Hi! My name is Drew Anderson and I am a Financial Advisor. I have a bachelors degree and am in my 3rd year of working with people of all ages and goals. I was recruited to judge this tournament by someone who is a debate coach. I have debating experience myself, and I will judge this round based on the following: I am a policy paradigm which means I will vote for the team who debates the most convincing policy. If the debate is extremely close, your demeanor and delivery will also factor into my decision. DO NOT SPEED! Keep your arguments real (i.e. no generic impacts or end of the world scenarios.)

I lean conservative and I am considered a millennial, but I also have an open mind. I will judge you based on the arguments that you present without bias. Please don't assume that I already know wat's going on. It's always your burden to clearly state and explain your arguments.

I graduated from Blue Valley North in 2019 and I'm now a sophomore at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. I debated policy all four years of high school, mostly participating on the Nat Circuit. I qualified and went to the TOC my senior year, as well as going to other national tournaments like CFL and NFL throughout the years.

I don't know a ton about the topic this year, so bear with me. I judged a decent amount last year but haven't much this year. That being said, what is below should still apply.

My email is ellieanderson295@gmail.com if you want to add me to the email chain or have any questions.

GENERAL PARADIGM (Mostly applies to policy but read it anyway.)

Whatever your typical style of debate is, I'm probably fine with. However, I haven't judged a lot of rounds on this topic so if talking about super complicated jargon, take some time to clarify for me.

General Notes: I typically default to tech over truth, just because I think it's the best way to evaluate the debate that's the most fair for both sides and relies mainly on the skill of the debater.

I WILL vote on presumption if you prove the aff doesn't do anything-- a logical argument against a bad aff is better than a bad disad against a bad aff.

Topicality: I typically default to competing interpretations but can be convinced otherwise-- contextual definitions are good. Prove in round abuse.

Disads: If your disad doesn't make sense, it's going to take a lot to get me to vote for it, unless the aff also doesn't make sense. Spend time on impact framing in the rebuttals is extremely important-- especially if you're going for a DA without a counterplan. Disad turns the case can also be a very valuable argument.

Counterplans: You can read pretty much any counterplan in front of me but if it is super abusive and the aff makes a logical argument on why it shouldn't be allowed I will reject it. Most times I'll just reject the counterplan, not the team, unless the argument is really convincing. Judge kick is good.

K's: I'm good with most K's until you start getting into POMO stuff-- aka I'm not a fan of Baudrillard and similar authors, but will have a good time if you read K's like anti-blackness, neolib, queer theory, etc. I think you need a coherent explanation of your alt and if you can't understand it you shouldn't be reading it.

Theory: Condo is usually good unless it's absolutely and obviously abusive or dropped by the neg. I'll listen to any theory argument but probably won't vote on it unless I can see abuse in round, again unless it's completely dropped.

Feel free to ask me any questions if I forgot anything, good luck!

I am a fourth-year Assistant Debate Coach at Garden City High School. I did not debate in high school or college, but I teach History and Government. I expect for debaters to understand how government works, especially in regards to how their plan works (How is the plan passed? What powers/functions do each of the branches of government have? What government entities are regulatory agencies?)

I do flow debates. However, please don't take this to mean that I only want to hear tags, and then given a demonstration of speed reading. I would much rather see a concise argument with evidence that directly applies to the case, and a demonstration of your understanding of said evidence.

I'm not a big fan of extreme impacts (I find it relatively unlikely that a plan conceived by a high school student will lead to global warming or nuclear holocaust). There had better be a pretty strong, direct link for me to vote on those kinds of impacts. Be reasonable.

Topicality is not typically a voting factor for me - if you choose to take that route, it should be clear-cut that the plan is not topical.

Beyond that, please be civil to your partner and opponents. If you are rude to, or condescending to a competitor (or myself) that will likely affect my decision in the round, and definitely speaking points.

I have been coaching debate since 2008, and debated 4 years in high school. I did not debate in college.

General things that grind my gears:

Don't be a jerk. Assertive is fine, but there is no need to mock or belittle anyone, or make things personal.

I cannot stand any kind of game playing around sharing evidence. I don't care if you disclose or not before the debate, but once you've read it, I can't think of a reason (that is flattering to you) why your opponent should not have access to it for the entire debate round. I will vote a team down for this practice if their opponent makes an argument about why it is a bad with an interp, violation, standards, and voters.

"New in the Two": to my mind, this argument makes the most sense when it is with regards to new OFF CASE. But, in any event, it's not a "rule", so run it as an arg with an interp, violation, standards, and voters, and debate it out, don't just cry foul.

POLICY DEBATE

Framework: I default to policy, but I am happy to adopt a different framework, as long as I am told how and why I should do that. I like framework debates.

I am evaluating the round based on impacts. You need offense to win. I will vote aff on the risk of solvency if there are no impacts on the negative. In a round where neither team has any impacts, I'm voting negative.

Flowing vs. Reading Evidence: Put me on the speech drop, but I keep a flow, and that's what I want to evaluate the round off of. I want you to read your evidence to me and tell me what it says and why it matters. Pull warrants rather than tell me to read the card for myself.

Speed - I don't prefer a very rapid rate of delivery, but in the context of an open, policy centered debate, I can keep up with a *fairly* rapid rate. If you are not familiar with your K literature well enough to teach it to someone within the time constraints of the round, don't run that arg. When it comes to something like your politics disad, or your topicality standards, speed away.

Theory - I love theory debates. Topicality and other theory debates are fun when they are centered on the standards part of the flow.

Any other questions, ask away.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

I believe that LD is a value debate, and I consider the value and value criterion to be paramount. I want you to tell me that you win the debate because the contentions prove that your side of the rez leads to your value, as measured by your criterion. In fact, if you wanted to give that analysis on the bottom of every contention flow, that would be pretty great.

I will evaluate the round based on the arguments made in the round, so if your idea of what LD is differs greatly from mine, you can still win the debate as long as you do a better job of justifying your framework. This doesn't seem like the easiest path to my ballot, but I don't aim to intervene.

Any other questions, ask away.

WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATE

Background: I have judged and coached this event over the last 6 years, however I only participate in 1 WSD tournament every year, at NSDA. I love this event, and I do not want you to make it a different event!  That said...

I do my best to adapt to the norms of the event, and I hope you do as well. WSD is scored holistically, so while my flow is important to the "Content" portion of the holistic rubric, it is not the be-all, end-all of the round. 

Consistency Down the Bench - The factors below are all to each speech, but also it is important that the side should have a consistent approach, telling the same "story" across the debate - this includes things like identifying key clash points, and may also include things like team lines and intros/conclusions, both within and across speeches. I love a good rhetorical device spread out across each speech. I should see consistency in terms of prioritization of key arguments.

Style (40%) - Speeches should be presented in a clear and engaging manner. Consultation of notes/prepared speeches are fine in my book, but care should be taken to look up and engage with the judge. Speech should have a natural flow. Rate of speaking may be somewhat faster (though this is certainly not an expectation) but should be clear. It should NOT sound like a fast policy round. Spreading is not the strategy for this event. Speeches should begin with an attention grabber and a roadmap. More on that under content.

Content (40%) - I do keep a flow, and I expect clear signposting of arguments, and an intro that gives me what I would call a "roadmap", but, see above. I am fine with debaters grouping arguments and not necessarily having a highly detailed line by line, but I do appreciate debaters who start at the top of the flow and work their way down. When you jump around, it makes it harder for me to see connections between arguments, and that is important to determining key points of clash. The organization of your speech should be clear and consistent. In third speeches, I generally expect there to be some line by line, but I also think this is where teams can begin to identify clash points/key questions. Reply speeches should narrow the debate down to key arguments - I really expect you to get away from a line by line here and crystallize the debate.

Strategy (20%) - Third substantive points should come out in the second speech, at the bottom of the order. They should be strategic, taking the debate into a somewhat different direction - the best third substantives throw a curve ball at it the other team. The handling of POIs is very important to the strategy score - when taking POIs, you are the boss of your speech! The default should be to ignore the POI until you get to the end of a sentence and refuse the POI. You should say no thank you more often than you say you'll take a POI (generally, you take 2). When offering POIs, be careful not to barrack (asking a POI EVERY 20 seconds), but I am all for offering at a time that is going to throw your opponent off. I like it when teams offer a lot of POIs, and they don't need to be questions.

I debated 4 years in high school up to the Varsity Level, and have a preference for slower, more analytical styles of debate. While I can follow spreading, I much prefer to be able to vote based on the arguments themselves rather than one team being able to out-speed the other.

The main thing I don't like to see as a judge are rounds that divulge completely from what I consider more traditional debate. Things I'm okay with: stock issues, DAs, CPs, T, Ks. If you want to make an analytical argument without evidence go for it, provided you're being logical and not just making up BS.

Things I'm not a fan of: The aff not actually having a plan, Topicality on a period, Performance Affs, CXs that become 2 people yelling at each other. In general it's fair to say that if what you're doing in a debate round would make someone of medium experience say "What on earth are you doing", then I probably won't like it. Other than that, so long as you understand the arguments you're trying to make I'm game.

Last thoughts: Be polite but not subservient, make sure you're actually debating the other team instead of dancing in circles around them, put arguments in your own words without dumbing them down (again, I want to know that you understand the points you're making). I'm always open to answer questions before the round if I missed something, and providing comments after if they're wanted.

I will vote on anything as long as it makes sense! I did a lot of debate in high school. Don't be rude or stuff like that. If you spread do it clearly.

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.

I have been the head coach at Blue Valley High school for the last 28 years. Before that, I debated in college at the University of Missouri Kansas City and in High School at Shawnee Mission West.

I am primarily a policy maker as a judge. I will filter all arguments through the lens of what policy I'm voting for and if it's the best policy on a cost-benefits analysis. Kritiks should also be filtered through this lens unless the team issuing it presents really compelling reasons why my policy lens should be suspended. I have a high threshold for the Negative on Topicality. The plan has to show clear abuse to the negative or future negatives through its interpretation in order for me to be persuaded on topicality. I would rather see counterplans run non-conditionally since affirmative plans rarely get to be conditional. However, this could change based on who convinces me in the round.

Stylistically, I still feel like debate should have some element of persuasion to it. You should be able to speak extemporaneously at me at times and not just read off your laptop. Talk to me about why you deserve my ballot through the issues presented. I hate open cross examinations because I feel like they tend to make one of the debaters look weak and another look domineering. I can listen to a fairly fast round but I don't like speed being used when it is not necessary to the the round. I should be able to understand your evidence as it is read to me and only have to look at it if I need a deeper understanding or context. Be polite and be efficient in sharing files so we're not all abusing prep time.

I operate under the mindset that the Aff and Neg have defined roles within CX Debate. The aff needs to propose a substantive change to the status quo that is germane to the resolution. The neg needs to argue for a retention of the status quo - either through that status quo being good or less harmful.

I am a judge that does not generally like K. I believe that CX Debate operates within a defined set of rules and boundaries, and that Ks refusal to work within that set of rules and guidelines fundamentally harms the structure and fairness of the debate. If you are going to run a K, please attempt to link it to the case.

That is not to say that I am wanting conservative HITS style arguments. Make it unique and interesting! Not a fan of Topicality arguments, so maybe best to avoid those as well.

Please put me on the email chain. Email: vbchavali@gmail.com

I debated at Blue Valley North (2016-2019).

Currently, attend USC (not debating).

**Judging at BVSW will be my first round hearing anything on the new topic.**)

About Me - I am willing to listen to any argument (barring ethically suspect arguments). It is always possible to persuade me to vote in a certain direction, regardless of my ideological alignment. However, like any judge, there are certain arguments that are a little more difficult to persuade me to vote for, and I believe having some insight on how I debated might clear up some confusion. As a debater, I primarily went for left-leaning, policy arguments. All of my affirmatives had a plan text, and the majority of my 2NRs versus policy affs were either a CP and DA, DA and case, or T. On rare occasions, I went for the K, but those never extended beyond the neolib/security scope of things. Versus K-affs, I never had a 2NR that wasn't framework.

