·          I am all about direct clash.  

·          I have been known to vote for just about anything when it’s done well, but I am old and not inclined to like the performance debate.  

·          Criticisms are okay, if they have clear links and some way out of the impacts.  

·          I am not a fan of the "debate is limited to the people in this room" argument.  Either evidence matters and the debate extends beyond the round, or it doesn't and anything either team cares to say would seem to be fair game.  

·          I tend to vote on topicality when the impact debate is fully fleshed-out and the violation is clear.  

·          I will vote on theory arguments particularly when the impact on education or competitive equity is strong.  

·          Speed is okay, but if I can't understand card text, the evidence doesn't exist.  Tag lines are irrelevant.  

·          If an argument doesn't make it into final rebuttals, I won't weigh it.  I don't extend anything for you.  

·          I tend not to call for evidence after the round as I believe it is the debaters jobs to provide clarity regarding the meaning and key elements of evidence.  Doing so, in my opinion tends to lead to me reconstructing the round and intervening.

·           In the end, you need to explain why I should care about your arguments.  Give me reason to vote for you.  

·          I tend to default in the direction of the story that appears to be most true.

Debate can be fun or bad. Do what you are good at. Don't make the space worse. Your speaks will suffer if you're a bad person.

Put me in the email chain: jbrown5032@gmail.com

I am in my second year of debate at Wichita State and previously debated at Eisenhower High School (in Kansas) for four years.

Fast is fun but obviously not required. I should have flow time. If you are speaking too rapidly for me to flow, I will probably miss something and definitely not feel bad. Yikes.

Ps I don't flow off a speech doc and I will not look at your cards after round unless you tell me to look at specific ones. I won't debate for you.

ALSO WARRANTED EXTENSIONS NOT CLAIMS. Please.

My opinions:

I won't discriminate on arguments. Run what you want. Specifics below —

K affs- Cool. I debate k in college.

Policy affs- Also cool. I debated policy & soft left in high school.

K aff v fw- I lean aff. This does not mean framework is not winnable, however I think counter k's are better and more competitive against them.

T- If the aff is untopical, sure, run topicality. Just be the better debaters. If you read this in the 2NR along with other arguments I will not vote on T. T is not a backup plan. Make sure I know the impacts are when violations occur.

Cps- Good but be warned, I do think condo can be bad. Not that you can’t have conditional args, just that having 5 cps with multiple conditional planks is probably abusive. I can be persuaded to lean aff in scenarios like this.

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.

Mathew Grossman

Pronouns: He/They

Please put me on the chain and email if you have questions – mathewgrossman@gmail

Good jokes will get you extra speaker points.

Top Level for CJR

I have no experience on this topic and not a very in-depth understanding of the lit base, though I’d like to think I have some basic knowledge. Basically, I don’t know the topic-specific acronyms, so please say the actual phrase at least once so I understand.

Wheeee fun sliders

Team Adapts----------------x----Judge adapts

Condo bad----------------x-------condo’s cash money

Policy----------x------------K

CPs cheating-------------------x—Obscure Process CPs are fine

Reasonability---------x---------Competing Interps

Competition doesn’t exist-------------------x—Summers 94

Death good/Pomo is fine -x------------------------ I don’t like to have fun

Politics -x------------------------ Politics isn’t Intrinsic to the aff

Tl;dr

Speed: yes

Ks/K affs: yes

Policy: yes

Debate is a fun safe space to gain in-depth knowledge about a topic and honing rhetorical skills. Any actions that make debate unsafe for individuals will not be tolerated.

(Thanks for the paragraph Mika) There's no such thing as "tabula rasa," because all judges have certain preferences/biases/thresholds and they're different for pretty much any set of judges. That being said, I try to remove myself from debates as much as possible (sometimes I wish physically). I will always judge the round in the way I'm told to by the debaters in the round.

