I am a single diamond coach who has been coaching both officially and unofficially for the last 9 years. I was competitive in speach and debate in high school and attended 4 CFL National Tournaments and 1 NSDA National Tournament. I placed third in Expository at the 1996 NSDA National tournament, and I was a semifinalist in prose that same year. I am currently the assistant coach for Fort Scott High School in Fort Scott Kansas. Home of the Kansas 4A division state debate co-champion teams this year. I have been judging LD and other debate events for the last 15 years, and have judged about 10 rounds of LD this year.

In high school I was competitive in Original Oration and Lincoln Douglas Debate as well as Policy Debate and interp events. I have a Bachelors Degree in Social Work and a Master's Degree in Addiction Counseling. I am currently employed, outside of coaching, as a clinical addictions counselor for a county mental health center.

My paradigm for judging is as follows:

Speed: I find rapid delivery acceptable provided that enunciation, diction and pronunciation is clear and able to understand. Rule of thumb, if I am not flowing, it is a good indication that you should slow down. Rate of delivery does not weigh heavily on my decision unless I could not understand you throughout the round. I will vote against you if you do not respect my speed preferences.

Criterion: It may be a factor depending on it's use in the round. I do feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case

Voting issues should be ongoing throughout the round

Conduct in Round: I expect courtesy between competitors and mutual respect for each other's ideas and arguments, I have zero tolerance for rudeness or blatant refusal to share evidence or make relevant information available to both your competitor and myself as a judge.

I consider myself a Tabula Rasa judge and am willing to vote for anything that is supported, relevant, and applicable to the round at hand. I do not like generic arguments that do not seem to apply to anything specific.

I do not appreciate acronyms that are not defined in a round, keep in mind that coaching is my side job at this time and I may not be up to date on the latest acronyms that are being used for a certain topic. Regular debate jargon is acceptable however.

Final rebuttals should be giving me a line by line analysis as well as voting issues, and voting issues are absolutely necessary

My basis for decision is weighted between speaking ability, argumentation and validity of arguments

I do not need you to shake my hand before the round and especially not after the round, I also do not need you to call roll before each speech, meaning asking every single person in the room if they are "ready" the only person that needs to be ready is me, so if I am ready, go ahead and start.

I may ask to see things that were read in the round at the conclusion of the competition so please do not "pack up" during the final speech, so that my viewing of articles can be expedited.

If you have any further questions about my judging style, please ask before the beginning of the round for clarification.

I coach at a 3A high school in Kansas. I'm a policymaker in that I look for impacts and weigh them against the defense in the round.

Do not tell me about the rules of debate unless there is an impact to your argument. The impact could be fairness or something.

Generic DAs are fine if the links are clearly analyzed.

Topicality is super important. I weigh it first, but don't run it on the biggest aff on the topic.

CPs are fine, although I'm not crazy about topical CPs.

Kritiks are acceptable in context. However, I didn't do policy debate in high school or college, so am I going to understand it by the end of your speech? The odds of me 1. understanding your k lit, and 2. being able to see nuance in your k lit during cross-ex or prep time between constructives is pretty low if I've never seen it before. Am I going to see why it can't be permutated? Are you running it just to confuse your opponent into defeat? Does it clearly link? Are you not winning on anything else on the flow? Maybe it's a better idea to shelve it this round...

Kindness is a voter.

I prefer moderate contest speed.

I flow. Please keep your speech organized.

"this is the rewrite"

Hi! My name is John (he/they), and thanks for reading.

Please add me to the e-mail chain: johnrobertburris (at) gmail.com. I'll monitor for clipping.

I debated for Field Kindley High School, in Coffeyville, Kansas, for four years (almost exclusively as a 2A/1N), reaching the elimination rounds at NSDA Nationals my senior year. I did not debate in college, and am currently unaffiliated.

Have previously coached for Field Kindley and Lawrence Free State (most recently in the 2019-20 season, prior to COVID and DCI getting snowed out that year). If you have any questions prior to the round, please ask and I'll do my best to answer them.

My moustache hides a lot of my non-verbals and gives me a semi-permanent frowny face, but I assure you, I'm happy to be here. I love this activity and have a permanent debt of gratitude to it.

Was a POLS undergrad but went the MBA/MSIT grad route so I am less wonky than I was in my formative college experience or my 20s generally.

General

Do what you do best, enjoy yourselves and see the Arguments section if you have questions.

In turn, I will do my best to decide the round -- which team won based on their argumentation and what was said in the debate. I'll do this primarily through the lens of offense/defense: What were the positions each team went for at the end of the debate, and what was the defense/mitigation by the other team. I'll assess risk via impact calculus. Instructing me in how to weigh arguments and evaluate risks through comparative impact calculus is important.

Regarding speed: I got used to observing/flowing debates at ~300 wpm or so in the Zoom era. If you're going at absolute top-end speed (~400 wpm or greater) in a theory block or something similar, my flow isn't going to look great. That being said, the more signposting you do while you're in the line-by-line, the better off we're all going to be. I would prefer theory and overviews be presented at a Zoom-esque speed as defined above vs. going full throttle. Basically, ramp into it, and be clear.

Cross-ex: I will flow it and answers are binding. The more you use it to develop your strategy for the rest of the debate, the better off you'll be. If you're just using it to clarify what was read ... at least you're preserving prep time vs. just not asking questions, I guess, but the time is more valuable than that.

Regarding tech > truth: Yes. To be clear, please explain the implications of dropped arguments, and arguments need warrants.

You do need to flow the debate. Don't respond to arguments based on the speech doc alone.

New in the 2NC: I don't think it's good for debate, but if there's no Affirmative objection, I will weigh new 2NC stuff. However, 1AR definitely has my attention if they ask me to reject new 2NC stuff.

I'm fine if the debate is slow and the teams are stock issues or policymaker-oriented, though I don't consider myself one as a judge generally.

Please refrain from "death good" and "extinction good" if I am judging. My threshold for dismissing that line of argumentation is incredibly low.

I will vote to ensure a safe debate space if events in the round dictate (harassment, exclusion). Please engage each other in good faith.

Please don't break anything in or take anything from the classroom we were generously provided for this round.

Arguments

T: I default to competing interpretations. Reasonability is much less viable for me and would require considerable work. I was a T wonk as a competitor and think T is a perfectly fine argument. Voter and never a reverse voter.