Overall - Debate is a competitive research activity. The bounds of that research are confined within a predetermined topic of discussion. This doesn't necessarily mean that the discussions within debate need to be a policy advocating for USfg action, but they should be centered around the words in the resolution.

Topic - Overall, I have a basic level of familiarity with the topic Please do not blaze through acronyms and specific terms of art, because I will likely be very confused.

Framework/K-Affs - I'm unlikely to understand as much as you think I do. Please explain. This doesn't mean read an overview for 4 minutes off your laptop. Like I said above, debate is a competitive research activity. Both the aff and the neg should attempt to reconcile what this means, or offer a more compelling alternative to what debate is.

Ks on the Neg - Like above, your theoretical jargon will likely sound like nonsense. I'm typically very convinced by arguments that prioritize pragmatism over critical evaluation. Letting the affirmative weigh their plan and having links specific to that plan encourages more fair, educational discussion.

Disads - Uniqueness and link arguments are almost never yes/no questions and explaining them as such frustrates me. As a debater, you should be making comparative claims between your evidence and arguments with that of the opposing team.

Counterplans - Advantage counterplans are obviously better if they solve the internal link to the aff's advantage. Its difficult to persuade me that counterplans that subsume the affirmative are theoretically legitimate.

Case - Like you'll see in every other paradigm, this portion of the debate is underutilized, especially by the neg. On the neg, you can really mess with some teams here. Beefy case arguments and impact turns can really throw off 2ac organization and create openings elsewhere. Impact turns are really interesting and often have better evidence quality than most disads.

Topicality - I'm typically more convinced by reasonability than competing interpretations. This argument will likely require more explanation given my unfamiliarity of the topic. Specifically, I'm a little confused by the conditions arguments this year. If you can, please enlighten me.

Theory - Please actually speak slower. I'm the slowest flower I know.

I debated 4 years at BVHS. I am much more familiar with KDC style of debate. if you want me to make a good decision within your best interest there is a couple of big things that would be useful to keep in mind.

Relevant background

I have a Bachelors in Information Systems and a Masters in Information Technology. If you make arguments surrounding the tech space please do not twist the authorial intent of the work to better fit your argument. I understand that this can happen when approaching any topic to bolster your argument but I will be acutely aware of how tech arguments will actually function around the case. While I will not let my own biases overrule how the argument is evaluated in round, it will likely change how much weight I give to the opposing team if they were to question the validity of your arguments. That being said, I don’t expect you to have a comprehensive understanding of everything, I just want you to understand how my background might impact my decision making process.

Speed

Speed is okay, if you consider yourself to be pretty fast I’d say I could handle you at an 8/10 on speed. I am more familiar with slower rounds. Definitely don’t go too crazy wit it tho. I will be flowing, I wanna be in the speech drop and/or email chain. If i mishear anything I’ll be sure to ask. nwclark3000@gmail.com.

Topicality

I have to say this policy topic has shown me that I have a high threshold for the negative when evaluating the validity of topicality arguments. Don’t get me wrong I like topicality debates and I really enjoy a solid line or argumentation in this regard but I’ve noticed I seem to be flowing those args more in favor of the aff teams this year so be weary of this.

K’s

Suffice to say I was not graced with the ability to evaluate K debates very well. That being said, I have enjoyed learning and watching these rounds play out whenever they magically appear before me. I think it’s interesting and fun to watch how teams approach it. If I’m in a round where a K is being whipped out I’m probably the odd one out in a panel or smthn and honestly more power to you if that is the case get the bag frfr.

Misc.

Try to be nice in cross. Theory args are aight, counterplans are gas, generic disads are fine as long as link is good. If the round is a total mess then impact calc can get you the W. Run something crazy that I have never seen before. Please extend the warrants of your cards not just the tags or I will cry and have a panic attack and then I will explode and then die and then nobody will win the round and you will live the rest of your life with my blood on your hands.

This is me when you decide to not kick out of a weak argument that everyone knows isn’t going anywhere and spend 2 minutes in your rebuttal inventing new reasons that I should vote for you on it: Link

Policy Maker Paradigm that also takes T into account. Small town KS former debater and coach, neg arguments I like are DA, CP, T, and solvency. I'll follow anything on the aff side, but if you have a Kritikal Aff you better know how to run it. I expect Impact Calc at the end of the round to pick up the win.

I will fairly evaluate every argument in the round, but I will disregard theory, K, and T arguments if you don't know how to run them.

I debated in high school at Dodge City High from 2000-2004. I prefer moderate to slow rounds with lots of analysis and argument development. I grew up on stock issues debate but lean toward policy making at this point.

I look for well articulated arguments and a demonstration of understanding. Anyone can get up and read evidence, so show me that you understand how that evidence proves the point you are trying to make. I prefer good analysis of a few arguments rather than a large array of arguments. (Don't spread!)

Not everything leads to war.

Be nice to each other.

Email: bcunningham7373@gmail.com

In addition to doing debate all four years in high school, I'm currently on my fourth year of coaching it. I'm open to anything really, especially if you're able to articulate your points well. That being said, I'm not fantastic with K's. I'm not saying you can't run them, just do so at your own peril. It is greatly appreciated if you explain them. As for speed, you can go fast so long as your clear (especially if I have access to your evidence).

I'm a big fan of T and on case, but like I said, open to anything. I'll also pay close attention to any framing arguments made. I vote on stock issues, that includes things like T and Inherency. A more skilled, more eloquent aff team will lose if they drop or neglect something like that.

Above all else, I love good clash and a friendly, educational debate.

Don't be a jerk (I used to have a different word here, but tabroom has since smited me for my hubris), I will vote you down on it.

My main concern when judging a round is whether or not I can understand what is being said. If a speaker stumbles over a lot of words when reading a case, it shows lack of preparation for the round. If you use vocabulary that is not in everyday language, you should define what you referencing, especially if you are using acronyms. I appreciate when the arguments have a nice flow to them. Evidence is extremely important to me. I like to see good sportsmanship, so being polite to the other team is key.

Email chain: chris.delacruz.ku@gmail.com

Background: I did policy debate & speaking events in forensics at Field Kindley High School in SEK for 3 years. I graduated in 2003. Never even considered college debate. I was a Lawrence Free State HS assistant debate coach in Fall 2019. I haven't engaged with debate since 2020.

Approach: I lean heavily policymaker because my region preferred it but I have been pushed to embrace theory oriented debate as well. I view debate as a space where big ideas or practical ideas can be presented, challenged, and evaluated. Though policy is easiest to do that with, theory can be evaluated as well. As such, I'm more substantive and less technical as a judge. A debater that aims to actually win arguments has a better chance of winning my ballot.

Speed: I average 1 tournament per year for the last decade which is both good and bad for you. The good news is: I've been outside the culture long enough for my debate career biases to be diminished. The bad news is: I don't get the practice required to keep up with speed. My speed tolerance is moderate.

CX: I rarely flow CX. If I hear a question and/or response that sound like they should be weighed, or might come back, I'll add it to my flow.

Topicality: Run T at your leisure. I will never punish you for running an argument in earnest or as strategy. Just try not to waste your own time on it if you don't truly believe in it and plan to go for it. You'll lose out somewhere else and that's just sad.

Disadvantages: I will go where you lead me when it comes to advantages vs disadvantages. Just try to make the story coherent. Help me out, don't conflate disads and turns.

Kritiks:Remember, I judge 1x per year. I can follow theory, but I don't know your authors unless they're dead philosophers. Run theory at your leisure, but don't rely on shorthand to debate for you.

Counterplans: I love a good counter plan but I won't go out of my way to connect the dots for you. PICs are fine. It's the affirmative's job to beat them.

Prep Time: I'm not a clock watcher. Don't abuse it.

I've been the head Debate and Forensics coach at Shawnee Mission North High School for 11 years.

The most important thing I look for in a debate round is politeness and manners. I get extremely irritated when debaters are rude or condescending. That being said, I do not shake hands, but will gladly exchange smiles and pleasantries.

As a judge, I would describe myself as a policy maker, but I am still working on my flowing. I prefer traditional arguments over critical arguments.

In general, make smart arguments, and I will listen. I follow moderate speed, unless you are unclear. If I can no longer follow, I will stop flowing. Please feel free to ask me any other questions you may have.

I am an assistant debate coach at a 6A school. I don't mind a fast pace if it is articulate. I follow the arguments that are carried through the whole round and those that are logical are the issues I care about. I am comfortable with topicality arguments if well-structured, generic disadvantages as long as there is a link.

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.

Educational background:

Bachelor degree in rhetoric and communication with a focus on persuasive effectiveness (Kansas State University - Manhattan, KS)

Master degree in secondary education with a focus in English language arts (Western Oregon University - Monmouth, OR)

Specialist degree in literacy leadership and assessment (Walden University - Minnepolis, MN)

Profession:

My background has a plethora of experiences in various fields. I teach all levels of high school ELA classes at Newton High School and am an assistant debate coach. Also, I've taught undergraduate composition and speech courses at a variety of local community colleges and currently serve as a consultant for graduate-level business communication coursework at Wichita State University and Alamaba A&M University.

Judging Preferences:

At heart, I am a 'flow' judge. I expect clear and respectful speaking that addresses stock issues and does not attack an individual debater or team. (Poke holes in the argument instead.) I am not a fan of counter plans since this tactic usually does not address Aff's presented arguments. Communication skills and the resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance to me. I prefer a moderate contest rate so long as the presentation is clearly enunciated. Please provide real-world arguments and if addressing topicality, be sure to pair it with other major issues addressed in the round.

Clearly outline arguments

Framework is important :warranted offense + line by line defense = RFD

Put me on email chain: Jamison12182000@gmail.com

Experience: I debated for 4 years at Piper HS. I have a state title and l've debated at NCFL.

Voting: I vote mainly on the substance of the arguments and lesser so on speaking ability. I'll vote on any argument that is made unless properly refuted. If you tell me why I should vote on something, I will. Even if its unrealistic, thats not my determination to make, its the other teams job to point that out. Impact calc is a must.

Preferences: If there is unnecessary toxicity in the round, it will hurt your standings with me. Dont be mean, or belittle your opponents, make sure the integrity of debate as an intellectual sport is not compromised in the round.

Speed:I can handle any speed, but PLEASE make sure that your speed is able to be met by everyone in the round. This keeps it fair for those of all abilities.

Feel free to ask me before the round if you have any specific questions. Thanks for reading!

Hello

I am currently the assistant debate and forensics coach at Topeka Seaman School District. I have three years of High school experience in debate and over 9 years of judging/coaching experience. Generally speaking, I consider myself a tabula rasa judge. I vote on the arguments or framework presented in the round itself. Outside of tabula rasa, I tend to default towards a policy maker mindset. In terms of speed, clear communication and professionalism are important in determining who is the better speakers. In terms of speed, clear communication should be prioritize over how much information can be delivered in a speech. Counter plans are acceptable and should be non topical. When presented, they should be competitive to the affirmative case and mutually exclusive. Topicality is very important voting issue. To win topicality, negative team must present a compelling reason why their interpretation and violation meets the burden of the off being untypical. Generic disadvantages are okay as long as specific links are analyzed, but on case disadvantages are preferred. Kritics are acceptable in round if links are clearly analyzed. I prefer to hear case specific kritics rather than generics ones.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

I was a high school debater from 2008 -2011.

I have been judging debates since 2011.

I went to Kansas State University and Study Aviation and obtained my pilot licenses.

I spent 2 years at Garmin in the avionics department.

Currently I work as an Aviation Insurance Underwriter.

For Debate I prefer to see arguments on the stock issues. I prefer debaters not just read cards. Cards are important, but I like analytical arguments from the debaters to help link cards to the case and support the arguments being made. CP's can work as well. It is more important for the teams to make strong arguments on a single issue than to make 100 mediocre arguments. Speaking quickly is alright. Speed reading / spreading is discouraged.

If you have any questions please feel free to ask.
Good Luck.

I have worked with the SM East Debate program for 3 years. You may run any arguments that you want. Be prepared to explain if reading multiple cards. Read at the speed you are comfortable with.

please add me to the chain– kareemhammouda@gmail.com

I’m a junior at KU. I debated in high school (open). For the 3 years since I’ve been coaching at SMS, mostly working with novices/2nd years. The extent of my knowledge on the topic is the novice case-list.