An Argument must have a claim, warrant, and impact. I’ve noticed most debaters’ complaints come by not properly developing out their arguments, leading to judge intervention. On the other hand, I feel this is where the most speaker points are earned. Properly impacting an argument with a strong warrant goes a long way to winning a debate.

There is not an argument I’m opposed to hearing. My partner and I’s favorite argument was Spark for what it’s worth. Death good, PoMo, the most obscure k on the Market™. The only exception to this is “x oppression good” i.e. racism good. You will immediately lose with 0 speaks if you make these arguments.

Debate Experience

I debated all four years in high school at Eisenhower (‘16-’20). I was primarily a 2A while in college. My last two years were spent on the TOC circuit, and my partner and I broke at several of these tournaments before unforeseen circumstances cut my senior year quite short. I wasn’t the best debater, but I’d like to think I was quite good at conceptualizing rounds.

Online Debate

I have no experience with debating online whatsoever. I’m in university, but the WiFi has had some brief periods of instability. I will try my absolute best to follow along and will stay with you on the speech doc.

Ethics Framing:

I would say I default to a utilitarian/consequentialist perspective and find myself struggling to understand non-utilitarian framings. This is not to say you can’t win these and if your main strategy is soft-left with heavy impact framing or something similar, don’t change your strategy. I don’t think I hold either side to a higher threshold in these debates, but I have a higher level of comfort with the arguments for util.

Impact Framing is a must here; if you don’t tell me how I should be evaluating impacts with respect to one another, I will default to risk assessment (magnitude x probability).

Ks (neg)

I like K’s, though I never ran them. The worst part of k debates is the dreaded 2nc roadmap “you’ll probably want another sheet for the overview.” This is almost always followed with the 2NC lbl being “that was the overview” over and over. The arguments are much easier to follow if they’re incorporated in your lbl.

Bad K debate is reading high theory cards at max speed without any explanation using generic links and no impact framing. K’s are a critique of the aff and should be contextualized to the aff. This generally takes the from of links generated from the affs phrasing/arguments/plan text/wherever else you find one. These links are way more persuasive than your 2:30 link card from sci-hub.

Although I haven’t read a k, I have read some literature on a variety of k’s (and you should too if you’re debating a k). That being said, I will treat every debate as if I know nothing about your argument. This means I will need an explanation of your theory in the debate, and an explanation of how the links relate to said theory. How does the alt solve this? If you aren’t going for the alt, how does your theory/links turn case?

Framework – This is generally where the bulk of your theory explanation will take place. Generally, the aff can weigh the plan if it still exists. I feel as though aff’s tend to be way too predictable and passive here and could benefit with some more creative answers. Get more specific and contextual against the k here; the neg’s definition will almost always be “lol you can’t have a plan neg wins L” but in fancy words. Point that out and be more aggressive and demanding with your framework interpretation. Cards are useful here if contextualized; just reading Barma doesn’t mean it’s game over, you still have to do the work on the k.

Links have to be unique and affs should not let the neg get away with as much as they do with their links. That being said, if the affs only answer to “state is bad” is no state bad links, the aff is probably losing the debate. Affs should engage with the theory; reading a plan text is a choice in modern debate, so defend that choice.

K affs/Fwk

Everything above applies, except topic generics are obviously understandable as you are critiquing the topic.

Framework – I think this debate is where the most biases come out in judges outside of death good. I default to debate being a game with a set of “rules” determined before the round. These rules change with debate, however, and I am willing to listen to any argument. If you’re reading a k aff I think it’s easier to win framework when it’s in the direction of the rez, but this is not a set rule at all. K affs should probably do something, but I have heard very convincing arguments otherwise (thanks Maddie Peterpan).

If you’re reading framework, I think t-usfg/must read a plan probably puts you in the best position to win with the most offense. Half-concessions like “must be in the direction of the rez” loses you most of your best offense. TVAs are a great tool; they don’t need to solve the whole aff, but their scholarship/rhetoric should be included under the TVA. Some affs may not have a TVA for them, but throwing it out there doesn’t hurt.