Counterplans/DAs: Generic/topic links are fine but you'll have to put the work in. The more specific the link, the better off you'll be in weighing probability at the end of the debate. On DAs, the better the explanation of the case turn, the better off we all are.

Please instruct me to judge kick the CP in 2NR if applicable; 2AR can argue for me to reject if applicable.

** Probably best in evaluating a round with CPs/DAs/case (aren't most of us); those are the most predictable ballots I could author.

Kritiks: Most familiar with cap, set col, afro-pessimism, social ecology, biopower. Not fully up on postmodernism/poststructuralism. I have a general belief that Aff should get to weigh plan. Links of omission are suspect.

If going for the alt: Explain its functionality, how it resolves links to the K, etc.

I have voted for teams that have won framework and a unique link without an alt. This requires considerable investment in framework interpretation.

** Policy Aff vs K Neg rounds -- I've judged plenty of these, am up for them anytime.

K Affs: I am receptive to them; they're fine -- please give me a defensible version of how the Aff affirms the topic.

** The least predictable ballot I could author is in a high-theory K-vs.-K round. Not the best judge in this scenario. Please take care to instruct me, keep the argumentation clean, explain your theory of power clearly, etc. Again: Least predictable ballot.

Theory: I will flow theory on its own page; please don't turn it into a frontline-vs.-frontline debate. Please apply it to the context of the round we are in.

Framework: I will treat framework similarly to theory in terms of the separate flow.

Performance: Please identify the role of the ballot as soon as possible.

The 2NR would do well to condense the debate. If I'm flowing what's essentially a rehash of the 1NC through the 2NR, the speech is probably not very coherent, and my ballot will reflect that. Even if you're winning every argument after 1AR, I would rather you center 2NR on your best offense.

Things I like, which translate to good speaker points:

Evidence comparison (author qualifications, the quality of your empirical data and warrants, etc.)

Comparative impact calculus

Consistent line-by-line and signposting

Being instructed late in the debate

Word economy

Being funny

Ethos + pathos + logos

Kansas debaters: KSHSAA clarified in the debate manual that roadmaps are off-time; somehow I still hear questions about it or have them being introduced as an "off-time roadmap." It's okay; you are okay.

My HS coach, Darrel Harbaugh, and the late Ross Smith (I'm a Wake Forest camp alum) were probably the biggest influences on me as a competitor. My thoughts on what debate is / my theory of competition (or what have you) tend to fluctuate but I tend to center on them on debate being an educational activity and having educational value.

Colophon

This is John Burris's policy debate paradigm as of 6 May 2023.

She/Her

Add me to the email chain: clairechaffin11@gmail.com

-Debated for 3 years at Olathe Northwest, 2 of those in DCI. Didn't debate in college.

-I'd like to think I'm pretty tab, I like to be told what to vote for, so framing is very important to me. Make my job as easy as possible.

-Speed is fine, but please signpost and allow for clear transitions! Again, I'll want to default to the path of least resistance, so don't make my job any harder than it has to be.

-tech>truth (in most cases), I'm not gonna do your job for you.

-Just extending the tag of a card without explaining any warrants isn't sufficient, I won't extend it across my flow if there's not any depth, huge pet peeve of mine.

-Ask me questions about any specifics, but I'm down for pretty much any type of arg.

-I don't judge very often, so please explain any topic-specific acronyms.

Most of all, be kind to each other :)

(Updated September 2022)  

I've been an assistant coach at Campus HS (Haysville, KS) for 7 years, and I was an assistant in Valley Center, KS, for 3 years. I also debated in high school.

Clarity of arguments is most important to me. Debaters should be understandable, and they can speak at a rapid pace. However, extreme speed--like that of an auctioneer--is unnecessary. It is better to have quality arguments that read a ton of evidence. I like for debaters to explain how the evidence supports the argument he/she makes. Merely reading a ton of evidence with no analytical link to voter issues is not productive debating. Don't assume that I will use the same reasoning or make the same connections as you do. It is your job as the speaker to help the audience understand and prefer your position in the debate. Keep it civil as well. I prefer arguments based in reality not theoretical or philosophical impossibilities.

If I stop flowing and cross my arms, that means you have lost me. Either you are confusing or you are reading so quickly I can't understand the words coming out of your mouth. This is your visual cue to adjust your speaking style to make yourself more understandable. Debaters often make the argument that the way a judge votes determines if a policy passes. I have never heard or seen a legislative session in Congress use spreading to pass laws. I really don't want to hear this in the round.

Above all, I vote on the logic and clarity of the arguments. This means that you must do more than read evidence.

Email: wcornett@trinityacademy.org

Lincoln-Douglas

I am a pretty traditional LD judge. I want a focus on the moral obligations and the value/criterion framing. Make sure that your framing connects to the contention level. Any questions, feel free to ask.

Policy

Warrants: Whichever arguments are being read, whether evidence-based or analytical, the ability to clearly explain your warrants instead of just asserting stuff is what gets you ahead on my ballot and in speaker points. This should be obvious, but it doesn't always play out that way.

Aff burden: Defend the resolution. My bias is towards a policy plan, but if you can provide a clear and compelling framework for another way to support the resolution, you can certainly do so. If you do want to get creative, however, you will have to do work explaining your framing and why/how I should evaluate the round.

DA's & CP's: Core negative positions. Case specific links are preferable, but I'll vote on generic links if the neg explains how it applies to the aff and the aff doesn't give a good reason why the link is either untrue across the board, or there is something unique about their position that disproves the link.

It's going to take some work to show me that conditionality is abusive, but I'm willing to listen to the argument. As is true across the board, abuse claims are strongest if they are specific to what happened within the round in question.

T: I'll vote on T, but it's not my preference to do so. I try to strike a balance between competing interpretations and reasonability (i.e. it is good to explore multiple definitions and why some may be better than others, but if in the absence of the debate clearly demonstrating that one definition is preferable and the aff meets their own interp, I'm going to lean aff on T).

K: Don't trust that I will automatically know your literature. In addition, just because a literature base exist to claim something, I will need clear analysis from the neg as to why I should buy that literature base. Framework is generally going to be important for me. Is the K presenting an alternative policy action to be evaluated like a CP? Is it proposing an individual action on my part? Something else? Let me know. Framework debates will vary depending on the answers to those questions, but affirmatives have options to contest the viability of the alt, either based on the specific action being suggested or on the way debate rounds function and whether I should buy that accepting or rejecting ideas on my ballot has any real world impact (e.g. does policymaking or the k have more educational value/skill development; if neither have out of round impact, is there benefit to game playing or not?). I am more likely to buy an alt if it actually gives me a different policy or mindset to adopt instead of just telling me to reject a mindset.