Because I did open, i’m most comfortable in slower debates.

I'm most familiar with policy oriented arguments, as this is the extent of my experience; However, I am absolutely open to other arguments as long as they are explained well.

Please be organized, signpost, provide roadmaps, etc.

Tell me how you want me to evaluate this round–ex. impact calc is important.

Disclosure is good

Cut cards ethically

Don't clip (I pay attention)

Racism/sexism/ other isms won’t tolerated, and will lose my ballot

TLDR; I’m a policy maker fLAY judge

If you have any specific questions let me know!

I competed in high school debate in a small 4A/3A school for four years in the late 80’s, was part of K-State’s CEDA national championship team in the 90’s. I coached for about 10 years before taking a break to raise kids and I am now in my 5th year back.

I know debate and my coach's heart is strong. . . but I am better at the older style of debate than the newer style of debate.

Important:

1. My most important rule is “Be Kind.” There is a reason this activity needs to be accessible to all. Don’t pollute the activity that I love.

2. I used to say speaking fast is fine. I am editing my paradigm now to say that the recent fast rounds that I have judged have not been articulated clearly enough for me to understand. In the end, this is still a communication activity. Additionally, mindless reading of blocks without clash is not good debate. Please flow and put your arguments on the flow. You shouldn't be able to speak from just a preloaded block on your computer. I enjoy line by line argumentation. I expect summarizing and explanation in between. I appreciate speed most when it is utilized to analyze and weigh responses and dislike when teams spread through unwarranted responses to attempt to overwhelm the other team.

3. I am probably closest to a policy-maker or a stock issues judge, but am willing to consider other paradigms if you want me to.

4. I expect you to weigh the round and analyze the voting issues in the final rebuttals.

5. Please include me in any email chain or evidence sharing, but I will probably only look at the evidence if it's important to my decision and 1) someone asks me to or 2) I think it sounds misconstrued.

6. I will not evaluate any K's, or theory arguments unless you tell me how to approach the argument and how it weighs in the round. Don’t get me wrong, I am willing to listen to K's, although I have little experience reading or evaluating them. If you run these arguments, please avoid excessive jargon. You are going to have to be super clear.

7. Cross-ex is for questions not arguments. You will get a lot further with your argumentation if you save it for the speech. I don’t flow cross-ex and usually am working on the ballot during that time.

8. I will vote on topicality if necessary.

9. I will not vote on vagueness unless clarifying questions are asked of the affirmative in cross-examination AND their case becomes a moving target.
10. I will not vote on disclosure theory. Just debate the round.
11. I know that I am old school, but I believe that feeding your partner what to say during their speech or cross-ex makes that partner look weak. Trust your partners. They are smart people.
12. I hate rudeness and will penalize. Don’t put another person down and don’t try to make them look stupid . . . other than that, speaks are based on strategy/arguments, not style/speaking ability. I stick to 27 - 30 for speaker points unless you are rude, condescending, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

I am frustrated by excessive tech time (there is a reason that we added prep-time). Please keep a fair track of your time. I don’t want to have to worry about it. But don’t cheat on time.

If you have any questions, ask before the round. I will do my best to give you meaningful feedback about your strengths in the round and how I think you can improve on the ballot.

Best of luck! Have fun! Enjoy! Form connections . . . that’s what debate is all about!

I was previously a debater at Olathe South and have judged numerous rounds in the past. I do default to a Policymaker judge but I am open to hearing most arguments.

I like a clean flow above all.

Speed: I can keep up with a more rapid pace but I want to hear a round that falls below the speed of spreading.

DA: The only thing here is that I expect a clean link chain.

CP: Will listen to any CP you want to bring, although it should allow for a two sided debate.

K: Wasn't much of a K debater when I was around but if you'd like to read one I will listen to it. However, if the flow is messy or hard to follow, it will fall further down on my reasons for voting NEG and could cost you the round.

Topicality: T is great. I will listen to any and all interpretations but if you're gonna go for it, go for it full bore.

Theory: I ran a few theory arguments myself in Highschool so nothing will really surprise me here but please, if you're going to go for theory as your main voter, go all in with plenty of blocking.

Case: I love a good case debate. Solvency turns are the best. Defending case arguments in the 1AC is important when it comes to whether or not I am voting AFF at the end of the day.

Please add me to the email chain! My email is johnnyhiggins0@gmail.com

I debated at St. James Academy for four years in high school (graduated 2017), and I have assistant coached there for the past three years. I do not have experience judging this topic yet, so you may not be able to assume that I know the particulars of your plan.

I am most familiar with policy style debate, but I will consider anything as long as you justify it in a convincing manner. I realize 'convincing' is subjective - what I mean is that it should be clear that you understand the argument you are making, provide logical analysis, and contextualize it within the round. I think that clash is very important, and I always appreciate a substantial, nuanced debate.

I am okay with speed, so talk however fast (or slow) you are comfortable with. Clarity is very important - if I cannot understand you, I cannot flow your arguments.

I lean tech over truth, but with some exceptions (e.g. I won't vote on death good). If an argument is dropped and the warrants are extended, they win that arg. Overall, make sure that your evidence and warrants justify your claims.

I will not just vote on your tagline, but also on the warrants for the tagline. If these don't match, then you're not going to have a great chance of winning that argument if the other team points out this discrepancy. I appreciate evidence analysis - some of the best debates I've judged have involved detailed evidence comparison and analysis. If the other team is reading bad/problematic evidence, it is your obligation to point it out.

I really like a good line-by-line analysis, so don't be afraid to go down the flow. In that regard, make sure to signpost and make it clear where you're at on the flow. Sometimes this is not done and it makes for a very disorienting experience. In order to make sure I flow your arguments correctly, it is important to be clear.

Case debate is highly encouraged - you need both offense and defense!

I love impact comparison, so don't be afraid to spend time on this. Probability and timeframe are just as important as magnitude - make sure to compare impacts across these dimensions as well. One nuke war impact vs. another is a wash, but an argument that one scenario is more likely than the other will break that tie. More generally, in your rebuttals I think it is important for you to compare the world if I vote for you to the world where I vote for the other team.

T: Go for T if you want to! I'm open to vote on anything except highly spurious, nitpicky T arguments (for example, T-substantial must be x% - the aff would have an easy time convincing me why this is not a great argument). I think that the justification for your interpretation is important - why does this interp lead to better debate? How does it more fairly limit the topic? Explain to me why topicality is important and worth signing my ballot over. Depending on the severity of the T violation, it may not be enough to automatically win the round unless you do an excellent job on the T flow or the aff messes up big time. However, I think it is generally an important component of a neg strat and will always consider it. My general default would be competing interpretations over reasonability. The burden is on the aff to justify reasonability - if you're going to claim it, you have to really make a convincing argument as to why this leads to better, fairer debate. Don't just read off a theory block and move on, spend some time making it clear why reasonability is a better standard.

If the aff is super vague or shifty, I will entertain a vagueness argument. I think it is important that the affirmative provide a clear case and don't shift and clarify throughout the debate. More generally, I am open to vote on theory arguments so long as they are well-run and don't involve just reading a generic theory block provided with little explanation.

DA: I am down to listen to whatever DA's you want to run. I will vote on the most generic to the most specific. That being said, plan-specific links are generally better than generic (of course, this may not be feasible - it's just more convincing if you can articulate how the plan itself will link). I am totally fine with politics DA's. My general word of warning with DA's is that I will not weigh your impact as heavily if the logic of the disad isn't very clear. You need to provide a logical link and internal link chain and tell me how we get from link to impact. Please emphasize the warrants of your evidence and how they relate to the story of the DA. I am fine with any impact, but if presented with two scenarios of equal magnitude, timeframe, and probability, I will prefer the one which provides a more specific, tangible scenario.

CP: I am pretty much okay with most CPs with a clear net benefit (agent, advantage, process, etc.), except for delay CPs or other ones which just seem like cheating to me (like delay, plan plus, conditions, etc.). I won't necessarily vote against a something like a delay CP outright, but it won't take much for the aff to be able to convince me why it's not a great idea. For CPs, I think that competition is important and that the neg must establish their net benefit well. For me, it is preferable when the neg can provide specific evidence demonstrating how the CP solves the aff better, but it is not necessary. If you win the flow, you win the flow. I would default to condo good, but I can be persuaded if you can demonstrate how the neg's behavior is abusive and detrimental to debate. I think that neg does get fiat, so unless you can make a very convincing, unique argument in this regard (or if the aff completely drops), I would not count on me voting for it.

K: I was not a K debater, but I'm not anti-K. Given my relative lack of experience in this regard, I would hazard against running kritiks unless you believe you can convince me why I should vote on it. I will likely not be overly familiar with the literature you're reading, so it may require explanation. I believe one of the major factors in my consideration regarding kritiks is the degree to which the link (and generally, the underlying theory of the K) is articulated. If you do a great job illustrating how the K is germane to the round, then I will certainly weigh it seriously. On a related note, I have virtually no experience running, debating against, or judging K Affs - if you are set on running one, I cannot guarantee that I will be able

* very out of date ask specifics in round

About Me:

graduated from onw in 2019 and was in policy for all 4 years. dabbled in forensics but it wasn't for me. in policy i competed in both kdc and dci throughout my years.

Standards/Norms:

cx - open or closed is fine just agree to one and please be kind to one another.

speed - signpost and slow for tags. i dont have issues understanding speed but may use "clear" for you. i request that all debaters agree on whether the round will be fast or slow regardless of the division. please communicate the work on the flow for me, and tell me what goes where.

Case:

Harms and Inherency are somewhat important. If they are debated, I honestly could and would vote on them. (I.e. if nothing bad rn - no reason to pass the plan, and the plan best not be already existing, fam)

I am one of "those" people who will vote on solvency and only vote for "try or die" for the aff if I am told to. If there is no solvency, there are no advantages.

DAs:

Please try your best to have a specific link and/or a clear story. I like most DAs and will still vote on a generic link. An Aff answer of "it's a generic link" is never enough. I enjoy impact work and probably will want some from both sides.

CPs:

Delay CPs are abusive, I can and will listen to it though. Condo good/bad and other theory args are fine if you want to make them. Advantage CPs can be fun especially when paired with a turn on the other advantage. Neg - please have a clear net benefit. Aff - I appreciate a good perm or multiple perms other than "perm do both."

Ks:

I am not familiar with kritiks enough nor on the lit of this year to evaluate a debate on them. Though I have debated them before, don't run one in front of me. If I had to evaluate one, I can and will, but really don't want to.

Framing/Impacts:

I like framing, and if it comes down to me making a decision solely on impacts, if you do the work and run and extend framing I will probably vote on it. Impacts should be extended. You can run terminal impacts with me, and impact turns are fine, though I do prefer structural impacts and ones that are more predictable/probable.

T:

I will vote on topicality and feel that standards and voters are important. Please extend them and respond to them, if you don't, there is no reason to vote on it. I think jurisdiction is a good voter, and that predictability and reasonability are good standards. I like competing interps. Please don't just say "hurts limits and grounds and is a voter for fairness and education," give me more.

SPEC/Vagueness:

I don't really like many, if any, SPEC args, but if there is a good line-by-line I will vote on it. Please ask for the clarification in cross and prove in-round abuse.

I think vagueness is a good argument and like it as a solvency deficit or with an un-intentional consequences impact. If there is enough for it to be on its own flow, please give it it's own sheet, if not, put it on solvency. This argument, if held through the round, most likely will factor into my decision.

OVERALL:

I guess I am a stocks judge ??? I like impact work and more technical and strategic arguments if they can be made, and made well. Saying that, I do feel like stock issues (for the most part) come first. Most importantly, there should be clash (and flowing to produce said clash). If arguments are just being read, extended, and going without responses, I am not going to know where to vote.