If you’re answering framework, breadth >> depth when it comes to DAs. I won’t understand your convoluted, analytical critique of state action read at 400 wpm without analytics in the speech doc and I won’t feel bad that I didn’t understand. Also, make sure your interp doesn’t link to your DA; I’ve seen it more than once.

DAs

I love DA debates. The more layers of turns case the better.

I find “DA/Case turns the Case/DA”, when done right, to be the most engaging debates. Comparison is the key in these debates.

I don’t think “UQ controls the direction of the link/Link controls UQ” are very convincing arguments and you’re better suited to mitigate their arguments another way. UQ is generally a prerequisite to the rest of the DA; if it’s non-uq, I probably won’t vote for it, though there are exceptions (link turns case).

Impact Framing is important to the DA debate, so don’t ignore it. Timeframe is usually a tiebreaker in my experience.

T

As a 2A, I really don’t go either way on reasonability. It’s quite an arbitrary argument but very useful at the same time.

We meets are terminal defense

T is a procedural. If you aren’t T, the rest of the debate doesn’t matter. I generally treat it like a DA; this means impact calculus/framing is vital to winning a T debate. As a 2A, I can be sympathetic to technical T arguments like subsets, but tech over truth; they’re not hard to beat if you just answer them correctly.

Precision and grammar are very important in these debates. A robust explanation of the grammatical inaccuracies or impreciseness of the opponent's interp are the most persuasive arguments on the T flow and go a long ways towards winning the argument i.e. if they define criminal as a person rather than as a modifier on justice.

I feel like cards in the block are heavily underutilized. The best T debates almost always have cards in the block, and you should too if they’re good.

CPs –

Are good and fun. If you have a common-sense counterplan but no card for it, you can say it analytically. Literature checks abuse in these debates (Literature does not mean the conspiracy theorist you found on the 45th page of Google results).

The aff's best answers to the counterplan are links to NB, perms, and DAs. Affs are so boring when it comes to perms; creativity goes a long way in these debates. DAs on CPs don’t need cards generally.

Theory/Procedurals

Theory spamming in the 2AC is a legitimate strategy and a personal favorite of mine. That being said, I rarely found myself going for theory and I think it’s usually an uphill battle. Theory follows the same rules as T most of the time. These debates tend to get messy, so keeping a clean flow and using clean lbl is vital. If you’re reading this part, good for you! If you send me a cute picture of your animals and I’ll give you +0.3 speaker points. If you don’t have one, one off the internet will do.

CX

Be nice please. There is a fine line between being assertive and being rude, and please don’t cross it. Ad homs/refusing to answer a question are massive pet peeves of mine in CX.

Speaker Points

Everyone’s “scale” is pointless and not indicative of their actual aggregate points.

Good things for speaker points – good impact calc, clarity, clean lbl, politeness, humor, pre-empting arguments, good clash.

Bad – not going straight down flow, “it’ll be a new sheet for the overview”, if I have to say clear, speeding straight through analytics, bad memes.

Carl Jacobsen

[any] I debated for four years at Eisenhower High School. I'm attending the University of North Texas as a sophomore, majoring in mathematics and minoring in linguistics. I tend to view debate rounds through a game-theory perspective and prioritize tech over truth (though every argument needs a justification and impact to matter). In high school, I ran policy affs and mostly went for policy strategies on the neg, though I feel comfortable with mostly every type of argumentation.

Add me to the e-mail chain: sneep23@gmail.com

Please no overviews! If you must read them, make them very short. If I didn't understand your argument the first time, I'm not going to understand it from you speeding through a wall of text. Everything can and should be on line by line.

Graphs

These graphs will be about my preferences, while the rest of the paradigm will be about more specific thoughts on strategy.

