Hello! My name is Maitri Ajmera and I use she/her pronouns.

Speech docs to maitriajmera@gmail.com

Wichita East '20

While I did a decent amount of nat circuit debating in high school, I'd be best described as a DCI level debater (I also generally preferred and was more successful in extemp and congress). I have a pretty good understanding of how debate works at a high level but I have not judged enough (at all) to say that I am capable of judging very technical debates. I will do my best to keep a tight flow and will evaluate arguments on the basis of tech>truth. While I'm familiar with spreading, given that this is my first time judging since graduating high school, I would recommend that you go slower unless you are very confident that you can be extremely clear while spreading. I'll clear you twice but after that, I'll dock your speaker points. I most often went for some combination of a DA, CP, and case but also did go for the fem K and the cap K a decent amount of times. Warning: I have very little experience with very technical Ks and I'd advise you not to read them. This especially applies to kritikal affirmatives. Of course, while I am open to hearing them and firmly believe that K affs are a very valuable part of this activity, I don't think I have the expertise to judge them in a way that will be favorable to you. I also don't love T or theory but will still definitely listen and vote on it if you win it. I will default to competing interps > reasonability but all of my predispositions are still very malleable. I also have absolutely no topic knowledge on criminal justice so your arguments might require a bit more explanation than normal. As long as you do your best, I will also do my best to understand your arguments.

Good things: clash (!!!), updated wikis, impact calc, condo, specificity and logical link chains, strategic cx questions, and evidence quality and comparison.

Bad things: clipping (it's cheating!!), arguments without warrants, arguments without impacts, shadow extension, stealing prep, unintelligible speed, and affs with no connection to the topic.

All in all, do what you do best and I'll do my best to accommodate to you. As a former debater, I know how much energy is put into this activity and I hope that I'll be able to facilitate fun and educational debates!

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.

Name Jacob Brown

Pronouns He/Him/His
Current school affiliation
Years of debate experience 3

Email you prefer to use in round

• Jacobbrown3716@gmail.com

Brief biography + history of your debating/judging/coaching experience.

• I have debated for 3 years and judged practice debates before this year where I was able to judge actual ones.

What your knowledge, preferences, and beliefs are on the following aspects of debating, and describe how would vote for/against each of these aspects:

• Speed I don’t care how fast you read as long as i understand the jist of it

• Topicality if u don’t answer then i will judge on this but other than that probably not

• Disadvantages depends what is said in them for me to decide what i’ll judge it on

• Counterplans depends on what it is changing on the aff plan

• Kritiks and non-traditional affirmatives haven’t judged one of these yet so i’d have to listen to one of these debates first

• Stock issues / case arguments don’t really care about the stocks all that much but if you do it right maybe and on case is big because if u take out what they sya they have nothing

• Theory and framework haven’t judged a debate with these either

-

What arguments you refuse to vote on or absolutely HATE. don’t really have one

What arguments you really ENJOY hearing. I enjoy hearing arguments that take out another team’s evidence

-

How you believe prep time and cross examination should be conducted. Both should be used as much as possible

-

Your explanation of what good sportsmanship / behavior looks like in round, and what actions you find offensive/distracting/cheating/worthy of a round loss.

• Not treating each other like crap and just being there for the fun of it

How you will assign speaker points according to this scale

30 = 1

29.5 and above = 1

29 and above = 1

28.7 and above = 2

28.5 = 2

28.4 and below = 2

28 and below = 2

27 and below = 3

Below a 26 = 4

-

Any unusual things about you / personality quirks debaters should be aware of (such as “mention chinchillas somewhere in your rebuttals and win the round” or “I would like you to address me as you would the president while in round”). Put something here to make yourself seem approachable and human to otherwise nervous/sweaty debaters who have never met you.

• I really don’t have anything here

The last word(s) for debaters. This could be literally anything that is appropriate.

Have fun

I am a "Stock Issues" paradigm meaning the affirmative team must present a prima facie case to win: Aff must prove their policy proposal will result in a significant advantage free from disadvantages. If the affirmative plan does not solve (produce the advantage), they lose. If the affirmative plan does result in the advantage but it is not significant, they lose. In other words, the negative has presumption and the aff the burden to prove.

Mike Harris
Wichita Southeast

Online norms - Be nice and have fun. Clean tech makes me happy. Fast is not always the best when it becomes unclear. I flow your speech, not your speech docs, especially after the 1AC/1NC.

2020-2021 Update : One of my undergraduate degrees is criminal justice. I'm well versed in both theory and procedures. I've hosted guest lectures this season with speakers on Police militarization and the Use of Force, Death Penalty, and "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Color Blindness". I have a federal court judge scheduled to speak. My knowledge level is high, which means your arguments are going to have to be explained correctly to persuade me most effectively. Truth is important on this topic, especially when making claims to solve structural problems at a value level.