*** this is my old paradigm, as of fall 2020 i lean more tab ***

I am fairly new to debate so I am still learning some of the fundamentals of debate. I prefer debates that are reasonably slower pace with a bent towards flow policymaking.

andie.keck@gmail.com

Policy maker, not a fan of topicality, not impressed by rudeness in cross-ex, explain your arguments, moderate speed is preferred

Email: Harunage@gmail.com

good for...

good debate is nuanced (good anything is nuanced). I do not like nebulous discussions (e.g. if you pass a UBI please have some general dollar amount).

fine with speed better with clarity.

I like teams who run toward the battle. I will reward those who have courage and valor with speaker points and those who slink to the shadows of 9 off with low 28s.

debate should be about who has the more wealthy school district and who paid for a better debate camp -- Jean Baudrillard

don't read process counterplans -- unless it is a good process counterplan --

if i am frowning i think you are not explaining well

if i am nodding a lot i think you can move on (i do not agree with anything you all say because I only know things about computers, math, and physics and that is where my knowledge of the world begins and ends)

If i am doing nothing this is because I have completed the eight-fold path and am sitting in a state of nirvana.

I think paradigms are silly -- I think there is so much Entropy in a debate round that no one can give formulaic descriptions of how they evaluate debates or how they think about debate? I think this is mostly a product of debate's nebulous nature and therefore the less nebulous you make the debate the easier it is to guide me to a decision. The more you describe in generic detail about space or financial planning or whatever it is you are describing the more my brain will formulate the rest of the argument FOR you and that is something that you will not want because then I will default to what I know and as I have said above I mostly only know?

If you are reading a "complex argument" it should be communicated to me simply. Much like a good educator, a good debater can take the arguments they read and represent them simply -- why can they do this? because they have a mastery of the subject they are communicating about. If you cannot do this you should read more about the arguments you are using!

Permutation do both, to me, is a claim with no warrant (we can do both -- how?) and will not be written on my paper unless there is a description of how both happen. My caveat? negative has read 9 off you can say perm to both in the 2AC and the 1AR can extrapolate. Technical language to a limit. AND please PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE understand that I CANNOT UNDERSTAND you when you say perm..perm..perm..perm.. at 300 words per second. unintelligible analytics read at top speed while flouride-staring into your computer will result in me NOT flowing. Non-starter, my threshold for speed on analytics is very low. My threshold for clarity in cards is very high -- if the text you are reading sounds like garbage mumbled together i will clear you. every time i clear you, you can be sure that I DID NOT flow anything you said previously because I could not hear you.

debated 4 years at Washburn Rural

Email: alake@tps501.org

I debated 4 years in High School, and 4 years for Washburn University for parliamentary debate. I now coach at Topeka West High School (8th year). I am a flow centric judge and I am willing to vote on anything that is articulated well with a clear framework. I can handle most levels of speed so long as you are articulate. It is in your best interest to start relatively slow and speed up as the speech progresses (crescendo). The rest of this judge philosophy is how I will default in the event that you DON'T tell me how to evaluate a position (but why wouldn't you just tell me how I should evaluate the position?).

Lincoln Douglas Debate

I believe that an LD round is decided by both the aff and neg presenting a value, and a criterion that measures the achievement of that value. I vote aff/neg on the resolution by evaluating the contentions through the winning criterion to see if it achieves the winning value. I am very flow centric and will weigh arguments that aren't answered in favor of the other team. I am not a super fan of turning LD into policy debate but if you argue for that and win that position then I will play ball. I am fine with speed. If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round.

Policy Debate

Overall, net-benefits.

Theory: I love theory debates. Generally I will evaluate them through competing interpretations based on the standards and which standards I am told are most important.

Advantages/Disadvantages: Generally, uniqueness controls the direction of the link; extinction and "dehumanization" are terminal impacts. A 1% chance of a disad/adv occurring gives that team offense for the ballot.

CP: Counterplans should be competitive and switch presumption from the negative to the affirmative. Thus, the CP has to give me a net-benefit over the case or a perm to warrant a ballot. I am willing to vote on CP theory if those arguments are won.

K: I wasn't a big K debater, but I have argued them and judged them frequently. You should be able to explain your K, its framework, link, impx, alt and alt solvency. Buzz words, and name dropping are not a substitute for the former explanation. I am willing to vote on framework and similar arguments if those theory arguments are won.

To me,

*communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are roughly of equal importance,

*fairly rapid delivery is acceptable so long as the presentation is clearly enunciated, very rapid speed discouraged,

*CPs are acceptable if justified and if consistent with other elements of the negative strategy 

*Generic DAs are acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed

*Ks are acceptable even if inconsistent with other elements of a team's strategy

Substantively, tread lightly IF attempting to mitigate harm. Also, don't overstate/oversimplify complex issues like racism, sexism, discrimination using platitudes. Stylistically, should go without saying, but don't be too clever for your own good and don't be abrasive to your opponent, including personal attacks/insults. Treat one another respectfully, or you may find yourself on the losing end of my ballot.

Hello - Is this thing on?

What did the Zen Buddhist say to the hot dog cart vendor?

Make me one with everything.

What do you call the wife of a hippy?

Mississippi

Do you know the last thing my grandfather said before he kicked the bucket?

"Grandson, watch how far I can kick this bucket."

For the person who stole my thesaurus, I have no words to express my anger.

I have been and English teacher for 30 years - I have judged debate (as an assistant Coach) for 6 years. Therefore I like reason and intelligent argument debaters who have researched enough to know what they are talking about.

I prefer actual conversational debate, but speak as fast as you like (as long as I have your speech/evidence in front of me) speechdrop, please

I am basically a TABULA RASA judge. Counterplans, kritiks, disadvantages, topicality - it is all possibly a winning move if it is done well.

I respect debaters who know their evidence well and can concisely clarify during cross-x.

A big plus for actually understanding how government works so that you can formulate a reasonable plan/counterplan - know what the IRS is actually responible for - know the powers ennumerated to the federal government and therefore what is relegated to the states

I generally do not enjoy nuclear annihilation arguments - unless they link clearly. Sometimes it does, but most of the time it does not.

Head Coach --- Goddard High School

Former Head Coach --- Bishop Carroll Catholic High School

15 years experience

> > > I know a lot about debate, arguments, and the topics you are debating. Make the round interesting, clash with your opponents, and tell me why you win in the rebuttals. < < <

AFF Cases

You must defend an advocacy. I strongly prefer policy cases, but I am not opposed to a K aff that is run well. Don't waste my time with ridiculous / meme affs... you may argue these "for the lolz," but you'll be taking the L.

On-Case and Impacts

I love on-case arguments and weigh them highly. Impact calculus is always appreciated. My favorite stock issue is inherency, and I consider it an independent voter.

DAs

I don’t weigh generic arguments. You need to win the link or argue something different. Uniqueness does not mean there is a risk of a link.

CPs

I love them, but CPs must be competitive, and you must convince me of your net benefits.

T

Topicality ensures fairness and is an independent voter; however, I don’t mind effects topical plans that can be defended. Make sure the abuse story is explained well.

Ks / Theory

Not my favorite arguments, but you can win them if you convince me to accept the world of the alt.

Delivery

Good presentation beats speed any day. This is a public speaking activity, not a race. I understand faster cards, but your tags and analytics should be enjoyable.

Evidence

Add me to the chain: immagivethe3nr@gmail.com

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Stealing evidence, clipping cards, playing on your phone, and other forms of unsportsmanlike conduct all result in an auto-loss.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

T.K.O (Technical Knockout) Policy:

If at any point before the end of the debate you think you've won beyond a reasonable doubt (if they drop T, double turn themselves, are proven to be non-inherent, makes a strategic error that is unfixable, etc.) you can stop the debate by invoking a TKO. I'll then evaluate the claim that the team invoking the TKO makes. If that team is right, they'll win on a 3 with 30s. The other team will lose on a 7 with 20s. If a team TKOs and is wrong (does not meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold), they lose on a 7 with 20s.

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

Head coach at Shawnee Heights High School in Topeka, Kansas. Assistant coached for Lawrence High School and Seaman High School. I'm a flay judge who errs on the side of a policymaker. I listen to most args, but if we're going to talk about T, please don't claim unfairness/education with the most common aff of the season. Also, I tend to think that delay CPs are cheating 99% of the time.

ksumccoy@gmail.com

Introduction

I'm an assistant coach for debate and forensics at Blue Valley North. As a theater and English teacher of nearly 20 years, interp. events are probably my strongest area. You should probably see me more as a community judge with some background in the event rather than someone that pays close attention. I'm more of a sponsor than a coach most weekends that just makes sure students get to their rooms. As of October 2023, I have only judged a couple rounds and have little contact with the topic research file.

Policy...

I know this isn's succinct and what advanced debaters are going to want to hear or debate to, but I hope the following helps.

1. I'm a theater and English Lit. teacher first. Don't just read at me. I think this is an oral communication event. Communicative issues and telling the story are still important. I'm not going to try to listen or flow speed. Honestly, I'm tired of people reading a powertag with a whole bunch of stuff they don't really understand or not linking it to the round we're in. I'll jump on the email chain/speechdrop, but I'd rather be listening to your rather than reading highlighted text.

2. I'd like to think that I'd listen to just about anything in the room and be willing to vote on it, but I'm probably a policy maker who prefers reasonable and probable impacts over magnitude. I haven't had a lot of Ks to consider or vote on so I'm not sure how I feel about them philosophically. I'm not a games player that will vote a team down for missing one minor arg. on T in the 1AR. I don't like ridiculous spreading args. from the neg. that then kicks everything that doesn't stick. I'd rather have a couple speeches debating the merits of an argument and find some depth than shell out ten things that don't matter.

3. I'm good with judge instructions. Explain to me why I should be voting a certain way. I'm not going to be reading every sentence of your evidence and make the arguments for you. I'm also not an expert in the event that will know every piece of the game y'all do.

4. If you open the abuse story in the round, you better not be doing it elsewhere. I think new in the 2 is typically slimy if off case, but I'm primarily talking anything running a ton of T you plan to kick in the 2NR, turning CX into a speech, stalling finding a timer and prep time, fiddling with the file share, et al. If you waste time on an abuse story when you could have used that time to debate this issue, or your opponent points out you were just as or more abusive in the round, I'll vote you down for wasting our time discussing it. Debate the topic.

Congress

I've scored a few rounds in Kansas invitationals over the years. Probably 5-10 rounds. I've used Congress as a model for various classroom activities and projects in my English and Speech classes and worked with students here and there on some speeches. I enjoy an efficient and respectful chamber with obvious connections and clash between speeches to show active listening. Yes, speeches will be prepared with credible evidence and relevant sourcing, but there should be clear sections responding to the debate in the room. Strong POs will be considered in ranking. As a theater director for 10 years, I'm used to watching the entire stage. You are always "on" in a session. A congressperson who is listening, engaging, efficient, and respectful will be rewarded over one who is simply domineering.

LD - I've judged these rounds here and there and at the national tournament, but it has been awhile. Be sure to take care of the value and VC debate as that is the framework that lets me know how to vote in the round. Evidence to show how real world examples have worked are great, but don't forget the values work. This is why I like this style of debate. We aren't focused primarily on the policy but the ideas and values. If you keep that in mind and can explain it for a theater/English teacher that prefers a communicative style, you'll have a better chance at the ballot.

PFD - Well, this is something I haven't seen a lot of, so I'd encourage you to look at the other comments regarding LD and Policy and cross apply to this event. Haven't coached it. Only seen a few rounds of it.

I'm between a flow and a lay judge. I can follow arguments very well, and typically try to flow rounds. I will struggle somewhat with high-speed talking, but as long as I'm provided evidence I can manage. Composure and logic will help convince me in rounds, however, it is not the deciding factor for me. I am mainly a stock issues judge, but I am able to understand things as complicated as a K (Theory). The burden will be on the AFF to prove that they will solve completely, and if that is disproved then NEG will win. Although, the NEG will have to do a substantial job of demonstrating how the AFF doesn't solve.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current Director of Debate at the University of Northern Iowa #GoPanthers!

high school = Kansas 2012-2016 (Policy and LD)

undergrad = Emporia State 2016-2020 (Policy)

grad = Kansas State 2020-2022 (Policy Coach)

edited for the youth

Updated 4/18/24

Policy Debate

Yes, put me on the email chain.Squiddoesdebate@gmail.com

Virtual Debates --- Do a sound check before you start your speech. Simply ask if we can all hear you. I will not dock speaks because of audio issues, however, we will do everything we can to fix the audio issue before we proceed.