Impact Framing: I find arguments that say "any chance of the link means you vote" to be rather weak. First, I find that debaters tend to describe the probability of their scenarios in terms that are not only not realistic, but have no objective basis whatsoever. It often feels like arbitrarily pulling a statistical percentage out of a hat. This isn't just about debaters overstating the odds of big impacts like extinction happening. The same problem exists (in either the aff or the k) in claiming that you have 100% solvency for racism or sexual violence. This probably puts me more in a probability first camp, less because I won't look at big impacts than because I want clear warranted reasons that your impact will happen before I look at anything else.

Voters: Assume that I will take you seriously about what you go for at the end of the round. What you go for in the 2NC will be what I focus my decision on, even if I thought you were ahead elsewhere. Importantly, even if you extend a card in the 2NC, but don't give me any analysis of why that is something I should be voting on, it probably won't be part of my decisions. Don't expect me to do the work of framing your voters for you.

Argument Interaction: Give me clear direction as to the way that your arguments interact with one another. If you are running arguments that contradict one another, give me explanation of why doing so makes sense. If you are running T and saying that the aff gives you no DA ground, how does that interact with any DAs you are running? Are you going to just simultaneous ask me to believe that your links are trash when I am looking at the T flow and awesome when I'm looking at the DA flow? Running both of these arguments together can be strategic in a number of directions, but I'm going to need you to clarify that by the end of the round rather than just leaving it unresolved.

Speed: I'm not the fastest at flowing, so give me clear tag lines. If the tournament allows it, I appreciate being on the email chain/receiving the flash of the speech.

Overall, I am mostly a tabula rasa type judge. I want each team to tell me what the best paradigm is, why and how I should adopt it, and why they best satisfy victory under the conditions of that paradigm. I'll vote how you tell me to. If both teams tell me how to vote, give me a reason to prefer your framework over theirs

If you don't give me a paradigm, I will revert to a hybrid of stock issue and policymaker judge. This means that I expect the stock issues to be covered in some way (even if you give me a different paradigm, the stock issues form a common language and rubric for debate that I think needs to be followed for the most part), and I expect discussion centered around fundamental elements of policymaking, such as cost, feasability, workability, political considerations, ethical considerations, etc. as well as the net benefit analysis. The NBA is key for me. Whoever wins the NBA wins the debate for me 9/10 times

On the off-case flow, I am 100% a judge that will vote on Topicality. But if you go for T, really go for T. That doesn't mean kick everything but T, but rather, make a real argument. In my mind, the standards are absolutely the most significant element of the T debate. And make the voters have some impact. If you read fairness and education, best tell me why your interp links to fairness and education and why it has impact on the round. All that goes for Aff, too. The right to define doesn't mean your interp is automatically better. Give me a reason to prefer

I love disads. I am fine with generic disads. I am fine with unique disads. I am good with linear DAs. Ptix is okay. I love them all!

I love counterplans. I am fine with generic counterplans. I am fine with unique counterplans. I don't get too hung up on the deep CP theory, though. And make sure to give me a plan text and preferably, a competing advantage...

I am somewhat receptive to Kritiks. That being said, I detest the "every year" kritiks that kids dust off season after season. If you're reading K, try to make it a unique K that applies specifically to this season's resolution, or work very hard to adapt your generic K to this year's resolution. I'll listen to discourse Kritiks, but there better be real impact, and I would expect something more than "role of the ballot" for the alt. Me giving you opponent a loss doesn't change debate. It doesn't educate. It may actually make the problems worse...

As for speed and performance, I do believe debate is a communicaton activity first. I can evaluate speed but am unimpressed by it. I value quality over quantity and 100% think that the warrant debate trumps the evidence debate. A handful of cogent, relative, strong arguments will win the debate over the spread 9/10 times

I expect everyone involved to be good sports. I don't care much about how you dress or how you speak or if you don't debate the "right" way, but I care A LOT about how you treat one another...

I am good with paperless debate and speech docs, but don't use that as an excuse to quit listening to each other, or to try to spread. Also, paperless debate isn't an excuse to add 10 minutes of extra prep time to your rounds.

I have many years of experience as a competitor, an assistant, and a head coach so I have seen a bit of everything

That's about all I have. Ask me any additional you may have, prior to the round, and best of luck!

Debated through high school and for one year at the University of Kansas.

I would say that I'm a hybrid stock issues/policy maker but with a strong policy-maker lean. However, I'm also there to arbitrate your arguments, so if you want me to apply another paradigm, as long as you can cogently argue it and convince me why I should change, I'm flexible and willing to change for the round.

I will accept the K, provided you capably understand it and can demonstrate that understanding to me and translate your understanding to a compelling rationale for voting for it. I tend to flow Kritikal arguments similarly to disads. Seriously. Spoon feed me the K and I will happily vote on it, but you should assume my understanding is, um, "not advanced." Here is where I blatantly steal a line from the paradigm of Jeff Plinsky: My policy maker lens is difficult for me to put down here, so you had better be able to tell me how your advocacy can actually solve something. In a K v K debate, this still applies - you need to prove you actually solve something.

I will accept generic disads, but try to have them link. Specific disads are always better and with what seems like functionally all affs available via wiki, there's no reason not to do the research to find a specific link. In evaluating disads, my natural inclination (which you can overcome) is to prefer realistic impacts even if they are small, to enormous but highly attenuated impacts such as multiple extinction events/cannibalism/nuke wars/etc. I don't like to count who has the highest number of nuclear exchanges at the end of the round, but if I have to, I will.

I am a dinosaur and, as such, value topicality. I will almost certainly not make topicality a "reverse voter" and give the aff a win if the only thing they've accomplished is to beat neg's T arguments. However, I will vote neg on T only, assuming neg wins it. In line with my feelings on T, before you run a PIC, ask if the aff is topical. Please note: I am not telling negative teams that I want them to run topicality. That is your decision. I am just telling you that I will vote on it if you win it.