I have significant experience in the past 15 years judging many tournaments both in Kansas and around the nation. I am the Director of Debate at Wichita East in Wichita. I have multiple students currently competing in the NDT/CEDA, and Parli circuits in colleges across the country. We have had many national qualifiers in policy debate in recent years . I coached the 2nd and 3rd place teams at NCFL, had three teams in the top 30 at NSDA and coached the 7th place team and a top ten speaker, and had two teams qualified for the TOC. I have been exposed to many teams and styles from across the nation. Below is a brief explanation of some of my judging preferences. This is by no means a complete explanation, so feel free to ask specific question regarding my paradigm:

I'm a tabula rasa judge as much as that exists and you will need to address framing in this debate to win my ballot. DOn't care of it's K v K, clash of covs, or policy debates.

Speed - No preference as long as you are clear. I can keep up on the flow with any team although I do not believe that extreme speed is required to win. I prefer clarity and quality argumentation to speed. With that said, I most enjoy a quality high speed round that combines the above traits.

Kritik's - Literature is essential to quality kritik arguments. I do not have any problem with performance k's or kritikal aff's. I'm familiar with kritikal identity and postmodern lit. I am a glutton for solid evidence and I know that the literature exists. Be prepared to explain the literature clearly and succinctly. I have a philosophy degree although I am quite a few years removed from in-depth study of the literature.

CP's - If it solves the for the aff advantages and has a net benefit I'm good. I'm solid on theory. Not often do I reject a team on theory.

Topicality- My threshold for topicality is high. That said, I have voted on T in very significant out rounds when I don't feel it has been covered appropriately, and it is extended effectively. T must be impacted out and weighed to be a factor in my decision. I've judged a lot of debates for a long time, and seen debate go through a lot. Be specific and focus on t what would happen if this specific aff is allowed. I have interesting perspectives on the concept of fairness.

Disads - I am particularly interested in strong specific links and true internal link scenarios. I hate hearing internal links and impacts that are based on evidence from 2007. I am convinced at this level of debate evidence for disads should be updated every week to paint an accurate portrayal of the world. I will weigh a disad impact scenario without good specific links against case impacts in all cases, but the risk will probably be very low. I'm going to vote for whichever team (aff or neg) has the best and most true story.

Case - I love a good case debate. Above I mentioned I have a criminal justice and philosophy background, it is important to note my main degree area if study was political science (IR) and history.. I have found that specific and significant case turns by the negative can be very effective in undermining an aff case and being enough to win a round. Common sense analytics are important to accompany cards for both teams. Shadow extensions do little for me, I want warrant analysis with specific comparisons.

Theory and framework - Ask regarding specifics. Impact it out, ask for leeway, answer independent voters. I think this is an area of debate that is often under-covered and not understood by many advanced teams. I vote for kritikal affs and neg t/framework about evenly. I'll go either way. I don't like cheap theory (disclosure in round one of the first tournament of the year), but understand creative theory as part of the game.

All said, have fun and enjoy yourselves. Please signpost appropriately! I don't always catch the authors and sometimes it gets interesting in rebuttals when all I keep hearing is the "Brown 11' card" over and over. I can usually figure it out, but is annoying and a waste of time. I am very open-minded and will listen to anything, however teams need to explain both claims and their appropriate warrants. [mailto:devadvmike@gmail.com]

General Info

Margaret, she/her, Catholic, white. 4th year debater at Kapaun Mt. Carmel, local/state/DCI/NSDA, not rly any circuit experience. Top 30 at Nats 2k19, first love is policy and speech/interp events. dear Lord please don't make me judge ld. Prospective international relations major, law nerd, take from that what you will.

Actual Debate Stuff

Impacts. Impacts, impacts. Extend them, explain them, compare them with your opponent's. Make smart analytics. Tell me how to evaluate it- should I be prioritizing probability, timeframe, söft left or big stick stuff? If you don't provide me that framing I'll likely default magnitude first, but do the bare min of work there and I'll use your framing. That being said be responsive to your opponent's framing arguments, I'm begging you.

Debate is a game, but that game means nothing if you aren't learning and growing from it. That means education and fairness are probably very good things, but same as above: I have a default, there it is, but if you do the work to tell me why I should evaluate it differently, anything's possible.

CPs are fine. Run your theory if you want, but explain/extend your stuff. Tell me why it matters.

Case debate and impact turns are... chef's kiss... go for it. Art.

Speaks normally 25 to 30, 25 being pretty bad and 30 being Incredible. 20 means you said/did something That Bad. Cross goes a long way here. Your attire does not matter.

I'm not super well-versed in K trix, so explain things, but I'll do my best to flow and evaluate fairly. A nicely warranted K debate is another chef's kiss level move. (This is not a free pass to say buzzwords for 8 minutes. Explain the args.)