Team should adapt------------------------------X-Judge should adapt

Policy---------------X----------------K

Tech----X---------------------------Truth

(insert) Counterplans aren't fair---------------------------X----Counterplans are fun

Nothing competes-------------------------X------Summers 94

Conditionality good-------X------------------------Conditionality bad

Reasonability------------------X-------------Competing interpretations

Topicality

Topicality is a procedural. It primarily comes down to impact calculus, in terms of limits, or some other neg standard, against game-playing-esque impacts of the affirmative. Other aff arguments (including we meet & reasonability) are just defense to the neg's impacts.

A true we meet arg means the aff wins the page; reasonability can be won and is best framed as a question of interpretations rather than a literal "reasonability" of the case. Grammar is an a-priori standard and an intricate explanation of the other team's interpretation not being grammatical or legally precise will earn high speaks.

Additional interps in the block can be very strategic.

Case

A thorough case debate will result in higher speaks, as will a 2ac that's layered and efficient. A 1nc that spends a lot of time on case doesn't do much if all of their arguments are generic and answered well.

Collapsing the case debate in the block and reading the best literature for your arguments will usually put you far ahead of the aff, especially if you had a wide array of args on case in the 1nc. That being said, a 1ar (and often 2ar) collapse on case can also be very strategic.

Strategic concessions are underutilized on case, and can often take out entire disads.

Impact turns are fun, even large ones such as spark. "Oppression good" args are unacceptable. A block pivot to an impact turn will be rewarded.

Disads on case seem to be generally under-covered by the aff but have no less importance than a disad with a seperate sheet.

Disadvantages

"UQ/link controls link/UQ" args don't make sense to me, but links tend to be the most important component. DA turns case args are very powerful (especially so if you have multiple), and they are even better if they are UQ or Link turns case rather than "war causes their impact." Timeframe is underutilized by the negative.

New 1AR arguments are unacceptable, e.g. a non-uq arg when there were none in the 2ac, and a 2n who calls them out as new will be rewarded. But an additional justification for an argument that was in the 2ac, e.g. a "DIB collapse inevitable--reliance on Congress" card is fine if you have any UQ argument in the 2ac; answering new block arguments is always fine.

An impressive 1nr on a DA will earn high speaks. Extending multiple warrants from each card for every component, having case-specific link walls, having specific cards against individual 2ac warrants, and being knowledgeable about the institutions and topic of the DA make it very difficult for the 1a.

Politics DA's (particularly horsetrading) are good, but "fiat solves the link--bottom of docket"-esque arguments can be persuasive.

Counterplans

"Cheating" counterplans are fine, but always susceptible to theory. Permutations can beat them too, but few people tend to make the correct perms against them. Perm shields link arguments aren't usually answered well, so don't be afraid for going for a perm and one or two other args if you're aff.

I default to "sufficiency framing," solvency deficits have to have impacts to matter. Judge kick might be an extension of condo, but it doesn't often win rounds. I can also be persuaded that it's bad (this argument has to be in the 1ar unless the block makes no mention of judge kick, of course).

Kicking planks and even combining counterplan sheets are fine, but there can always be a debate.

Internal net benefits are fine.

Kritiks

Kritiks are very powerful arguments. I am most familiar with Baudrillard, kritiks of capitalism and security, and psychoanalysis. However, any kritik is fine if you have a consistent thesis and explanation.

Links should turn case and have independent impacts. Alt should solve links, and alt solves case arguments can be very good. Even if the alt doesn't solve case, going for it as a "uniqueness counterplan" for an extinction level impact to a link is good enough to win even with little case offense if you win the perm debate and that the alt solves the link completely.

You don't need to go for the alt if you're winning FW and/or a link well enough. Permutations need to solve every link and must be theoretically legitimate and possible, i.e. negs should argue the alt cannot be accomplished because the aff engages in institutions that the alt makes obsolete.

Aff FW interps are usually not ambitious enough and should include more that factors the intangible internal link chains of the K out of the decision-making process, since the neg team is doing such against the aff. Basically one should say more than "let us weigh the aff", as an interp, but including that phrase isn't a bad idea. You can still lose if you win your FW interp, but it's far more unlikely. Incorporating the substance of the K into your FW interp can make it more powerful.

