want a flash of your stuff. I HATE KRITIKS but will vote on it if it is the only thing in the round. I prefer nontopical counterplans and will tolerate generic DAs if the links are specific. I like stock issues and policy impact calculus. I like quality analytical arguments. Teams who read good evidence not just camp and wiki stuff will get my vote.

Speaking with my daughter has really shaped me as a judge. If I can't understand the Affirmative team's plan during the first constructive then it is hard for me to root for them. I like to hear their points clearly, then the supporting evidence fluid and quick, but not mumbled. I like when the Negative team specifically identifies the stock issues or off case arguments.

If either team gets angry or offensive during a round I do not favor them for the rest of the round. I judge fairly and never allow my personal beliefs affect my decision.

I've been an assistant coach for 13 years.

I will weigh stock issues primarily but will take into consideration speaker ability. Topicality needs to be clear and convincing. Not a fan of counterplans. Please have evidence ready to share so as not to waste time.

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

Name- Preston Peer

School-Goddard High School

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

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

Currently a (check all that apply)

____Head HS Coach

X- Asst. HS Coach

____College Coach

_____College Debater

X- Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate

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

Feelins bout stuff-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Comments/Suggestions:

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

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

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

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

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 am a high school English teacher with a Master’s degree.

I did not debate in high school myself.

I have judged for years. I have judged NCFL Nationals before.

I have more experience in Lincoln-Douglas than anything else.

I am educated on the topic so you do not have to simplify or over explain it.

I debated for four years at Andover Central high school, four years at Wichita State University (career was 2010-2018) and am an assistant coaching for Derby high school. As a debater, I have gone for K and policy arguments both. I spent my first and fourth years in college debating mostly policy stuff but my 2nd and 3rd year debating mostly K stuff. I believe it is important not to bring any arbitrary rules to judging a round and I am willing to evaluate the arguments as they are presented rather than according to some preconceived paradigm. With that said, I have a number of thoughts about debate that I default to and will do my best to lay out my potential biases.

Email: dsaunders406@gmail.com

General things - Talk as fast as you feel comfortable, I will say ‘clear’ if I can't understand you. The less clear you are, the more difficult it is for me to hear the warrants of your evidence which means I will give it less relative weight as the debate proceeds.

I really appreciate it when teams will front load their arguments by putting neat labels at the front of the explanation. Also, I'm really bad at catching author names so try to extend your evidence with some reference to the tag or warrants. Having a last name doesn't hurt but isn't really necessary. I am annoyed when a rebuttal sound more like a bibliography than a persuasive speech.

I try to review the minimal amount of evidence necessary to make my decision and won't give much credibility to warrants within evidence that weren't also extended in the rebuttals. The gist of what I'm saying here is I'm more interested in what you have to say than what your cards have say.

Charts have gotten really big recently which is good but if you think your evidence is awesome because it has a lot of charts, you should be prepared to explain what they mean and why they are good. Just having a chart in a card is not necessarily self-explanatory. Just like you have to explain your cards, you should have to explain your charts.

I believe the minimal threshold for the extension of an argument is a claim and warrant. I don't care if you think your opponent dropped something, a blip of the tagline doesn't count as extending it.

My body language isn't a reliable indicator of how I feel about your argument.

Prep time - Cross-ex is three minutes long. As soon as the timer goes off, you're entitled to stop answering the question. Please be cooperative and courteous in cross-ex. I absolutely hate it when it takes a whole minute to answer a simple question because someone is trying to show off how cool they are. If a team wants to take prep to ask more questions, the other team isn't obligated to answer those questions but can if they want to. I may stop listening after the prep time starts though.

Disadvantages and counterplans - There isn't really much to be said here. DAs and CPs are an essential component of negative strategy. Counterplan theory stuff is below.

I believe that if the negative wins a conditionality argument, I have the option of judge kicking a counterplan even if the negative doesn't make an argument. The status quo is always an option.

Framework vs Critical affs - my personal preference is that the affirmative team reads a topical plan.

I think policy teams that treat framework like T and go almost exclusively for procedural fairness are making a strategic mistake. Even if you are right that framework makes the game work, you also gotta tell me why playing that game is good. My preference is that you just have a defense of why policy debate is good because it produces some skills/subjectivities/education/etc which outweigh k offense.

However, if you have a very strong topical version of the aff, I tend to me more inclined to the purely procedural fairness version. In all other cases, you are advised to go for some type of education offense.

When executing a topical version of the aff, it is the negative's burden to show how it resolves the aff's offense rather than the aff's burden to show it doesn't. Just like when the neg introduces a counterplan, they have to show how the counterplan resolves each of the aff's advantages. The neg block is advised to have a fairly lengthy discussion of the TVA where they discuss what parts of the 1ac and 2ac they resolve and why. People act like its game-over unless the 1AR has 5 or 6 good responses. T version will probably solve some of the aff's offense but it is not a round-winner by itself. You should generally focus more on winning your education offense outweighs their business.