Speed is fine and I can usually follow and flow very fast debaters. If I am holding a pen, even if I'm not writing at any given moment, I am following you. If I have put down my pen, it means you've lost me and should probably back up or make some other effort to get me back. I greatly prefer closed cross; my view is that you should be able to spend three minutes defending the speech you just delivered. While speed is fine, in my position as a dinosaur, I still value rhetoric and persuasion. If you're a compelling speaker, let that shine. Group the other side's arguments and go slower and compel me to vote for you.

Again indulging my prerogative: I not only accept, I encourage new in the two. It's called a "constructive" speech for a reason. Go ahead and construct. Similarly, I will accept add-on advantages from the aff and internally inconsistent arguments from the neg as long as they have kicked out of whatever makes them inconsistent and still allows the affirmative a chance to respond by the end of the round. Do not abuse this. If I think that you're purposely spreading them with inconsistent arguments just to force them into a time suck and not running the argument in good faith, I will not be happy about it and you will bear the consequences of my unhappiness. For example: I once watched a team run the thinnest of topicality shells in the 1NC. They basically did little more than say "topicality" and read one definition and that was it. No voters, no standards, no warrants. That forced the aff to answer in the 2AC and left the neg in a position to have forced the timesuck or blow up topicality in the 2NC. That, to me, was faithless argumentation by the neg. Don't do that.

As befitting a Gen X'er, I value courtesy and think you can absolutely hammer someone and not be a d**k about it. Play nice. Being a jerk probably won't earn you the loss, but I will punish you on speaks if your conduct warrants it. This is intended to be a very strong warning against racism, ableism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia. Engaging in those things will get you an L even if you might have otherwise won the round. My politics lean left, but I consciously try to monitor and check my biases. If your best argument is something that I would not support in real life, you can run it and know that I will make every effort to fairly consider the argument, the way you argue it and its merits in the debate.

On vagueness and topicality: I have noticed a trend where the aff's plan text is essentially the text of the resolution but with a specific "whatever" (country, program, etc.,) stated within the "plan." This is not a plan. It is vague and if the aff is not willing to specify what they are or are not doing/curtailing/removing/adding/replacing, then I will absolutely be open to the argument that they are unfairly claiming and denying territory necessary to allow a fair debate. I won't vote on this if no one brings it up, but I think it's fair to expect an affirmative case to actually specify what it will do. Edited to add: I REALLY MEAN THIS ONE. I find it very frustrating when an aff not only doesn't say in the 1AC what it is exactly that they're doing, but then refuse to answer (or not know the answer) when asked about it on cross. Affs should not do this and negs should beat the snot out of any aff that tries this.

Thoughts on the email chain: I do not want to be on it. This is still a verbal activity. If you say something clearly and intelligibly enough for me to hear it, I will hear it and flow it. From time to time I might ask you (during prep, for example) to give me your tag or the name of the person cited. But if you say something so unintelligible that I can't understand it, I won't credit you for having said it and the fact that it might be on the email chain isn't going to change my mind. I might ask you to show me a card or cards at the end of the round so that I can make sure it says what I think it says or what you say it says. But I don't like the notion of crediting a verbal statement because I read it in an email.

Bottom line: I'm the arbiter of your arguments. While the above is a statement of my preferences, I'm more than happy to judge a debate outside those boundaries and you should feel free to argue your best stuff if I'm your only judge. If you find me on your panel, you should consider going for the other judges as I consider myself to be highly adaptable and can judge a round geared for lay judges and I can also judge one geared to impress college judges.

Thank you for allowing me the privilege of watching and judging your debate.

I debated in high school and judged since! I like clear concise arguments and responses!

I did not debate in high school or college, but have served as a debate assistant for several years. I have judged about 10 rounds on this year's topic. I am policy maker or stock issue judge. I appreciate when teams listen to the evidence that the other team is reading and analyze it and check the warrants. I hate just reading blocks without explanation.

The Affirmative has the burden of proof to support the resolution. You will probably do better if you do not speed read to me.

Generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks are fine. Topicality is fine. Specific links are important. Explanation is important.

The last speakers should weight the round.

I will penalize rudeness. Just be nice to each other.

I am a Kansas HS assistant debate coach. I am a science teacher that values logic and scientific fact. My background is not in debate however, I have been coaching for 4 years. I have judged for high school debates for 36 years. I believe that most anything is debatable however some styles of argument work better for me than others. I am more of a CP/DA Case debate kind of judge. Speed of my flow is far lower than what I would call fast. Clear tags/authors and quicker on text is fine. Also please tell where things go and how they apply. I enjoy most debates but not a fan of T debates. If the aff is not topical run it. If the aff is center of the topic then do not run T. IF they are off topic, I am easily swayed on T. Theory debates are kinda like T for me. Rather not see it unless there is a legitimate violation. I do not penalize teams for style choices. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I need to be able to understand the words. If you speak for your partner during their speech or tell them what to say during their speech, you will lose. If you get up and take your laptop to your partner during their constructive or rebuttal speech and have them read what you wrote for them to say, you will lose.

Jan 2024 Update:

Extend your arguments. Extend your arguments. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS! (THIS IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT FOR ME THAN WHAT TYPE OF ARGUMENT YOU READ) Some of the debates I've watched this year have me so frustrated cuz you'll just be absolutely crushing in parts of the debate but just not extend other parts needed to make it relevant. For example, I've seen so many teams going for framework this year where the last rebuttals are 5 minutes of standards and voters and just no extension of an interp that resolves them. Or 2ARs that do so much impact calc and impact-turns-the-DA stuff that they never explain how their aff resolves these impacts so I'm left intervening and extending key warrants for you that OR intervening and voting on a presumption argument that the other team doesn't necessarily make. So err on the side of over extending arguments and take advantage of my high threshold and call out other teams bad argument extension to make me feel less interventionist pulling the trigger on it. What does this mean? Arguments extended should have a claim and a warrant that supports that claim. If your argument extension is just name dropping a lot of authors sited in previous speeches, you're gonna have a bad time during my RFD. The key parts of the "story" of the argument need to be explicitly extended in each speech. For example, if you're going for T in the 2NR then the interp, violation, the standard you're going for, and why it's a voter should be present in every neg speech. Whatever advantage the 2AR is going for should include each part of of the 'story' of aff advantage (uniqueness, solvency, internal link, impact) and I should be able to follow that back on my flow from the 1AR and 2AC. If the 2AR is only impact outweighs and doesn't say anything about how the aff solves it, I'm partial to voting neg on a presumption ballot

Ways to get good speaks in front of me:
-Extend your arguments adequately lol - and callout other teams for insufficient extensions
-Framing the round correctly (identifying the most relevant nexus point of the debate, explain why you're winning it, explain why it wins you the round)
-Doc is sent by the time prep ends
-One partner doesn't dominate every CX
-Send pre-written analytics in your doc
-At least pretend to be having fun lol
-Clash! Your blocks are fine but debates are SOOO much more enjoyable to watch when you get off your blocks and contextualize links/args to the round
-Flow. If you respond to args that were in a doc but weren't actually read, it will hurt your speaks
-Utilize powerful CX moments later in the debate
-If you have a performative component to your kritital argument, explain it's function and utilize it as offense. So many times I see some really cool poetry or something in 1ACs but never get told why poetry is cool and it feels like the aff forgets about it after the 2AC. If it's just in the 1AC to look cool, you were probably better off reading ev or making arguments. If it's there for more than that, USE IT!