Link uniqueness is a good thing for the aff to push on, but the neg can solve it with claims about discourse or their alt solving the link. The aff should always contest the thesis of the K and the solvency of the alt, at least in the 2ac.

Dropping K tricks will lose the round against a clever 2n.

Kritikal Affirmatives

I don't have any qualms with these affs, but I also don't have any issues with T-USFG. Use the case to leverage offense against T; impact turns are the best arguments against it. Winning debate is a game, a TVA, or switch-side makes a negative ballot much easier.

Cap K against K affs is always viable. Good links in the block and theory comparison is crucial.

Case debate on K affs is not used enough by either team.

Theory

Can always be a reason to reject the team. However, "reject the arg not the team" will almost always suffice for anything that isn't condo. However, if you're losing a debate badly and the other team drops a theory interpretation, this could be your best path to victory, provided you have reasons they should lose the round.

If you don't want to go for theory, going for a 'remedy' can be useful and possible: e.g. "stick them with the counterplan", "don't evaluate planks that violate the interp", etc.

Condo offense typically doesn't increase with the number of condo they run. Qualitative reasons condo is bad are more persuasive, and even one condo can be abusive in the right circumstances. If you're going for condo, the 1ar should be spending significant time answering every neg standard, and the 2ar should be entirely condo.

You can go quickly in theory, but signposting is especially important.

Finishing Thoughts

Speed is not a problem, but you must be comprehensible. Clarity is more important, and efficiency can more than make up for pure speed. Have fun, and making me smile is never a bad idea. 28.5 will be my average points awarded. Being rude makes it worse for everyone. Let me know if I can accommodate you in any way.

Jaret Jarmer-
Put me in the email chain: jaret.jarmer00@gmail.com or speech drop either is okay.

Please share using a word doc. it's not the end of the world if it is a PDF, but I really prefer a word doc

TLDR: I try to be as Tab as possible. Everything is up for debate. Run what you want. I'm cool with 9 off and case or 1 off K. If it's a K aff, just tell me what my ballot does, and win your vision of debate is better than your opponents.

Debate Experience:

Largest Debate Influence: Evan Manning

Policy: I debated for three years at Eisenhower High School 2016-2019 China, Education, and Immigration. Primarily in DCI and TOC-circuit tournaments. I ran pretty much everything from reading the K of politics as a 2A to Sparking myself. Name it, I have probably done it, so do what you want. Spark and Empire were my favorites, and I ran them both on the Aff and Neg. If you have a question about how I feel about an argument, ask me about it before the round.

PF: I debated PF for two years. I read pretty much everything I ran in policy. I got away with Debate is Bad and Spark more times than I should have. Just go for what you want. If it's not considered traditional, then win it's better than your opponent's vision of debate, and you will probably get what you want.

My opinions

Speed is fine

1. Tech over Truth

2. I will never refuse to listen to an argument or vote you down because of my personal opinions about an argument.

3. K’s- Are fine; that being said, please explain what my ballot does when I vote for the K. I find it very hard to vote for a K when I don’t know what my ballot means. I ran Hardt and Negri Empire, so past that, don't expect me to know your lit at all. Also, I think it is especially important to be clear on tags here - big words, difficult concepts. (K affs with or without a plan text are fine). The stronger the link, the better..... Links of omissions aren't the best, I think more teams should make the argument that speeches are time-limited.

4. Theory- I like theory debates. That being said, zooming through generic pre-written blocks without adapting them to how they apply to this specific round probably isn't the best strat. I feel like most theory debates don't have much direct clash. For me to vote on this, let me know what my ballot does. Win your vision of debate is better than your opponents.

5. DA – I think Specific links are better than generic links. This is very true when it comes to the PTX disad of the year. Impact turning disads is a fun strat. I don't see that much anymore.