TLDR Have fun, I try to evaluate fairly everything on the flow, explain your args and p l e a s e extend those mpx. I can be reached at margaretmooremail@gmail.com (please add me to the chain, by the way) if you want any clarification on notes, I know my handwriting is garbo. Thank you for debating!

put me on the email chain: madeline.rowley@gmail.com

they/them

debated at kapaun mt carmel and wichita east in high school

tldr: do what you want. i was a policy debater in high school but have a general understanding of most k's. i was a 2a and 2n so i don't really feel a big bias.

Lynae Silva

She/Her

Goddard High School

Two years @ GHS

4 years of judging

lynaesilva@yahoo.com-include me in the email chain or flashing pls

I was a varsity debater who jumped straight in to open and above, so I have a lot of experience. Involved w/ competitive speech (LD, IX, impromptu) as well.

Speed- Spreading is okay with me, but if you are going to spread I MUST be able to understand you and stuttering must be minimal. Basically, only spread if you are legit good. For the most part, I prefer a moderate-fast paced delivery. You do not have to go conversational with me. I WILL fall asleep.

Topicality- AFF: If T is being ran against you, it MUST be answered with a “we meet” or a counter-interp and standards and voters. It is 100% a priori. I will not vote against you if you are untopical, effects topical, etc. but I will vote against you if T is dropped.Theory is acceptable if explained well.

NEG: If you are going to bother with T, either go for it in the 2nr or don’t go for it at all. I will not vote on T if you give no standards or voters or do not explain the violation. GROUND is the biggest part of T for me. Don’t waste my time on T if you have on-case. I have ran my fair share of untopical affs.

Disads- I am up for any disad. If you are reading any kind of politics, your evidence must be INCREDIBLY NEW. If you do not have all of the parts of a disad (impact, internal link, etc) I won’t vote on the DA.

Counterplans- I’m always down for a tasty CP, but if it’s topical it better be DAMN good and well explained, or I am voting aff on presumption. CP must have solvency and NB!!!!!! If neg does not have this I WILL NOT VOTE.

K, K aff, wild arguments- I am a fan of WELL EXPLAINED K’s. If you don’t have a link or an alt I won’t vote. If aff drops the K they lose on it. K’s are a priori. If you do not understand the philosophy or ideology behind the K then you should not be bothered on running it. Automatic L. If you are running a wild argument, please explain. I do not care if it is crazy. I only care if you understand and support it throughout the round.

Stock issues/case- You should never lose on inherency. End of story. Solvency is VVV important and I expect it to be argued on both sides. If you go 100% offcase all round as neg, you will lose. I would rather see one off and case than six disads and no solvency. Impact defense and advantages are also important in my eyes and could do a lot for you in round on both sides.

Theory/Framing- Framework can win rounds. I’m equally ethics and policy. For theory and framework as long as you argue well I do not care what you are running.

Conduct- You clip you lose. You cheat you lose. Basically, be fair and idc. If you think abuse is happening call it out. Defend yourself.

30 = YOU SHOULD WIN THE TOURNAMENT (VERY RARE)

29.5 and above = One of the best speakers I have seen. YEET (RARE)

29 and above = Top speaker in the room! Congrats! (MODERATE RARE)

28.7 and above = You were really awesome and had great arguments! Just fell short a wee bit. (SPECIAL)

28.5 = gOOd JOB

28.4 and below = NICE JOB

28 and below = MM YES JOB

27 and below = OKAY JOB

Below a 26 = QUIT DEBATE

CX- I WILL REMEMBER WHAT YOU SAY IN CX. CX SHOULD BE HEATED BUT NOT ANGRY. USE ALLLLL OF YOUR TIME. OPEN CROSS EX SHOULD NOT BE DOMINATED BY THE PERSON NOT CX-ING. I SHOULD NOT HEAR STATEMENTS BY THE PERSON ASKING QUESTIONS. QUESTIONS ONLY. I SHOULD NOT HEAR QUESTIONS BY THE PERSON BEING CROSS EXED. I AM A KNOWN SCARY CROSS EX-ER SO YOU CAN GO OFF. I LOVE IT.

IMPORTANT RANDOMS-

AFF: IF YOU DROP AN ARGUMENT YOU LOSE. END OF STORY.

NEG: IF YOU DO NOT HAVE COMPLETE ARGUMENTS OR CANNOT EXPLAIN YOU LOSE. END OF STORY.

USE ALL PREP. TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT. DO NOT STEAL PREP IN FLASHING. YOU ARE GROSS IF YOU DO. FLASH OFFTIME BUT DO NOT TAKE W34W309 MINUTES.

OPEN CX IS COOL. ROADMAPS ARE A NEED. NO NEW IN THE 2 UNLESS YOU CAN SNEAKILY CROSS APPLY THEM.

IF YOU MAKE REFERENCES OR JOKES THAT WILL HELP YOU OUT. MAKE ME LAUGH. :)))

Good luck, have fun! INSTA- @papa_lynae