WaRu Update 2023: I think debaters think I can flow better than I can. Slowing down on pivotal moments of the debate to really crystalize will make you more consistently happy with my RFDs. If you're going top speed for all of the final rebuttals and don't frame my ballot well, things get messy and my RFDs get worse than I'd like.

Krousekevin1@gmail.com

Background:

I participated in debate for 4 years in High School (policy and LD for Olathe East) and 3 years in College Parli (NPDA/NPTE circuit). This is my 6th year assisting Olathe East debate. I've done very little research on this topic (emerging tech) so please don't assume I know your acronyms or the inner workings of core topic args.

I have no preference on email chain or speechdrop, but it does irritate me when debaters wait until the round is supposed to be started before trying to figure this stuff out.

Speed:

I can keep up for the most part. Some teams in the national circuit are too fast for me but doesn't happen often. If you think you're one of those teams, go like an 8/10. Slow down for interps and nuanced theory blocks. 10 off rounds are not fun to watch but you do you.

Argument preferences:

In high school, I preferred traditional policy debate. In college I read mostly Ks. I studied philosophy but don't assume I know everything about your author or their argument. Something that annoys me in these debates is when teams so caught up in buzzwords that they forget to extend warrants. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. Not just author names, but extend the actual argument. Often teams get so caught up in line by line or responding to the other team that they don't extend their aff or interp or something else necessary for you to win. This will make me sad and you disappointed in the RFD.

I'd rather you debate arguments you enjoy and are comfortable with as opposed to adapting to my preferences. A good debate on my least favorite argument is far more preferable than a bad debate on my favorite argument. I'm open to however you'd like to debate, but you must tell me how to evaluate the round and justify it. Justify your methodology and isolate your offense.

I don't judge kick CPs or Alts, the 2NR should either kick it or go for it. I'm probably not understanding something, but I don't know what "judge kick is the logical extension of condo" means. Condo means you can either go for the advocacy in the 2nr or not. Condo does not mean that the judge will make argumentative selection on your behalf, like judge kicking entails.

K affs- I don't think an affirmative needs to defend the resolution if they can justify their advocacy/methodology appropriately. However I think being in the direction of the resolution makes the debate considerably easier for you. I wish more negs would engage with the substance of the aff or innovated beyond the basic cap/fw/presumption 1nc but I've vote for this plenty too. I have recently been convinced that fairness can be impacted out well, but most time this isn't done so it usually functions as an internal link to education.

I'm of the opinion that one good card can be more effective if utilized and analyzed well than 10 bad/mediocre cards that are just read. At the same time, I think a mediocre card utilized strategically can be more useful than a good card under-analyzed.

Any other questions, feel free to ask before the round.

LD Paradigm:

I've coached progressive and traditional LD teams and am happy to judge either. You do you. I don't think these debates need a value/criterion, but the debates I watch that do have them usually don't utilize them well. I'm of the opinion that High School LD time structure is busted. The 1AR is simply not enough time. The NFA-LD circuit in college fixed this with an extra 2 minutes in the 1AR but I haven't judged a ton on this circuit so how that implicates when arguments get deployed or interacts with nuanced theory arguments isn't something I've spent much time thinking about. To make up for this bad time structure in High School LD, smart affs should have prempts in their 1AC to try and avoid reading new cards in the 1AR. Smart negs will diversify neg offense to be able to collapse and exploit 1AR mistakes. Pretty much everything applies from my policy paradigm but Imma say it in bold again because most people ignore it anyways: EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. Not just author names, but extend the actual claim and warrant. Often teams get so caught up in line by line or responding to the other team that they don't extend their aff or interp or something else necessary for you to win. This will make me sad and you disappointed in the RFD.

I prefer traditional debate with clash and reasonable speed. I've done this for awhile so you can run what you run as long as the analysis justifies why I should vote. Not a big fan of K debate but if you can do it well, go nuts. Tabula rasa but I'll default to policy maker if not given a reason to vote.

*I teach AP American Government. It would be in your best interest to either 1. Argue funding/enforcement/federalism accurately structurally or 2. Avoid them like the round depends on it (it often does). I'm unlikely to vote on funding/enforcement/federalism arguments that are misunderstood or misapplied. Telling the judge how government works while not knowing how government works hurts the credibility of your argument.

1) Did you debate in high school?

No

2) Did you debate in college?

No

3) How many elimination rounds have you judged on this topic?

none

4) How many preliminary rounds have you judged on this topic?

4-5

5) Please choose the following that applies to your judging criteria:

I. Which best describes your priorities in judging debates?

c. Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance.

II. Which best prescribes your paradigm or approach to judging debate?

a. Skills emphasis (Who does the “better job of debating”)

III. What speed or rate of presentation do you prefer?

b. Moderate contest rate (e.g. – extemp) faster speed discouraged.

IV. Counterplans are:

c. Acceptable if justified, and if consistent with other elements of the negative approach.

V. Topicality is:

c. Rarely important; violation of topicality must be fairly blatant to win my ballot.