SEND YOUR ANALYTICS - if you want me to flow every word, it would behove you to send me every word you have typed. I am not the only one who uses typed analytics. Don't exclude folks from being able to fully participate just because you don't want to share your analytics.

The first thirty seconds of the last rebuttal for each side should be what they expect my RFD should be. I like being lazy and I love it when you not only tell me how I need to vote, but also provide deep explanations and extensive warrants for why the debate has ended in such a way to where I have no other choice to vote that way.My decision is most influenced by the last two rebuttals than any other speech. I actively flow the entire debate, but the majority of my attention when considering my decision comes down to a flow-based comparison of the last rebuttals. If you plan to bounce from one page to the next in the 2NR/2AR, then please do cross-applications and choose one page to stay on. That will help both of us.

I think debate should be an activity to have discussions. Sometimes these discussions are fun, sometimes they aren't. Sometimes they are obvious and clear, sometimes they are not. Sometimes that's the point. Regardless, have a discussion and I will listen to it.

I don't like to read evidence after debates. That being said, I will if I have to. If you can make the argument without the evidence, feel free to do so. If I yell "clear", don't trip, just articulate.--- If I call for evidence or otherwise find myself needing to read evidence, it probably means you did not do a good enough job of explaining the argument and rather relied on author extensions. Please avoid this.

Your speaks start at a 30. Wherever they go from there are up to you. Things that I will drop speaks for include clearly not explaining/engaging the arguments in the round (without a justification for doing so), not explaining or answering CX questions, not articulating more after I clear you. Things that will improve your speaks include being fast, being efficient with your words, being clear while reading evidence, demonstrating comprehensive knowledge of your args by being off your blocks or schooling someone in cross-x, etc. If I significantly hurt your speaks, I will let you know why. Otherwise, you start at 30 and I've only had to go below 26 a handful of times.

my range is roughly 28.7-29.5 if you are curious for open and higher for Novice becauseI love novice debate

Prep time, cross-x, in-between-speeches chats, I'll be listening. All that means- be attentive to what's happening beyond the speeches. If you are making arguments during these times, be sure to make application arguments in the speech times. That's not just a judge preference, it's often devastating.

I like kritikal/performative debate. I did traditional/policy-styled debate. I prefer the previous but won't rule out the latter.

this is less true as I judge more and more high school debate but it is still true for college debate.

General Tips;

have fun

slow down when reading the theory / analytics / interps

don't assume I know everything, I know nothing in the grand scheme of things

don't be rude unless you're sure of it

Ask me more if you want to know. Email me. I am down to chat more about my decisions in email if you are willing.

LD

• theory is wild. i don't know as much about it as you think I do
• tell me how to evaluate things, especially in the later speeches because new things are read in every speech and its wild and new to me. tell me what to do.
• I love the k's that are in this activity, keep that up.

Congress

I reward clash. If you respond to your opponents in a fluent, coherent manner, you will get high points from me.

I am not the most knowledgeable on the procedures of Congress so I don't know what tricks of the game to value over others. But I'm an excellent public speaking and argumentation coach/professor so I mostly give points based off of the speeches than the politics of the game - i.e. blocking others from speaking, switching/flipping, etc.
For P.O.'s --- I reward efficiency and care. I feel like some P.O.'s take things super seriously in order to be efficient but they come off as cold and unwelcoming in the process. P.O.'s who can strike a balance between the two get the most points from me. I don't keep track of precedence so you gotta be on top of that. I don't time speeches, that's on you as well. I just vibe and look for clash.

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.

Background:

Most recently, I debated for Washburn University for about a year (including LD, Worlds, and Parli). Before that, I attended Derby High School, where I debated at the varsity level for two years and competed in several forensics events at the varsity level for four years (including DX, Info, OO, and PFD).

Preferences:

Spread to your heart's content - I was in debate for too long to have an issue with speed, but please be clear and slow down on important content (plan texts, tags, perms, etc.).

I like to flow, so you should be flowing too. Flowing is how we all know what's going on in the round. If it's not on my flow (or you didn't make it clear enough in the round), then I have an issue weighing it/voting on it.

I'm fine with Ks - however, don't abuse this. Ks and K Affs are great when they make logistical sense in the round, but don't just start throwing them around because you don't know what else to do - that gets messy. Also, if you are running any form of a K, I would hope you would know it well enough to explain it fairly easily.

I'm fine with FW - I think it makes a lot of sense when you frame a round, and I especially appreciate it on the K debate.

I'm fine with theory - go wild. However, make sure you're being strategic with theory and not just throwing it out to have another off case argument because you can.

I'm not big on generics - if you are running off case arguments (or really any arguments), they better link and you better make it clear that they link. Give me a story, don't give me random tags.

Summary:

I like to think that I'm pretty chill, so as long as you're chill and nice to other people, then we're going to have a good time. Feel free to ask me any questions at any time!

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.

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

Name- Preston Peer

School-Goddard High School

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

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

Currently a (check all that apply)

____Head HS Coach

X- Asst. HS Coach

____College Coach

_____College Debater

X- Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate

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

Feelins bout stuff-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Comments/Suggestions:

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

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

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

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

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

***The big picture***

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

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

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

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

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

***The Details***

Disads

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

Counterplans

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

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

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

Critiques

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

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

Topicality

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

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

Speed

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

Former high school debater although some time ago. Current assistant coach. I primarily look for good logic in arguments that are well supported by your evidence. Common sense arguments can speak loudly. I'm not the best with very rapid speed but I absolutely try my hardest to keep up.

(1/14/22 State Update) - Even with as many rounds as I've judged, if it's a very topic specific acronym or something...just explain it. Also, I have not updated my actual paradigm for like 5 years now, but most of it is still accurate. The wearing of masks has also made it where my upper half of my face is very expressive...sorry. I am also a tired teacher currently. Also, I have ADHD - I promise I'm paying attention/listening even if I'm not making eye contact or look like I'm doing something else/staring off in space.

_____________

Debated 4 years at Emporia High School (Transportation - Surveillance). Debated primarily DCI circuit my senior year if high school, went to NSDA nats and placed top 25. I did not debate in college.

Currently in my fifth year of coaching at Emporia High School. I also am in my 2nd year of teaching at EHS, but I did not coach the 2020-2021 season due to us taking a year off for COVID.

I tried to be as precise as possible in this, ask me any clarification questions if need be.

If it's an email chain, add caylieratz [at] gmail [dot] com to it...but please use speechdrop at this point if possible.

General Comments: I'm not extremely familiar with everything on this topic, so if it's something uncommon please try to explain the acronyms or other things to me. Please try to have clash in a round. Don't make me do the work for you. Extend your arguments with warrants or I won't count them as still existing in the round. Tell me why you're winning the round. Write my ballot for me if you have to. Don't be rude. Don't be sexist. Don't be racist. Flashing is off-time unless you take a bunch of time doing it and hands-off prep while it's happening. If you clip you lose.

Cross-Ex: CX was one of my favorite parts of debate. Please use this to grill your opponents about the nitty-gritty of their ev and their arguments. If it's open CX, I expect the two people who are doing the CX to do most of the talking unless it's a couple of questions being asked, or if it is a clarification answer. Don't be rude in CX. You can interrupt your opponents if it's warranted, but not to just be rude. Don't talk over one another and don't turn it into a shouting match. I think you all can really win arguments in CX, but you have to do it respectfully - but with clash.

Speed: Speed in fine but please ease me into it. SLOW DOWN on your tags and analytics, so I can understand them. Make sure you emphasize the tags and the things you want me to listen to, and please make sure you emphasize when you're going to the next card or flow.

Disadvantages: Disadvantages are completely fine with me. I think they should probably link, but you do you. I prefer real-world impacts, but if you have to run a NoKo or Nuke War impact then that's fine, just make sure you do the impact calc debate and/or analytics on it.

Counterplans: Counterplans are fine, but conditionality is probably a voter if you run more than one. They should probably be advantageous to the aff. Make sure your counterplan can actually solve the aff.

Kritiks: I am unfamiliar with most K literatures, as it was not what I debated in high school besides neoliberalism and biopower. I will listen to a K, but you need to be able to explain it to me super well and cut the jargon out of it. Don't just spread a K at me and expect me to understand - if I look confused, I'm probably confused. I also think the alt should probably solve unless you can convince me otherwise, but I lean heavily on whether or not the alt can solve.

T/FW: Topicality is important, but make sure you explain the violation/standards well. I probably lean toward reasonability more than competing interpretations, but the debate it yours to get me to sway either way. On other theory, conditionality, multiple worlds, and perfcon are something I look into when it comes to rounds only if the argument is made by the team. I don't believe in disclosure theory unless you're going to run a super squirrelly aff. On FW with a K, see the above note on K's for that you need to explain it to me fairly well, and you should probably have a ROB.

Extra things: Drop a joke and make me laugh. I am fairly expressive in my facial reactions - whoops - when it comes to listening to things. Ignore that I probably won't make lots of eye contact with you, but I will look up every now and then. If I'm not flowing and you're saying something important or you're on a K/FW you're probably going too fast. I like Hamilton references.

Hello! My name is Chase. I am debate coach in southeast Kansas.

I use a tabula rasa ("clean slate") paradigm, so it is important to teach me your framework. Tell me how to evaluate the round. I do believe stock issues and comparative advantages are equally important. Counterplans and kritiks are acceptable if they are well-structured and thoroughly-explained. As for theoretical arguments, such as topicality or specification arguments, I think they're important, too, and I will resolve them before weighing other arguments in the round.

I am most attentive during roadmaps, signposts, taglines, emphasized words, summaries of evidence, and points of analysis. I sometimes lose interest while you are reading cards. I prefer relevant arguments that you can articulate and explain. Your arguments should have strong links, internal links, and probable impacts. I don't think debate is a "game." I think it is a search for truth.

As for speed, I prefer a moderate pace. Communicate.

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

I think you should have content warnings if your arguments may push this debate into uncomfortable territory.

Quick Background:

I debated for four years in High School (Lansing HS, KS) from 1998-2002, I debated for four years in college (Emporia State University, KS) from 2002-2006, Coached one year at Emporia State from 2006-2007, and from 2007 to present I have been a coach at Topeka High School (KS) where I have been the director of Speech and Debate since 2014. In terms of my argument preference while I was actively debating, I dabbled in a little bit of everything from straight up policy affirmatives, to affirmatives that advocated individual protests against the war in Iraq, to the US and China holding a press conference to out themselves as members of the illuminati. In terms of negative arguments, I read a lot of bad theory arguments (A/I spec anyone?), found ways to link every debate to space, read a lot of spark/wipeout and read criticisms of Language and Capitalism.

In terms of teams I have coached, most of my teams have been traditionally policy oriented, however over the last 2-3 years I have had some successful critical teams on both sides of the ball (like no plan texts, or slamming this activity....). For the past 2-3 years, I have been working with teams who read mostly soft left affirmatives and go more critical on the negative.

My Philosophy in Approaching Debate:

I understand we are living in a time of questioning whether debate is a game or an outreach of our own individual advocacies for change, and I don't know fully where I am at in terms of how I view how the debate space should be used. I guess as a high school educator for the past decade, my approach to debate has been to look for the pedagalogical benefit of what you say/do. If you can justify your method of debating as meaningful and educational, I will probably temporarially be on board until persuaded otherwise. That being said, the onus is on you to tell me how I should evaluate the round/what is the role of the ballot.

This is not me being fully naive and claiming to be a fully clean slate, if you do not tell me how to judge the round, more often than not I will default to an offense/defense paradigm.

Topicality

I tend to default to competing interpretations, but am not too engrained in that belief system. To win a T debate in front of me, you should go for T like a disad. If you don't impact out your standards/voters, or you don't answer crucial defense (lit checks, PA not a voter, reasonability etc.) I'm probably not going to vote neg on T. Also, if you are going for T for less than all 5 minutes of the 2NR, I'm probably not voting for you (unless the aff really messes something up). I am more likely to vote on T earlier in the year than later, but if you win the sheet of paper, you tend to win.