Theory/T - I hold the team being accused of a theory violation to a higher standard than your average judge. I feel like too often teams get away with extremely lazy or non-sensical defenses of conditionality or pics or whatever. Although reasonability versus competing interpretations is a debate you can and should have in front of me, I find myself more compelled by the competing interpretations side of things. Don't tell me about whether potential or actual abuse really occurred or not. It's not very persuasive. The better strategy is to tell me why your interpretation is better. The absolute most important argument in topicality debates is proving your intepret limits outs a certain kind of aff and those affs are bad or includes a certain kind of aff and those affs are good. Everything else are pretty trivial. The magnitude of abuse needed to justify a ballot for theory is relative and not absolute. Those thoughts apply to both topicality and counterplan theory. All that said, you have to be very thorough when going for a theory argument. Simply saying 'delay counterplans are cheating because time skew' is not enough.

Kritiks - framework - The most important move you can make in a K debate is have a clearly defined, well-defended framework argument that tells me what we are doing when we are debating. Are we comparing policy actions or are we comparing sociological theories of violence or are we comparing the effectiveness of political performances? If both teams win that their thing should be included (i.e. we should weigh plans and ontologies) it often results in impossible comparisons. How do I compare the benefits of a plan to the benefits of an ontology? Personally, I don't think that can be done. You should make sure your framework describes some role for the other teams stuff but a role that that allows for comparisons. Simply put, a neg framework argument that just says I should include ontology in my decision is useless. A neg framework that says I should exclude considerations of the plan in favor of exclusive ontological analysis is preferable. I have seen a lot of talented K debaters loss in front of me because they had an incoherent or non-existent framework argument. Don't let it happen to you.

Experience - In terms of literature, I am most familiar with Lacanian psychoanalysis, Marxism, & Deleuze but have passing knowledge of the basic arguments in most bodies of literature.

Perm - It is the aff's burden to explain why the perm solves the links rather than the neg burden to explain why it doesn't. I don't mean to say that the neg doesn't have to answer perms. You obviously should. But if the 2ac only says "perm do both" and the 1ar repeats the phase, I think of that as the same as a claim without a warrant. A better approach is to say "the perm solves link #1 [blah blah blah], the perm solves link #2," etc. Meanwhile, the neg is best served by explaining why their links are resilient to the perm rather than reading a list of generic perm DAs.

Hey, I'm not an experienced judge. No, neither of your plans will result in a nuclear holocaust. Be respectful.

Background: 1 year High School Debate and Speech (Policy, Poetry Interp, Extempt). 1 year debate at Hawaii Pacific University (World Schools and British Parliament). 2 Years Debate at Middle Tennessee State University (IPDA/NPDA). 5 years teaching and developing high school and middle school curriculum for Metro Memphis Urban Debate League (Policy), 2 years as assistant debate coach at Wichita East High (Policy, LD, Speech), currently Head Debate Coach at Boston Latin School (Congress, LD, PF & Speech)

Go ahead and add me to the email chain: MEswauncy@gmail.com

Quick Prefs:

Phil/Trad - 1

K - 2 or 3

LARP/Theory- 4

Tricks - 5/Strike

Overall Philosophy: I do not believe "debate is a game". I believe in quality over quantity. Clear argumentation and analysis are key to winning the round. Narratives are important. I like hearing clear voters in rebuttals. While I don't mind a nice technical debate, I love common sense arguments more. This is DEBATE. It isn't "who can read evidence better". Why does your evidence matter? How does it link? How does it outweigh? These things matter in the round, regardless of the style of debate. Pay attention to your opponent's case. Recognize interactions between different arguments and flows and bring it up in CX and in speeches. Exploit contradictions and double-turns. Look for clear flaws, don't be afraid to use your opponent's evidence against them. Be smart. You need to weigh arguments.

I am typically a "truth over tech" judge. I think tech is important in debate and I pay attention to it but tech is simply not everything. Meaning unless the tech violation is AGGREGIOUS, you won't win obviously questionable or untrue arguments just because you out teched your opponent. Arguments need to make sense and be grounded in some sort of reality and logic.