VI. I find generic disadvantages:

b. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

VII. I find kritiks:

b. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

I am the head debate coach at Lyndon High School in Kansas. I was an assistant coach at Washburn Rural High School for 23 years. However, I didn’t coach the varsity teams. I mainly worked with the open teams. I have not listened to a round at speed for over four years. So I would not decide to pick it up any more than just a moderate competition speed. I don’t listen to K’s. Mainly because I am not current on the literature. So I wouldn’t suggest taking that risk. I will vote on a good T argument. However, if it is frivolous I can be convinced to vote against you. Generic DA’s are ok with specific link analysis. Finally, I default to a Policymaker paradigm. Good luck and have fun.

macp@usd383.org

I debated for 4 years in Spring Hill High School in Spring Hill, KS. Now a coach for Manhattan HS (2017-Present)

Top Level: I am definitely a policymaker and will vote for the side/scenario that does the most good while causing the least amount of harm. My view of Policy maker does leave room for in-round impacts. Impact calc in the rebuttals will go a long way with me. An overview is always appreciated. I, like many judges, can get lost in high-speed rounds. Don't just assume I know things or will do any work for you. I default to tech over truth but don't push it. If your evidence is bad, I can't vote on it. I can't pretend like Russia didn't invade The Ukraine.

Speed: I'll keep up alright in higher speed rounds, but always run the risk of getting lost. I'll flow off of the speech doc, but I need slow and clear analytics. Doing your job breaking down the round in the 2NR/AR benefits me.

Kritiks: I am relatively comfortable with the basics of the K, but my lit knowledge base is quite low. I am not receptive to Kritiks of Rhetoric if you can't give me a clear link to the AFF. Don't just say "their security rhetoric is problematic" if you can't highlight that rhetoric for me.

K-AFFs: I'll vote for a K-AFF, but you'll have to do enough work to prove that the ballot of a random Debate judge matters to your aff. A strong understanding of how the debate ecosystem functions will help you here. There are opportunities for a Perf Con debate that I haven't been seeing with enough teams.

Identity-centric Kritiks: Don't use black and brown narratives as just a route to the ballot. Cheapening these narratives because you know you can beat a policy team causes real-world harm. Seeing that you are carrying your advocacy in and out of the round that I am watching matters to me.

Topicality: Topicality violations have to be generally pretty blatant for me. There are fairly standard responses an Aff can make that will generally sway me on Topicality. If the Aff doesn't do some simple work, then I am forced to vote Neg. I default to competing interpretations and will evaluate the standards in a way to determine which interpretation best upholds an equitable debate experience. I have a hard time voting for a potential for abuse. In round abuse (like the aff linking out of everything) will weigh more heavily on my ballot.

Counter plans: I'll listen to a good counter-plan debate, but I have a hard time voting for a Consult CP. They are messy debates.

Politics DA's: I'll evaluate a politics DA, but I always want some great uniqueness evidence and a strong link. Many politics DA's I have been seeing lack the latter. Generic Politics DA answers will often win me over. I don't love the Politics DA

Don't be an awful person. I'll vote you down. Keeping this activity healthy for all students is important to me.

Please feel free to ask me questions. You all knowing my preferences benefit me just as much as it benefits you all. Don't be afraid to ask for additional feedback. If I have time, I'll chat with you :)

Hi,

I’m Alina. My pronouns are she/her. I was mostly a block boy when I debated but I do prefer judging lay style debate rounds. I’m fine with Ks and like open cross x and all that stuff whatever you want to do I just think the most important thing is to have fun.

I'm currently a Third Year law student. I debated for four years in high school. Did KDC and DCI but did Oration for national tournaments. I'm on my fourth year coaching for Blue Valley.

I'm not picky on the arguments you run I'll vote on whatever you win on the flow.

In electronic debate, I prefer people to be as efficient in transitions as possible to account for technical difficulties and so I usually count prep until teams have pressed send on their documents in exchanging speeches.

Pronouns: he/him

Email chains: Yes, please add me. johnsamqua@gmail.com

speech drop is fine as well.

TLDR:

I coach.

I don't coach that many fast teams. Clarity is what I put the most stock in.

Speed=4-6/10

Debaters that clean messy debates up will get my ballot.

I understand the K to a serviceable degree, but I wouldn't stake your hopes on winning on it in front of me unless you're just miles ahead on it.

Experience:

I competed in Kansas in both speech and policy debate for 4 years in high school.

I've judged and coached for 10 years. I tend to judge infrequently, and I haven't had many rounds on the economic inequality topic.

Judge Philosophy:

Generally: Run the things you want to run. My background basically makes me a policy hack. If you want to read something out of my wheelhouse just make sure you have good explanations. I coach teams that compete on a mostly traditional (meaning there's an emphasis on communication, and the debates are much slower) debate circuit, where it is seldom we see that type of argumentation. However I have coached a handful of varsity teams that do contemporary varsity style debate and I'd say they're pretty damn good. I may not be the most qualified judge when it comes to very fast and very technical debating.

Inclusion: I think that the debate space should be accessible to everyone, and if you engage in behaviors that negatively affect the people in the round then I will vote you down. I do not care if you are winning the debate. It's simply over. I've voted teams down in the past for being rude, racist, sexist or otherwise problematic. Just don't be a horrible person, don't talk over people, if you must interrupt try to do it politely.

Style: It's seldom that I see really good line by line. The more organized that you are during your speech the better chance you have of winning in front of me. Otherwise it's hard for me to parse where one argument ends and another begins and things get missed which is going to cause you to be not happy with me. Basically I'm saying that you're the master of your own destiny here.

Delivery:

Speed 4-6/10

I emphasize clarity

If I'm on panel with other judges that can handle more speed, I understand if I get left in the dust.

I mostly coach teams that are slow.

Argument Specific:

Disads: Read a specific link. I don't care for huge internal link chains. The bigger the chain the more untrue the argument sounds to me. But also if the other team completely bungles it then I guess I have no choice.

Counterplans: yep.

T: yep. If you're going for it, make sure you spend a lot of time on it!

K: I have pretty limited experience with K's. But that doesn't mean you should avoid them in front of me. My wheelhouse in terms of critical theory is Cap, and Biopower. I think that framework should be accessible to both teams. I would prefer that your alt actually did something

Theory: This is usually very hard for me to wrap my head around unless it's something like a spec argument. But also if we're reading spec then maybe you've already lost?

I use she/her pronouns.

I am a debate coach, so you don't have to explain to me your terminology, but I expect you to clearly explain your arguments.

Include me in the evidence sharing chain: osilverman@sacredheartknights.org

Fair debate:

I like a fair and educated debate. Please share your evidence (preferably - right away, certainly - upon request). Teams should refrain from insulting each other, using not-PC language, yelling and intimidating opponents, and make racist and sexist arguments.

Speed and Flowing:

I don't like spreading; reasonable speech is fine, but be aware that I am an auditory person and I need to hear what you have to say, so I need to understand what you are saying.