I do think there is a burden on the negative to either provide a TVA, or justify why the aff should be in no shape-or-form topical whatsoever.

In approaching T and critical affirmatives. I do believe that affirmatives should be in the direction of the resolution to give the negative the basis for some predictable ground, however in these debates where the aff will be super critical of T/Framework, I have found myself quite often voting affirmative on dropped impact turns to T/Framing arguments on why the pedagogical model forwarded by the negative is bad.

Hack-Theory Arguments

Look, I believe your plan text should not be terrible if you are aff. That means, acronyms, as-pers, excessive vagueness etc. are all reasons why you could/should lose a debate to a crafty negative team. I probably love and vote on these arguments more than I should.....but....I loved those arguments when I debated, and I can't kick my love for them.....I also am down to vote on just about any theory argument as a "reject the team" reason if the warrants are right. If you just read blocks at me and don't engage in a line-by-line of analysis....I'm probably not voting for you...

I am on the losing side of "condo is evil" so a single conditional world is probably OK in front of me, but I'm open to/have voted on multiple conditional worlds and/or multiple CPs bad. I'm not absolutely set in those latter worlds, but its a debate that needs hashed out.

I also think in a debate of multiple conditional worlds, its probably acceptable for the aff to advocate permutations as screens out of other arguments.

The K

Eh.......the more devoted and knowledgable to your literature base, the easier it is to pick up a ballot on the K. Even if you "beat" someone on the flow, but you can't explain anything coherently to me (especially how your alt functions), you may be fighting an uphill battle. I am not 100% compelled by links of omission, but if you win a reason why we should have discussed the neglected issue, I may be open to listen. The biggest mistake that critical debaters make, is to neglect the aff and just go for "fiat is an illusion" or "we solve the root cause" but....if you concede the aff and just go for some of your tek, you may not give me enough reason to not evaluate the aff...

I am the most familiar with anti-capitalist literature, biopolitics, a small variety of racial perspective arguments, and a growing understanding of psychoanalysis. In terms of heart of the topic critical arguments, I've been reading and listening to more abolitionist theory, and if it is your go-to argument, you may need to treat me like a c+ level student in your literature base at the moment.

Case Debates

I like them.....the more in depth they go, the better. The more you criticize evidence, the better...

Impact turns

Yes please......

Counterplans

Defend your theoretical base for the CP, and you'll be fine. I like clever PICs, process PICs, or really, just about any kind of counterplan. You should nail down why the CP solves the aff (the more warrants/evidence the better) and your net benefit, and defense to perms, and I will buy it. Aff, read disads to the CP, theory nit-picking (like the text, does the neg get fiat, etc.) make clear perms, and make sure you extend them properly, and you'll be ok. If you are not generating solvency deficits, danger Will Robinson.

I think delay is cheating, but its an acceptable form in front of me...but I will vote on delay bad if you don't cover your backside.

Misc

I think I'm too dumb to understand judge kicking, so its safe to say, its not a smart idea to go for it in front of me.

Don'ts

Be a jerk, be sexist/transphobic/racist/ableist etc, steal prep, prep during flash time, or dominate cx that's not yours (I get mad during really bad open CX). Don't clip, misrepresent what you read, just say "mark the card" (push your tilde key and actually mark it...) or anything else socially unacceptable....

If you have questions, ask, but if I know you read the paradigm, and you just want me to just explain what I typed out.....I'll be grumpier than I normally am.

Sam Rinke

Olathe Northwest (2015-2019)

Contact: samrinke@gmail.com.

Topicality:

I like a good T round, just keep it organzied. When I debated, I typically preferred competing interps but I've leaned toward reasonability depending on the topic.

Disadvantages:

These were my favorite off-case argument. I'd prefer to hear DA's with a specific link, but it's not the end of the world if you use a generic link. I love politics disads, but don't run it if you haven't cut new evidence.

Counterplans:

I often ran CP's when I debated. I do default to Condo as the status of a CP.

Kritiks:

I have a very limited experience with kritiks. If you run a K, you will have to walk me through it. If I have to vote on a K at the end of the round, I'm basically making the decison based on my gut-instinct.(P.S. I was an accounting major in college in case that influences the K)

Framing/Impacts:

On the impact/framing debate, I default probability > magnitude, but I'm open to the debate.

Cross-X:

Be polite. I don't have a preference between open or closed, I'll leave that up to you all. If one team wants open and the other wants closed, I would defer to closed. If it's open Cross-X, the speaker should answer most questions instead of getting bailed out by their partner.

Speaking/Speed:

I never sped when I debated and I can't flow it - if you chose to speed then don't be upset when I misunderstand your arguments.

I am old-school. I have been competing, coaching, and/or judging for about 30 years. I am looking for a series of good, persuasive speeches with a lot of clash. I can keep up with quality speed, but I am not interested in judging a speed-mumbling competition. If I cannot understand you (for whatever reason), I will NOT give you the benefit of the doubt.

I will consider everything said in CX as part of the round, so ask aggressively and answer carefully.

I will flow the round. If you do not signpost, I will not guess where your arguments go, and will consider them dropped. As for arguments, I want them brought-up in Constructives only. Rebuttals are for extra evidence and responses.

Analytical arguments are great, but I will judge their logic harshly.

If you're not speaking, you are using prep-time. The exception is if you're uploading your speech/evidence for the other team.

I will judge you on your speaking and professionalism.

CONGRESS:

I want to see actual debate. Clash with previous speakers, bring evidence and personality. I judge personality pretty heavily, so if you're just reading canned speeches with no humor, no pathos, no clash, your scores will be low. I expect good questions and evidence that you understand procedure.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS:

This is my favorite event. I want the arguments to be clear and everything needs to relate back to your values - contentions, attacks, CX, rebuttals, all of it.

Tell me why your value is superior; tell me why voting for you upholds your value; tell me why your opponent's side will diminish your superior value. Convince me of these things, and you will win the round.

I err to the practical, so if you use real-world examples and your opponent only debates in the theoretical, you'll be more likely to win.

This is the best, truest form of debate we have. Keep it that way.

POLICY DEBATE:

I abhor pre-made, canned speeches (except the 1AC).

I am not a fan of unnecessary abbreviations. "L-WOP," for example. I know it is more of a pet peeve than a paradigm, but if you say that, you'll annoy me.

I will judge on Stock Issues, and weigh Solvency heavier than the others. As such, if your Aff plan is weak (no enforcement, funding, details, etc.) and the Neg argues Solvency, I will consider Aff officially Up A Creek Without A Paddle.

I will also judge on the primary burdens of each team: Aff's Burden of Proof and Neg's Burden of Rejoinder. If you do not meet your burden, you will lose.

I do not like counter-plans or Kritiks. I want actual clash, I do not want you to dodge the Aff's arguments because you are not prepared.

Generic DAs are great, as we are voting on the resolution, not just the Aff plan.

About me: I debated for 3 years at Mill Valley (2015-2018).

Please include me on the email chain: lauren.rothgeb@yahoo.com

Top Level:

Tech > truth, but I still like to see warrants of arguments extended and explained. I won't evaluate anything outside of the debate round.

Please remember that, although it's ok to get passionate during a round, a debate never warrants being mean. Be kind and polite towards your competitors. I take this seriously – you will lose speaker points if you are rude to others.

Delivery:

With things being online, I will need you to slow down. If there are technical difficulties with the audio that impede my ability to understand your argument, I will let you know. In general, I'll need you to slow down with more technical arguments. In the end, I believe debate is a performative activity at its core and should be treated as such. In addition, I prefer to see a few really well developed arguments rather than a flurry of barely supported arguments that simply serve to bombard the opposition. Build your argument strategically and deliver it in a performative fashion – don't let speed or a need for as many arguments as possible get in the way of that.

T:

I default to competing interps. I'm generally not the biggest fan of reasonability. I'm not super familiar with this year's resolution, so please make sure to keep your flow clean, to explain your impacts, and to be clear on what your interp includes or excludes and why that is a good thing.

Performance-based:

I'm not the most familiar with these args, but absolutely feel free to run one if you want. Just make sure to walk me through what your performance does, why it should happen in a debate round, and why it can't happen elsewhere, or is less effective elsewhere.

CPs:

Make sure if you run these that they are specific and include solvency advocates, and they need to be competitive.

K:

I am rather unfamiliar with this arena of debate, but if you enjoy this approach I would love to see it. Assume I'm unfamiliar with the specific texts you're reading. Be prepared to allot more time explaining your arg to me.

DAs:

Love these. The most important thing to me in a good DA is a strong link – really sell it to me.

Framework:

Make sure you explain specifically what the framework does to the debate round.

General stuff:

It's been a little while since I've been in a debate. I love to see all the different fun things you can introduce in a debate round, but just make sure you are explaining everything (especially the more technical things) clearly and concisely. This means slowing down and creating a story that is compelling.

If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask. Good luck and have fun!

Hello!

I've judged Debate for about 6 years, and have been an assistant Debate coach for the last 3 seasons. Although I did not Debate in high school, I consider myself a fairly experienced judge.

I prefer to judge based on Policy Making (the Legislative Model). In other words, I weigh the affirmative and negative arguments against each other and make my decision based on the comparison of pros and cons presented in the round. Common solvency arguments (impracticability, insufficiency, counterproductivity, etc.) dis-ads, and inherency arguments all play a role in this comparison.

In evaluating topicality, the impact calculus of the round plays a large factor in my decision, but can be overruled by debatability and fairness. In other words, if you are providing an argument that does not give the opposing team a fair opportunity to debate and reap the educational rewards of the round, it will count against you in my ballot.

In terms of speed, I am comfortable with rapid speech, but (and I cannot stress this enough) it MUST BE COMPREHENSIBLE. If you are spreading so fast that you're stumbling over words, mumbling, not enunciating clearly, or anything else that does not allow me to understand your argument, it will certainly count against you in the ballot.

I am not comfortable giving oral feedback at the end of rounds or revealing the results of a round. All feedback will be included in my ballots.

If you have any other questions about my paradigm or require any clarification, you are more than welcome to ask me before the start of the round. Good luck, and most importantly, have fun!

I debated 4 years in high school from 2011-2015 at Blue Valley Southwest (KS) and 3 years in college from 2015-2018 at the University of Kansas. During college debate I also coached/judged at high school tournaments in the KC area. Currently I am a community coach at Chicago Bulls College Prep.

I read policy arguments, but am not opposed to k debate. Do whatever style you are most comfortable with. If you can convince me of an argument, then I'll vote for it (within reason).

General:
Do whatever you're good at, I don't care.
-Speed: Yes.
-Disclosure: Yes
-Open Cross-X: Yes

Policy Debate:
This is the style I am most familiar with.
-Topicality: I think team's should be topical, but I also believe that it's up to the other team to prove why.
-Counterplans: I enjoy counterplans a lot. Open to hearing theory on 'cheating' CPs, however I think CP theory is usually a reason to reject the arg and not the team.
-Disads: Remember to have impact calculus on both sides. Explain why your disadvantage outweighs the advantages of the 1ac.

K Debate:
I will listen to kritiks on both sides.
Top leveling framing is important (how do I evaluate the debate?).
Affirmative- I am a policy debater so I evaluate the K similar to how I would evaluate any other policy argument. Win your impacts/framing.
Negative- I think that kritik should try to have a specific link to the affirmative and do their best to engage it. Links of omission do not persuade me. Teams should explain how the alt interacts with the impacts of the 1ac otherwise the K just becomes a non-unq da.

Theory:
I'll vote on condo if that's what it comes down to.
For most other theory args, I am more likely to reject the argument instead of the team.

My Dog:

Lauren Carter, Assistant Coach at Olathe East High School

lncarter@olatheschools.org

I debated for three years in high school (two years as a policy debater and one year in public forum debate) at Liberty High School in Missouri. I didn't debate in college, but I have been coaching and judging since 2017.

General debate preferences:

Please be polite to each other! Being rude is not a good look if you want good speaker points.