I am one of those old school coaches/competitors that believes each debate event is fundamentally different for good reason. That means, I am not interested in seeing "I wish I was policy" in LD or PF. Policy is meant to advocate for/negate a policy within the resolution that changes something in the SQ; LD is meant to advocate for/negate the resolution based on the premise that doing so advances something we should/do value as a society; PF is meant to effectively communicate the impacts of whatever the resolution proposes. This is not in flux. I do not change my stance on this. You will not convince me that I should. If you choose to turn an LD or PF round into a policy round, it will a) reflect in your speaks b) probably harm your chances of winning because the likelihood that you can cram what policy does in 1.5 hours of spreading into 1 hour of LD/PF while ALSO doing a good job doing what LD/PF is SUPPOSED TO DO (even if you spread) is very low.

Theory I will not vote on:
Disclosure theory, Paraphrasing Theory, Formal Clothes Theory, Dates Theory. All of these are whack and bad for debate. If your opponent runs any of the above: you can literally ignore it. Do not waste valuable time on the flow. I will not vote on it.

Spreading theory: Feel free to run it in LD or PF. It is the only theory I really consider. Do not run it if you are spreading yourself, that is contradictory.

I "may" evaluate a trigger warning theory IF your opponents' argument actually has some triggering components. Tread VERY carefully with this and only use it if there is legitimate cause.

Kritieks:
I am not amused by attempts to push a judge to vote for you on the vague notion that doing so will stop anti-blackness, settler colonialism, etc etc. As a black woman in the speech and debate space, IMO, this approach minimizes real world issues for cheap Ws in debate which I find to be performative at best and exploitative at worst. That being said, I am not Anti-K. A K that clearly links and has a strong (and feasible) alt is welcome and appreciated. I LOVE GOOD, WELL DEVELOPED Ks. I am more likely to harshly judge a bad K in LD as LD is supposed to be about values and cheapening oppression and exploiting marginalized people for debate wins is probably the worst thing for society.

Tricks: No.

Conditionality: I believe "Condo Bad" 89% of the time. Do not tell me "Capitalism Bad" in K and then give me a Capitalism centered CP. Pick one.

Decorum: Be respectful, stay away from personal attacks. Rudeness to your opponent will guarantee you lowest speaks out of all speakers in the round, personal attacks will net you the lowest speak I can give you. I recognize that being snarky and speaking over your opponent and cutting them off in CX is the "cool" thing to do, particularly in PF. It is not cool with me. It will reflect incredibly poorly on your speaker points. Do not constantly cut your opponent off in CX. It's rude and unprofessional. WORDS MATTER, using racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic or any other type of biased phrases unintentionally will reflect on your speaks. We need to learn to communicate and part of learning is learning what is offensive. Using it intentionally will have me in front of tab explaining why you got a 0.

Lastly, there is no reason to yell during the round, regardless of the format. I love passion, but do not love being yelled at.

Public Forum Debate

Speed/Spreading: While I accept spreading in Policy rounds; I DO NOT ENTERTAIN SPREADING IN PF. I will absolutely wreck you in speaks for trying to spread in PF, and I will stop flowing you if it is excessive and you don't bother to share the case. That is not the purpose of this format.

Weighing: You must weigh. I need to know why I should care about your argument and why it matters. If you do not do this, you might lose no matter how great the evidence.

Impacts: If your argument has no impact it is irrelevant. Make sure your impact makes logistical sense.

I will ignore any new arguments presented in second summary (unless it is to answer a new argument made in first summary), first final focus or second final focus.

Lincoln Douglas Debate

I am somewhat annoyed by the trend in LD to become "We want to be policy". LD cannot do policy well due to time constraints and things LD is actually supposed to do. That being said if you choose to present a plan: I will judge that plan as I would judge a policy debate plan. You must have inherency, you must have solvency for your harms, etc etc. If your opponent shows me you have no inherency or solvency and you can't really counter within your four minute rebuttal, you lose by default. If you choose to run a K: I will judge you like I would judge a K in a policy debate. Your link must be clear, your alt must be well developed and concise. If your opponent obliterates your alt or links and you cannot defend them well and did not have time to get to strong A2s to their case, you most likely will lose. I am well aware that you probably do not have "time" to do any of this well within LD speech constraints. But so are you before you make the decision to attempt to do so anyway. So, if you opt to be a policy debater in an LD round; do know that you will be judged accordingly. :)

LD is meant to be about values, failure to pull through your value, link to your value, etc will likely cost you the round

Speed/Spreading: Spreading in LD will reflect in your speaker points but I can flow it and won't drop you over it.

Value/Criterion: Even if I do not buy a particular side's value/criterion, their opponent MUST point out what is wrong with it. I do not interventionist judge. I base my decision on the value and/criterion presented; make sure you connect your arguments back to your criterion.

Framework: UNDERSTAND YOUR FRAMEWORK. I cannot stress this enough. If your framework is absolutely terribly put together, you will lose. If you blatantly misrepresent or misunderstand your framework, you will lose.

I will ignore all new arguments after the first AR.