Organize, label, and signpost clearly. Give me a roadmap.

Voting:

I will vote for Aff or Neg that convinces me that the other side lacks evidence or logic.

I will vote on any of the stock issues, including inherency.

I like sound Ts, but they must be structured and justified. Aff must answer Ts properly, no matter how outlandish they are, or I will vote Neg.

I will vote on a CP if it is advantageous, but I will gladly weigh a justified Perm.

I will vote on DAs if Aff is unable to answer them. I prefer probable DAs, but you can run whatever is your best shot, as long as it's properly linked.

I detest tempered evidence: misleading tags and unfair cutting. I love to hear evidence analysis. If a team questions the quality of evidence, be specific and purposeful. I don't care if their card is from 1957 and yours is from yesterday unless you'll tell me why it's a problem.

I will vote on Ks if you can understand and explain them. I will not vote on dehumanizing Ks or those that Neg cannot clearly articulate.

Your rule of thumb with me: show me your strength and run what you know how to do well. I will vote for a more educated and better-prepared team, provided that they do not abuse the merits of this activity.

Last Updated: Winter 2021

Assistant Debate Coach for 10 years, 8 of those at Olathe Northwest

Debated at Olathe South – didn’t debate in college

Feel free to e-mail me at jskoglundonw@olatheschools.org with any additional questions!

Overall: I default policymaker and typically prefer debates in that style. Impact work is the way to win my ballot. In general, I believe that the affirmative should provide a resolution-based advocacy, and the negative should support whatever is advocated in the 2NR. Tech>truth, but obviously there’s a line there somewhere. Racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, etc. are unacceptable.

Speed: I can generally keep up with you as long as you slow down for tags / cites / theory (or other things where you want me to flow every word) and give me time between transition points. I’ll give you one “clear” before I stop flowing.

Topicality: I default to competing interpretations, but I’ll accept reasonability if it’s uncontested. For me, most T debates come down to the standards. Reading your “Limits Good” block against their “Limits Bad” block does nothing for me if you don’t actually engage in the debate happening with specificity.

General Theory: I don’t perceive myself to lean Aff or Neg on most theory arguments. Similarly to T, a good theory debate will include work on the standards that is not just embedded clash. If you feel that a theory arg is a reason to reject the team, I need more work than just literally that on my flow.

Framework: I prefer to flow framework on a separate sheet of paper as I want clear explanations / clash for why your framework is better than the other team’s.

Disadvantages / Impact Turns: I’ll listen to any DA, specific or not, though clearly a more specific link story will increase the probability of your argument. I will also listen to any impact scenario and will vote on terminal impacts. DAs / impact turns are generally strategic arguments to run in front of me as your judge.

Counterplans: If you don’t have a CP+DA combo in the 1NC, you’re probably making a strategic mistake in front of me as your judge. I’ll listen to any CP, but I like Advantage CPs in particular. I also enjoy a good perm debate, especially when Aff teams use creative perms.

Kritiks: I am open to hearing any Ks. That said, I'm not familiar with a ton of the lit base or terms of art, so please walk me through the story. While I’ve voted for them in the past, I think “reject the aff” or “do nothing” alts are not particularly persuasive. For me to vote for a K, you need to clearly articulate the alt and spend some time there.

Questions? Just ask!

Assistant Speech and Debate Coach for 11 years.

POLICY:

Please put me on the email chain: mark.skoglund AT gmail.com.

Overall: Tab, default policymaker and policy impact work is generally the most predictable path to my ballot. Tech over truth for the most part though there’s a line somewhere. I often take speech docs to check clipping but I try to not use speech docs for the decision unless there’s no other option. In general I am not a fan of embedded clash; do the work in the round.

Racist/sexist/transphobic/homophobic/ableist rhetoric will lose my ballot.

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I believe that enforcing disclosure with the ballot ends up favoring schools with resources against those without, rather than enforcing any sort of equal playing field. I also will not evaluate “which school has more resources” so I avoid voting on this argument entirely.

Speed: Fine with me, though I don’t judge as much as I used to so help me out on tags. Also if you speed through your theory block at the same rate as card text it’s not likely all going to end up on my flow.

Topicality: Default competing interps. I don’t think I have a particularly high threshold for T, though teams often do one of two things that are bad ideas:

1. Read a “precision bad” block against a “precision good” block and assume embedded clash.

2. Not focusing enough on which interp has better access to the standard and spending all the time on which standard is best.

Other Theory: I’m not likely to vote on blippy theory; do work if you want to win my ballot. Your strategy should not be to read 8 two-line theory arguments hoping the other team drops one.

Disads: I don't care if they're generic, but specific links assist in probability calculus.

Counterplans: If you’re not running a CP you’re probably making a strategic mistake with me. I lean Aff on delay CPs bad and to a lesser extent on consults bad, but I won’t do the work for you of course. I will not judge kick CPs unless clearly told to consider it by a team with justification, and the other team loses the debate re: the legitimacy of judge-kicking.

Kritiks: I’m fine with Ks, though you’ll be far more familiar with the lit base than I am, so help me out. In particular, if you’re going for the alt and I don’t understand what it is well enough, I can’t vote for it. “Reject the aff” is generally a weak alt unless it’s a discourse K or otherwise uniquely justified, but it wins often enough anyway.

Discourse/Reps Ks sidenote: I vote for discourse Ks fairly often when a team has said something exclusionary and do believe there is value in rejecting teams to correct that action in future. That said, there’s plenty of debate that can be had in this area.

***

Congressional Debate -

Experience: I have been coaching this event since 2007. My primary experience is with NSDA.

-Bigotry of any kind is not tolerated.

-Early foundational speeches can be just as important as later responsive speeches.

-When possible, direct clash is important. A late speech on legislation that does not cite/respond to anyone else is almost never very strong.

-When responding to/citing others, try to make it productive. An offhand mention just to prove you're following the debate is fine but doesn't do much to advance the debate forward; work in a response or distinguish someone else's point.

-If you are retreading ground someone else covered, you should clearly distinguish your analysis. Simply repeating past claims indicates someone is either not tracking the debate or is not well-researched and is penalized.

-Crystallization speeches are good when done well but you need to be adding value, typically at the impact weighing/framework level.

-Extending questioning periods is almost never productive (certainly not as productive as the speech we may have been able to have) and if the same competitor is repeatedly making that motion, the ranks may reflect that.