I do my best to flow all arguments made in the round. That being said, if your argument isn't clear and/or I don't know where to flow it because you're jumping between points and aren't clearly sign-posting, it may not make it on my flow. Please stick to your roadmap as much as possible if you give one.

I'm not a huge fan of scripted/pre-typed speeches, aside from the first speech of the round. Going off-script shows me that you have a good handle of your arguments and will reflect well on the ballot. Being a good reader and a good debater are not one and the same.

I'm not comfortable giving oral critiques or round disclosure after the debate. I will put comments on my ballot.

Policy: I'm okay with some speed (not your top speed) but would prefer that you slow it down a bit during analytics and explanations of arguments/cards.

I learned a more traditional, stock issue oriented style of policy when I debated, so that is what I have the most experience with. However, you are the debaters and know which arguments work best for you. If you can teach me something new while in your round, go for it!

I especially love to hear good disads, but I also think that CPs and T are effective when argued well.

I don't mind kritiks and theory, but I don't have the background to follow them well without very clear explanations. Please don't throw around technical terms and arguments and assume that I know what you are talking about.

While you should respond to all arguments, I do believe that quality over quantity often comes into play when it comes to reading a bunch of evidence. A card isn't an argument, so please don't give me a laundry list of cards and taglines without taking some time to justify their purpose in the round.

I generally don't spend a lot of time looking at your speech docs. If I open your doc, I'll mostly look at it as a quick reference to help me keep track of my flow. If I have to continuously look at your doc to follow you, you aren't being clear or sign-posting enough. If a card is called into question I will look at it, but I don't take evidence credibility or inconsistencies with cards into consideration unless you as the debaters bring it up.

LD: I prefer a more traditional style of debate for LD and like to see rounds that bring out the distinct style of debate that represents LD. I would prefer to see debates centered on your case values, philosophy and logic.

Public Forum: I've judged PFD at local tournaments and prelim rounds at nationals.

You don't have to speak super slow for me but I don't enjoy hearing spreading during PF rounds. In this style of debate, I appreciate debaters who use their time well and know when to develop and expand on arguments and when to narrow the focus. You have longer speeches at the beginning so use this time wisely early on, especially for you second speakers.

Big Questions Debate Paradigm

For Big Questions, it is hard to put a paradigm into words (unlike with my policy paradigm, which is below if you are interested). Because you cannot run the K (thank you Jesus!) this is about clash, argumentation, and evidence. This is what debate should be about in my opinion. So, present your arguments, provide some evidence, and listen to your opposition and try and prove your case is the better option than theirs. I know this is not much, and this sounds simple, but this is what good, real-life applicable debate is all about.

If you have more questions, ask before the round and I can clarify things further (well, hopefully).

CX Debate Paradigm

I am an old man. I am angry. I generally hate the K. instead, why don’t we talk about the resolution and throw an actually somewhat serious plan out there. Then, maybe the Neg could run a DA or two, and maybe an off-case item or two, all which have some basis in reality. I realize The Butterfly Effect sounds really cool and all, but a gnat farting in Florida should not provide enough impetus to launch a global thermonuclear war. I do not mind speed, but please be clear. If you cannot be understood, it does not really count as an argument. Also, I will also note that I hate open cross-ex. Both members of your team should know your case or arguments and be able to defend or expand upon them.

Final, fun note. I flow on paper. It means I will not take your document/data dump like the other team. It also means that I will give you the benefit of the doubt for reading the contents of a card if you do not actually do so. What is actually said in the round during a speech is what I judge upon. Nothing else. In addition, do not argue over a card the other team never read that somehow got mixed into a speech transfer by accident (I have watched this and I still do not understand it to this day).

I hope this helps.

For PA and Limited Prep: Clear Structure, projection, and is the speaker's voice their own.

For Interp: Character Development is number 1 for me. Next is does the interper follow dramatic structure. In humor # 1 thing is: does it make me laugh? Second, does the story make sense?

For Debate: Emphasize impacts. Delivery before speed. If arguments are clear and logical, then speed works for me, but speed isn't an end in itself; it's purpose is to get more arguments in, i.e. if you aren't giving more arguments for the opponent to refute, then why talk incredibly fast? Also your arguments need to be grounded in reality because I am well versed in logical fallacies.

I have been an English teacher for almost 20 years.  During that time I have taught communications classes as needed at my school.  I also have experience with public speaking as a student and sponsor in various activities. This is my first year serving as an assistant debate coach so I am familiar with the current year's topic.  I would say that when I judge a round I am more of a policy maker.  

I am a novice judge.

I will primarily judge on the following:

a) projection of voice

b) confidence in speech

c) vocal fluctuation/clarity of voice

d) ability to persuade/ explain

e) eye contact

f) tag & authors clearly stated

Secondary:

a) quality of cross-examination questions

b) quality of responses to cross-examination

c) road map stated

Greetings Debaters!

(she/her)

I am a 5th year debate sponsor with my school with not a lick of personal debate experience to my name. I am but a humble teacher of mathematics who wanted some extra ways to get involved in my school. That's not to say that I haven't been learning a lot about debate with every new year that I sponsor. I've come a long ways to where I am in understanding the jargon of debate, the technicalities of a round, and how to listen to a round. My team has in the past referred to me as a "fairly competent lay judge" with my current abilities. So I've got some judging experience but by no means am I ready to listen to a team spread like their lives depend on it or run complicated plans/kritiks. I do my own form of simple "flowing" which sometimes has given teams the impression that I'm more advanced of a judge than they assume and I am lost in the round very early. Looks are deceiving, I honestly just have a terrible working memory for lots of details in round!

When judging debates, I really appreciate when I'm able to learn more about debate itself from the competitors. There are a myriad of different types of arguments that you make to poke holes in cases or highlight issues with speeches - be explicit to me on what you are attempting to accomplish with your own speeches or CX. A road map for each speech is a must with VERY CLEAR markers within your speeches to tell me when you are addressing a new part of your competitors last speech. Like I mean almost excessively explicit within your speech. I can judge best when I am able make sure each argument is being responded to throughout speeches.

I tend to vote on solvency or impact calculation, but have been known to give the ballot to a really convincing framework debate.

Good luck!

I debated for four years in high school and did forensics in College.

I am currently the assistant coach at Moundridge High School in Moundridge Kansas.

Policy Debate:

I tend to vote policymaker, if there are no policy options in the round I will vote stock issues.

Individual Issues:

Counter Plans: I will vote for a counter plan both nontopical and topical.

Disadvantages: I will vote for a generic DA. Saying the DA is generic is not an answer that will win.

Topicality: Topically must be argued more than just in a 1NC Shell. If you drop standards and voter I no longer care about your Topicality.

Theory: I will vote on theory arguments if you have evidence along with standards and voters.

Kritik: I will vote on a K. I prefer ones that are in a policy framework but will consider any alt as long as the team defends the position.

I will not vote on just defensive arguments as a policymaker, if there is no reason not to try the plan then I will vote for the plan.

Lincoln Douglas:

I will consider the value and criterion debate first when weighing the round.

Your criterion should logically support your value.

Speed- LD is intended to go deeper rather than broader and more philosophical, your debating about interpretations, not plans. I don't think speed supports this kind of debate. Don't lose depth for the sake of speed.

Evidence- I think that evidence is important, however, a lack of evidence does not mean a loss. Empirical examples can be just as weighty as traditional evidence.

Both debaters are responsible for clashes, don't ignore your opposition's value or criterion. I don't want to hear a debate in a vacuum.

/// IPDA / BQD / PF / Congress / Lay LD Paradigm ///

Background

My background is in policy. Due to this, I am biased towards technical argumentation. Regardless of format, I will take detailed notes on the specifics of your arguments and will weigh them alongside the rhetoric of the debate. I will adjust for formats as needed, and will weight rhetorical ability higher in formats where it is more important.

Below is my background for formats other than policy.

IPDA & BQD: I have zero background. I have never judged or debated these formats.

Congress: Extremely limited background. I will judge you almost exclusively on your rhetorical ability here.

PF: I am more experienced with PF, however, the format of PF means I will weigh rhetoric more heavily. I tend to take a tabula rasa approach to PF judging and try to put myself in the shoes of a standard 'member of the community'.

LD: I did a good bit of LD in high school. It has been awhile since I have judged LD, but, my policy paradigm is applicable here. I will weigh tech more heavily in these debates.

General Paradigm

Respect is paramount. Debaters should be cordial and sportsmanlike. Malicious and/or personal attacks against your opponents are unacceptable.

You're welcome to ask questions pre-round if you would like. It will not influence the debate.

I try to approach judging as tabula rasa as possible and withhold my own personal biases and beliefs when rendering a decision. I view the debate space as a testing ground for new ideas, and because of this, I think that unique viewpoints ought to be explored. That said, I believe that all arguments must be backed by a substantive and reasonable warrant, and all arguments ought to have a reasonable degree of truth value. The best debates I have seen are ones wherein the direct warrants of arguments are contested. The more clash the better.

The best piece of advice I can give if you are debating in front of me is to write my ballot for me. I want specific reasons as to why you win and your opponent loses. Contextualizing and framing are important. The easier you make it for me to vote for you, the more likely I am to do so.

My favorite rounds to judge are the ones where the teams are having fun. I like jokes, and I always appreciate when debaters seem to be having a good time.

/// Policy / Fast LD Paradigm ///

Note for Bentonville tournament: this portion of my paradigm is written in the context of flow/fast styles of debate. While the broad strokes of my judging ideology will hold true across formats, I will adapt to the format and stylistic choices you make in debates that don't follow the framework of fast debate. All that being said, if you are not planning on doing fast policy or fast LD debate in front of me, take this with a healthy grain of salt.

email: caleb.vering@gmail.com

The Run Down:

Pronouns are he/him/his, they/them are also fine. Y’all means all. I have zero tolerance for disrespecting anyone due to their identity, or any disrespect for that matter.

Speed is okay with me. I'm out of practice so I may clear you.

4 years of debate experience in high school and graduated in 2017 (Policy mostly, and a bit of LD). I debated on both the local Kansas and national circuit. Open to all forms of argumentation (traditional policy, soft left, K, planless, performance, etc.). I have stayed active in the community, judging a couple of tournaments each year.

I was an assistant coach for Shawnee Mission West in Kansas City in 2018-19. In HS I went for traditionally policy arguments, so my knowledge of the K is somewhat limited.

Questions? Ask pre-round or send me an email. Asking questions pre-round will not influence the outcome of the debate in any capacity. I'm more than happy to contextualize myself.

///

Top Level:

Pronouns are he/him/his, they/them are also fine. Y’all means all. I have zero tolerance for disrespecting anyone due to their identity, or any disrespect for that matter.

I graduated from Kansas State University in 2022 with a degree in education. However, I currently work in the finance industry as a financial planner.

Clarity over speed. I’ll clear you once, after that it’s docked speaks. Only exception is a room with bad acoustics, which happens sometimes.

Overviews are good and you should use them.

Tech over truth, but truth value of arguments does matter. All arguments need a substantive warrant, and sufficient credibility in the card backing up that warrant.

Cross-ex is important in establishing your credibility, and it is also binding.

You should disclose previously read arguments prior to the round, ideally on opencaselist.

Wanna win? Stop reading so many cards and start explaining and contextualizing them to the debate.

Have fun. Make jokes. Enjoying what you’re doing helps your credibility, ability to win, and your speaks.

I know cursing feels edgy and cool but unless it's important to your argument try to leave it out of the debate.

Playing your music out loud preround or during prep without the permission of your opponent is incredibly rude and distasteful and will dock your speaks. (this does not apply to performative aff wherein the music is a part of the argument).

Note on Rhetoric

In most good debates I see, a lot of my decision can come down to the rhetorical and persuasive ability of a team. I will do my best to stay as close to the flow as I can in my decision, but I cannot separate myself from the influence strong rhetoric from a debater can bring to the debate. I do think rhetoric in a fast debate is different from rhetoric in a normal speech. Things like cohesiveness between you and your partner, knowing your argument well, and strong cross-ex, are all examples of things that can push me one way or another in close debates.