4. CP’s- I love all the cheating counterplans you can think of.... Consult, Delay, etc... but an aff can absolutely win this is cheating.

5. T- If you’re going to go for T, go for T. Impacts of violating topicality can be very persuasive. T isn't an RVI, but please don't cold concede this and make me vote on it.

6. Impact Turns- Impact Turns are the best; please impact turn. I'd love to judge a good spark debate. Sparking was my pastime.

K Aff Stuff

Top Level Things

K Affs with or without a plan text are cool. I ran a K aff with a plan text that was a meta kritik. Just because something is my personal opinion on how an argument should function doesn’t mean I’m going to default to it. Tell me how to vote and what the world of debate looks like post my ballot. I think debate is a game, but the cool thing about this game is we get to debate what the rules are. The only literature I’m familiar with is Hardt and Negri, and Judith Butler. I ran Empire on the Neg most of the time and ran Butler on the Aff and the Neg. Outside of that, assume I have never heard of your literature before. So, zooming through the thesis of your K probably isn’t going to help you.

K Aff V Framework.

I prefer a K aff to have some connection with the topic. That being said, I’ll still vote for one that doesn’t. I just feel like the Neg is going to much easier time winning framework and abuse claims. I think teams should spend some time on real-world impacts to violating topicality. In my personal opinion, I don’t feel like reading framework is equal to genocide or violent; in fact, I think more teams should leverage real-world impacts to violating limits or topicality in general against the impacts of the Aff.

K V K

I’m down with K v K debate. They probably should clash. It was my default when I was debating a K aff. In the end, I need to know what my ballot does. I don’t feel like I have a preference on a response to a K Aff. Do what you're more comfortable with.

Speaker Points

(If I'm Judging IE events and the scale is out of 25, I will use this scale and subtract 5)

Copy and Paste from Austin's Paradigm

Speaking Style

Jokes and humor in the debate round is always great. The more fun the round, the higher speaker points you typically get. Keep the atmosphere positive.

Good CX = Good speaks.

(This scale is dependent on debate division.)

Speaker points for me tend to range around the following:

•≤25.0 - You messed up and yelled at someone, had a physical altercation, severe card clipping, false evidence, abused prep severely, etc.

•25.1-27.5 - You made multiple technical errors in the debate. At the low end, you might have stole some prep, clipped a card, et cetera. Your speaking was average to not clear across the board.

•27.6-28.9 - You did well in the debate. This is average, and you may have made minor errors with a good strategy. Speaking was clear the vast majority of the time, and you were courteous.

•29.0-29.8 - Wow, good debating. You were clear the whole time, and powered through the other teams' arguments effectively and clearly. Clear speaking the whole time, and your strategy had near-surgical precision.

•29.9-30.0 - Nearly perfect!!!

I prefer arguments that will be showing how America and her people will be benefited. I dont care for super emotional arguments and I value solutions to real world issues compared to other countries humanitarian issues.

Hello,

I am Austin Stiffler. I am a sophomore Biology student at the University of Kansas. I debated for Eisenhower High School in Goddard, Kansas (just west of Wichita), primarily in DCI and TOC-circuit tournaments.

*I don’t have too much experience with the Water topic this year—I’ll do my best to incorporate the evidence and acronyms together!

Put me on the email chain if available: austinstiffler01@gmail.com. Send me any questions you may have, too. (Speechdrop works too!)

Bias

I believe that every judge has inherent biases. Therefore, I have some stylistic and debate preferences. Those preferences may change in certain cases and over time. With debate preferences, I will try to remove biases from my decision calculus about the round.

I will react if I don't understand your argument/cannot hear you/think it is not good, usually by looking confused or leaning closer. I will nod if I like your argument.

I like well executed, prepped strategies just as much as risky strategies that are executed well on the fly.

Prep/Stylistic Biases

If available, email chain is the best option.

I would like to see a form of evidence read in the round in all debates.