-Being a good, professional, and organized presiding officer is rewarded.

-I believe it is critically important for judges to consider whether a criticism would apply equally regardless of gender. For one obvious example, women are often penalized for the same focused aggression that men are rewarded for. The primary way to combat this is judges being conscious of implicit bias, and I try to ensure that I am fairly applying criticism.

Policy Maker - former high school debater 4 years. Current assistant coach.

I've judged a lot of rounds at various levels of competition. These stem from local tournaments to KDC to Nationals.

Your speed is your speed. If you go so fast no one can understand you then you should consider slowing down. I'll let you know if that's the case.

I'll listen to your generic D/A's but I won't give you the if you can't defend it. Get your impact calc out early, and use it throughout the debate.

T is not your best argument. However, it matters especially if the abuse is clearly defined.

K's are acceptable. Give me a realistic alternative that isn't "think different."

I'll default to the best policy every time. This means that either the SQUO, the CP, or the aff is where the vote will end up. Make that clear.

Please, PLEASE, don't make me place arguments for you.

Overview:

I enjoy a good debate. I dislike unnecessary rudeness (sometimes rudeness is called for) and I dislike lazy argumentation. Run whatever makes you feel comfortable and I’ll evaluate it in the context of the round to the best of my ability and not the context of my own personal preferences. Of course, removing all implicit bias is impossible but I encourage all forms of effective argumentation. As long as you are persuasive and educational, you’ve got a fair shot. That being said, I do enjoy a nice critical debate, just make sure you’re not lazy with it and clearly articulate the arguments. Otherwise, I love to see folks having a good time in a round. Don’t be so uptight! We gotta spend at least an hour with each other in a little room. If we’re not all relaxed it’s gonna be painful.

Arguments:

T- I never ran this so I don’t have much experience on the argument just like anything else flesh it out and articulate all areas like the definition, violation, voters etc. Overall, not something I default to reasonability unless you convince me otherwise.

DAs- Dope arguments, depending on how they’re framed can be super devastating or just ok.

CPs- Fine with me all the way.

K’s- Love ‘em but don’t be lazy just cuz you think you can win me over with one.

Condo- Up to the round, tell me what’s up and I’ll evaluate accordingly. However, if your strategy involves running a K and a traditional FW arg, then you're digging a deep hole for yourself.

Framework- I have a high threshold for a traditional FW argument. You really gotta go all in and be way better than your opponent to convince me that they should have stuck to traditional policy structure.

Experience: I debated for 4 years at Sumner Academy and have debated a few years at KCKCC. I believe that debate is a dope activity through which people can shape their own realities.

I have been involved with debate since 1981. Mostly, I don't want to do the work for either team. I will try very hard to avoid intervention unless you are just really rude and unprofessional. I tend to vote for the team that best narrates my ballot. I tend to look for the easy way to decide (think dropped args. etc.).

I would tell you to do what you do best rather than try to adapt to what you THINK I want to hear. I have voted on K's and generics and will do so when won. I rarely vote on T but will vote on a dropped T arg since that is easy. Just make your T position reasonable. T USFG is different when run well against K affs.

Please spend some time on the role of the ballot/framework. I tend to let those positions guide me in close rounds.

Prompting should be extremely limited and I won't flow if your partner is feeding you more than a word or two. I have had rounds where prompting was almost an entire rebuttal and you won't win the round if that is happening.

I should not have to read the unhighlighted portions of your evidence to figure out what your are arguing. If you have to cut that much out to get everything in, you are likely trying to do more in the round than I can follow anyway.

If you tend to just number your argument instead of calling them what you want me to flow, how do you expect me to understand what you are talking about? You should care a great deal about how easy it is for me to flow your arguments by the way you structure your documents and the clarity of your tags.

I want a marked copy (what you actually read).

Speed is not usually an issue if you are clear and your speech doc is good. Questions? Just ask.

Email: lswansonon@olatheschools.org (use the Gmail below for speech docs please)

Email for ballots: swanlars@gmail.com

Please add me to the chain: oli.debate@gmail.com

I do my best to evaluate the round without intervening personal ideals. I enjoy how different arguments take different strategic developments and want to see you develop whatever argument you are best at because that will be the most fun for all of us. Speed is fine but slow down when you are trying to emphasize an issue or when debating theory/dense portions of the flow (proper signposting helps tons here). I wont follow you on the doc, I want them for reference but will attempt to decide with as little reading as possible. If I can't flow you then i will set my pen down and clearly not be flowing.

Be nice to each other.

Email: dyates@usd313.org

I prefer speechdrop but do what you must.

Experience:

Head Coach @ Buhler High School

- Former Head Coach @ Nickerson HS 2019-2023

- Assistant Coach @ Salina South 2017-2018

- College: 4 Years Parli Debate, NFA-LD, and Limited Prep @ Kansas Wesleyan University from 2014-2018.

- High School: 4 Years Debate/Forensics at El Dorado HS (2010-2014). Did pretty much everything.

I am a huge advocate in you doing you. I will list my preferences, but know that I do find myself open to nearly any argument/strategy/style within reason. Please do not feel like my paradigm below should constrain you from doing arguments that you believe in.

• Be respectful and debate with integrity. Overt rudeness and exclusionary/offensive language and/or rhetoric will lose you my ballot.

• Substantive arguments and clear clash/organization is a must. I will not vote for unethical arguments (e.g. racism good). Please weigh arguments clearly and have a nice technical debate. Clean flows make happy ballots.

• Tech first, but not only tech. Immoral arguments will not win my ballot even if they are won 'on the flow'. Please provide a FW for weighing and evaluating the round. Don't make me have to decide why you won - you may or may not agree with my conclusions.

• I am receptive to framework and theory. I do not usually vote on procedural arguments on violations alone - extend and weigh your impacts on the procedural if you go for it in the 2R

• Kritikal arguments are good. I guarantee I like them more than you think I do. Explain your alt to me. RotB arguments take a second for my brain to process because I am a big ol' dummy, so I will want clear warrants for how and why the claim is true that my ballot does something.

• Alternative approaches (Performative Affs, K Affs) are okay but I am in all honesty less familiar with these approaches. Please explain to me the reasoning/justification for your methodology in plain-ish language if you go this route. Like the K, I like these arguments more than you might think. Please don't take my lack of exposure as a lack of willingness to vote on it.

• Please be clear on the flow. Also, please flow.