Theory:

Not a huge fan of theory debates and I’m more apt to vote in the direction that the community generally sees theoretical aspects of debate (condo good, disclosure good). This doesn’t mean you can’t go for theory, but it isn’t your best source of offense when debating in front of me.

T:

I like T. I went for it a lot in high school. I default to competing interps but can be convinced of reasonability. I view T as offense. T should be two competing visions of the topic, and why one vision is preferable to another. T should have offense and defense just like any other argument. T is not a time suck, and RVI’s are bad.

Perms:

Perms are a test of competition. It isn’t some weird alternative world that exists in between the aff and the neg. All the perm does is demonstrate why the aff and the neg can exist in the same world, and you should contextualize it as such.

Presumption:

I am comfortable voting neg on presumption. I think that the affirmative needs to prove that there should be a substantial departure from the status quo, and that their method of solvency will work. If nothing happens when I vote aff, I vote neg. I am comfortable voting aff on presumption. The negative needs to prove a substantial net benefit to their counterplan. If a world of the aff and a world of the neg look the same, I vote aff.

K:

K’s are cool and I like hearing them. Any K is fine, and I’m more versed on “core” K’s like cap, security, etc. In terms of more nuanced kritiks, i.e. setcol, afropess, etc. I am more than happy to listen to these, but, you need to be able to explain it to me in terms I can understand. I have some fundamental knowledge of philosophy and generally can understand the argument you make. But, if it is filled with buzzwords, you need to do some work catching me up. I expect you to understand and be able to explain the direct warrants of your K if you want to win.

Planless and Performance:

I am happy to pick you up on this kind of aff. However, I am also fully willing to vote for framework/T-USfg. I have only judged a few of these debates, and I very rarely encountered these arguments when I debated. I believe that any form of performance you bring into the debate must have a purpose.

Speaks

I'll do my best to try to keep up with the standard of the tournament, whatever that may be. However, my standard points scale:

30: Absolutely flawless. If I could personally hand you the top speaker trophy I would. Not only was your technical argumentation impeccable, but your rhetorical persuasion was also incredible as well.

29.9-29.5: Top 5 speaker at least. Missing a small piece from the puzzle listed above.

29.4-29: Top 10 speaker at least. Small problems emerging in both rhetoric and tech, but still very good.

28.9-28.3: Larger cracks emerging in either rhetoric or tech, usually a small problem with one and a larger with another

28.2-27.7: This is about average. I can see bigger problems in both rhetoric and tech, but you generally held together a cohesive debate and put up a good fight. While there were problems, if I'm noticing a commitment to improvements, such as making good analysis, deploying a smart argument or strategy, or having strong points in rhetoric you will fall here.

27.6-27.2: This is where you will fall if I see you making large and critical mistakes. Reading directly from blocks and a small bit of analysis. If I'm giving you speaks in this range, I will do my best job as an educator to try to explain how you can improve. This range does not mean failure: it means room for growth.

27.1-26.5: Falling into this range generally means obvious mistakes with no attempt to fix them, or just straight up giving up. I will still do my best to try to be an educator and teach you to improve, but this is generally if I see a lack of effort, i.e. reading directly from blocks and practically no analysis.

26.4-26: Smaller instances of disrespect or distastefulness will fall here, see above for what might qualify for this. This applies to both your partner and opponent. Things like talking over your partner in a disrespectful manner, or being rude during prep.

25.9-0: This would only occur in the instance of some heinous act of disrespectfulness, verbal abuse, racism, etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

kmwhite@olatheschools.org

Policy:

I've been coaching in KS for about 15 years and debated in high school and college before that. It's been quite awhile since I've done much coaching and judging on the national circuit. I'm opening to listening to almost anything but don't assume I'm familiar with specific authors.

You're likely to be the most successful in front of me by debating in your comfort zone and doing it well. I'll list some preferences below but they are all flexible based on what happens in the round. Particularly smart, original arguments can persuade me to vote on just about anything.

I DO NOT want to listen to you be rude to each other. We're all in an activity that we enjoy. Please don't be rude or condescending.

Delivery - Speed is fine. I'll say clear or slow once or twice if you're too fast, but then if you don't adjust I won't keep it up. Please slow a bit during transitions to give me a second to process where you're going.

Round progression - Please narrow the number of arguments but deepen those arguments as you go along. Give me reasons to prefer your arguments that are based on analysis and warrants. Avoid answering developed arguments by just repeating a cite.

Topicality/Theory - I enjoy these types of arguments if they are well-developed and have warrants and impacts. I don't like blippy lists of theory or cheap shots where you read six quick perms and crow because they dropped #5. Tell me very clearly what I should do with your argument if you win it.

Policy impacts - I'm most comfortable evaluating rounds as a policymaker. If you don't specify another method, that's what I'll use. Focus on offense and impacts. I do believe it's possible to mitigate an impact or weaken the link to the point I shouldn't consider it. I have a slight preference for real-world, high probability impacts over low probability terminal impacts.

CPs - These are fine. I have a fairly high standard for competitiveness.

Ks - I like philosophy and enjoy listening to good K debates, but I'm not up on a lot of the literature. Please clash with the opposing arguments and explain exactly what I'm voting for and why. On the neg, apply your ideas directly against specifics from the aff case so I can tell you understand how the arguments interact.

Evidence - I prefer not to look at speech docs unless there's a specific point I'm trying to clear up. Debate is a verbal activity and I want to primarily judge what I hear you say. I will look at evidence if it comes into question.

I'm bothered by the increasing use of heavily biased evidence that hasn't been through an editorial process so please feel free to make source arguments or call their evidence into question. If I end up in a position where I'm comparing evidence directly because you're both telling me your evidence is the best, I will definitely take author's quals into account.

My speaker point midpoint is about a 27.5. If I think you had decently ok speeches, that's where you'll be. Noticeable strategic errors in argument choice or time allocation or delivery will reduce that, insightful arguments and solid strategy will bring it up. I don't mind open cross-x but if you stand up there silently while your partner answers all your questions instead of prepping, you'll both lose points.

LD:

My preference is for LD to be a discussion of philosophy and morality. That can definitely include evaluating outcomes, but don't assume that I'll always vote for the person who proves the "best" outcomes over somebody with a strong philosophical justification for their position.

I dislike both affs and negs who seem to be advocating a specific plan and whose argumentation seems mainly about poking very small and specific holes in each others' plans.

Due to the time constraints, I am much less likely in LD to vote on "gotcha" drops than I am in policy.

Experience

4-year policy debater/forensian @ Lansing HS (light congress) 2001-2005

4-year assistant debate/forensics @ Lansing HS 2006-2011

7 years head coaching debate/forensics (1 Leavenworth 2010-2011, 5 Salina-Sacred Heart 2012-2018, 1 Hutchinson 2018-2019)

4 years assistant debate/forensics @ McPherson HS 2020-pres

Policy:

I like T that links, DAs and affirmative advantages should have real-world feasible impacts, and I am only in favor of K debate if the framework has equal ground for both teams to earn a ballot (don't run K's that are impossible for the aff to meet the alt). CPs must be competitive to be viable. Tell me why you win and what to vote for.

I believe the negative has to have a coherent position. I don't buy the "multiple worlds" theory of negative debate.

I am fine with open CX, but I am immensely against open speeches. Never feed your colleague lines in a speech. I don't care if they parrot your words exactly, it is not your speech to give.

LD:

I like deep discussions on interactions between the value and its criterion, especially when values and criterion are cross-applied between competing sides. I see LD as competing frameworks and will prefer the debater that does a better job framing the resolution in terms of the value and its criterion (or criteria).

PFD:

I have no idea how this format works. I will vote on the team that gives the most compelling reasons to prefer.

Lawrence Free State ‘19

University of Iowa ‘23

TL:DR--you do you, just tell me what to care about and why

You can refer to me w any pronouns

Largest influence is Sean Kennedy if you care about that

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

Please trigger warn and don't be condescending to your opponents

- Flex 2N--went about 50/50 for critical and policy based arguments (familiar with all the basic k stuff, settler colonialism, queer pessimism/futurity arguments, assemblage identity stuff, afro-pessimism, haptic touch, necropolitics, and virilio). I enjoy all kinds of arguments delivered in all styles and will listen to anything. I also rlly like hearing things I haven't heard before!

- Evidence quality > quantity. Please do evidence comparison. Coherent highlighting is good.

A handful of argument specific thoughts and subtle biases I have--

T/FW/Theory

- FW debates--why does your offense matter more than theirs? tell me :)) I see too many of these debates that lack impact comparison. I tend to view fairness as an internal link to better research/argument refinement rather than its own impact, but that shifts based on the debate/explanation of the terminal impact.

- Like FW, T debates need, and often lack, comparison between impacts or top level framing arguments. Do limits outweigh precision? Do limits turn ground? Is aff or neg flexibility more important given the research burdens on this topic? Idk unless you tell me.

- I default to competing interps--theory debates need a clear interpretation, not just "x thing is bad" or "x thing is good." Reasonability is usually deployed as defense to limits arguments, not a model for how I should evaluate the round

- Condo can be a winning 2AR--I default to viewing it through an offense-defense lens like everything else--it is possible to win that even one conditional advocacy is a reason to reject the team--I'll vote on it. When evaluating other theory arguments I will lean heavily toward rejecting the argument not the team (exception is disclosure/mis-disclosure).

Policy Stuff

- I often find that the difference in comparative risk of internal link chains between an advantage and a dissad is larger/more important than the difference in the size of the terminal impact (unless its an existential dissad versus a structural violence advantage). This is because most impacts people read are very large and universally bad, but I often find one internal link chain may carry significantly more risk of happening than the other due to evidence quality, defensive arguments, etc. 

- Turns case arguments tend to be more persuasive the earlier in the internal link chain they are triggered--"link alone turns the aff" is much better than "nuke war causes aff impact to happen for obvious reason." Turns case args are more effective when paired with a timeframe distinction (dissad makes aff impact inevitable before aff can access it).

- I default to thinking judge kick is fine unless the aff tells me I shouldn't. Those arguments should start before the 2AR

- Not a fan of new 2NC counterplans/amended counterplan texts/new planks. I kind of think this is cheating and lazy. The 1AR is hard enough and the negative team should have some obligation to stick to the strategy they laid out in the 1NC to avoid shallow debates. 

K debates

- I am unlikely to adopt totalizing frames for framework--"only plan focus matters" or "no evaluating the aff" will probably not be persuasive unless one team is v far ahead

- HOWEVER, with Ks which dispute the reading/performance of the aff it does not make sense to try to weigh those discursive ramifications against some hypothetical government policy. The aff probably has to first justify why the introduction of the 1AC was good. Winning that I shouldn't care about what you said/did in the 1AC will be an uphill battle for me. In a discursive activity I think it makes sense to care about what people say.

- The more specific the links are to the aff's mechanism or performance, the more compelling they are against the permutation. The links should function as specific reasons why inclusion of the aff in the world of the alternative is bad or impossible, which in my view requires some dispute with the aff in particular rather than the state in general. 

- In KvK rounds, link/impact framing often ends up centering my decision. I think affs should probably get a permutation, but I need a concrete idea of what the aff is/does in order to understand how it is not mutually exclusive with the negative's strategy.

- I also think presumption is viable against many planless affs. The question of "what do you do though?" is kind of a cliche at this point, but something that matters a lot for the round. I prefer affs to have a method or advocacy that I can explain in a substantive way in the RFD, especially if the debate comes down to a permutation or link question. If your aff does nothing, I would suggest that you pretend like it does something.

Some aesthetic preferences

- Don't do long overviews--I prefer overviews to consist of impact framing and turns case arguments, everything else can happen during line by line.

- Read re-highlightings, don't just insert them 

- Less reliance on blocks usually means higher speaks

- Counterplans with lit not grounded in the topic area are :((

- Like p much everyone else, I prefer fewer, more well developed arguments than the 11-off-cannon-of-garbage. I also enjoy strategies being effectively tailored to the aff you're debating--1NCs that are designed with 1) arguments specific to the aff and 2) particular block strategies based on arguments you pigeon hole the 2AC into making will be rewarded with higher speaks. I like that a lot more than reading the same 3 process counterplans and 4 dissads in every round and then going for whatever they undercover.