Evidence sharing usually is off prep time for me within reason. That does not justify stealing prep from either team and/or prepping while emailing or flashing. I am sympathetic to computer issues.

Stealing prep is not good. Don't do it.

Also don’t clip cards.

Debate Biases

With regards to my debate predispositions, do what you are comfortable with. I will hear any argument that is not blatantly exclusionary. Arguments that I would instantly vote against a team for include: (Racism good, Anti-Blackness good, sexual violence good, sexism good, etc.)

Nuclear war good, death good, etc. don't fit in that category for me, but certainly could have negative impacts depending on how the arguments are utilized.

You should run whatever you wish to run. I mostly favor Case/CP debates, in-depth T debates, and good K debates. I love learning about philosophy, but may not have a deep understanding of every facet of the argument.

I will not compare team's evidence as a judge unless I am 1.) told to do so, or 2.) the round comes down to very close, technical warrants from evidence provided. Tell me about why the other team's warrants are wrong and yours are good. I won't make those arguments for you.

Specific links are always putting you more ahead in the debate than general links. General links are valid, just contextualize them and use conditional warrants in the card to establish a link. Cross ex is a great way to garner links, and is underutilized in my opinion.

Speaking Style

Jokes and humor in the debate round is always great. The more fun the round, the higher speaker points you typically get. Keep the atmosphere positive.

Good CX = Good speaks.

(This scale is dependent on debate division.)

Speaker points for me tend to range around the following:

•≤25.0 - You messed up and said some racist/offensive stuff, yelled at someone, had a physical altercation, severe card clipping, false evidence, abused prep severely, etc.

•25.1-27.5 - You made multiple technical errors in the debate. At the low end, you might have stole some prep, clipped a card, et cetera. Your speaking was average to not clear across the board.

•27.6-28.9 - You did well in the debate. This is average, and you may have made minor errors with a good strategy. Speaking was clear the vast majority of the time, and you were courteous.

•29.0-29.8 - Wow, good debating. You were clear the whole time, and powered through the other teams' arguments affectively and clearly. Clear speaking the whole time, and your strategy had near-surgical precision.

•29.9-30.0 - Nearly perfect!!!

T

I see competing interps as my default, as reasonability is probably a slippery slope with ever-widening margins. Reasonability needs justified by the specific aff, proving that the aff doesn't justify abuse, so some type of case list is beneficial for the aff. The neg might want a brief case list as well to demonstrate that they don't over limit.

T is a good argument to always run. It checks squirrely affs and checks abuse from an aff's plan text.

Ks

Specific links are always good. A bloc explanation of the alt is necessary. If you are arguing against a K, win the framework. Same with K affs. The side that wins framework wins the K, unless theory is dropped. (aka FW wins 99% of the time.) Perm/Alt double bind is great, too.

CPs

Specific counterplans are great. I am totally fine with Delay CPs, Consult CPs, whatever. The aff needs to make arguments that the counterplans are abusive and probably bad for debate. If the aff makes those arguments on cheating CPs, the aff probably has an equal chance to win the flow.

Condo is a thing that is valid. Conditionality is usually good, as long as it is not abused. I find that multiple worlds is legitimate, unless you run 25 CPs/Ks that all contradict and/or go for contradictory arguments in the 2NR. The aff can run condo bad in any circumstance; performative contradiction theory might be a better bet for more abusive condo. I won't vote against a team that abuses condo out of the blue. Run/tell me why condo is bad in this instance.

DAs

Once again, specific links are better. I love case-specific DA's. The neg should answer thumps well. Good DA/Aff outweighs and turns analysis helps you on the flow, as well as on speaker points. The 2NR/2AR on a DA needs some form of impact/DA/Case turns and outweighs to truly seal the win on the DA flow. Good timeframe analysis is quite beneficial, too.

Case

Case is underutilized in my opinion. Use your case against neg arguments, and the neg should develop some depth in case for most rounds.

I look forward to making new friends through debate, and watching more rounds!

Best,

Austin

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.