Policy Debate

Solvency: THE AFF PLAN MUST SOLVE

Topicality: I am VERY broad in my interpretation of topicality. Thus, only use Topicality if you truly have a truly legitimate cause to do so. I am not a fan of hearing T just to take up time or for the sake of throwing it on the flow. I will only vote for T if is truly blatant or if the aff does not defend.

Ks: If you are unsure how to run a K, then don't do it. I expect solid links to case, and a strong alternative. "Reject Aff" is not a strong alternative. Again, use if you have legitimate cause, not just to take up time or to have something extra on the flow.

Critical Affs: If you are unsure how to run a K, then don't do it.

DAs: Make sure you link and make your impact clear.

CPs: Your CP MUST be clearly mutually exclusive and can NOT just piggy back off of your opponent's plan. Generic CPs rarely win with me. (Basically, "We should have all 50 states do my opponent's exact plan instead of the Federal Government doing it" is just a silly argument to me)

Speed/Spreading: I don't mind speed as long as you're speaking clearly.

Fiat: I don't mind fiats AS LONG AS THEY MAKE SENSE. Please don't fiat something that is highly improbable (IE: All 50 states doing a 50 state counterplan on a issue several states disagree with). "Cost" is almost always fiated for me. Everything costs money and we won't figure out where to come up with that money in an hour and a half debate round.

Tag Team Debate/ Open CX: For me personally, both partners may answer but only one may ask. UNLESS tournament rules state something different. Then we will abide by tournament rules.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me before the round begins.

trinitywedel@gmail.com

History:

I did policy debate for four years at Derby High School in Kansas and this is my second year debating for Wichita State University- also my second year coaching at Wichita Northwest.

General:

I will default to the framing arguments made in the debate. That being said if you don’t give me a way to use my ballot I default to Policy Maker. I am cool with speed but I do still think that debate is a communication activity and persuasion techniques along with judge adaptation goes a long way.

Topicality/Framework:

If you go for it make it the whole 2NR- I generally default to Competing Interpretations. Lit checks abuse is not an offensive reason to vote affirmative. I do accept SPEC arguments because they are basically T.

I am particularly persuaded by framework- I do think however if the 1AC is identity then you should probably go for education/policy making good and not fairness. If you wanna win vs a K aff you need to have compelling arguments why their offense can be resolved or minimized with a TVA. I will still vote for a plan-less aff, so if that’s your style... go for it.

Theory:

I think condo is a voter but not if they read one CP and 7 DAs- read some impact D and stop wasting my time. In round abuse is very important to me if you go for this, also detailed stories of potential abuse would be useful in winning my ballot. I love neg CP fiat.

I don't think I lean a certain way on any other theory arguments.

Disads:

Love 'em. Duh-read specific links if you have them but analytical link stories that are logical will also win my ballot. I like 2NCs on the DA and case. If you go for the DA you must start the 2NR with the impact work an impact calculus to frame the way I should filter the rest of the speech.

Counterplans:

Also love 'em- I like the tricky ones like the delay CP (that's my shit). I'm cool with object fiat but I tend to lean aff on theory if the negative does not answer it very well- your blippy "don't reject the team" won't win my ballot. If the 2AR is just 5 minutes of CP theory that's boring.

Kritik:

After my first year in college debate I have radically changed my views on the Kritik. I am comfortable with K affs but I do believe you should relate your arguments with the current topic. I will probably understand the thesis level of your arguments but in depth comparisons and explanation of your theory is NECESSARY to win my ballot. I am particularly interested in the gender K's and that's what I debate consistently so that's the kind of K debate I would be the best at judging. The only way you can win my ballot if you kick the alternative is having very good ‘our link is a case turn’ arguments.

Rules:

No I don't think there are rules in debate. Yes I do think you can cheat. DO NOT steal prep- I will try to find a way to vote against you if I see you do it. If you want to delete analytics off of a speech document you can use your prep time to do it. Don't clip cards. I will not accept hatefulness toward the other team however I do think snarky comments and really bad dad jokes make the debate more entertaining. Jokes during speeches are also appreciated and will probably raise your speaker points. I won't judge kick anything for you so don't waste your speech time telling me I can.

I am much more experienced in forensics than I am in debate.

I have been judging all types of debate for a few years now, so I know the basics, but I generally prefer to be treated as an inexperienced judge (in other words, please speak fairly slowly and assume I don't know many abbreviations for the current topic).

I care most about competitors speaking clearly, acting professionally, making logical arguments, and having solid evidence to support those arguments.

I have found that I am difficult to be persuaded on Topicality arguments. I also REALLY don't like kritiks... And if you make a ridiculous stretch to something leading to nuclear war or human extinction, you probably won't win that argument with me.