Email - zachary.x.botkin@gmail.com

"Don't be a dummy" - Sohail Jouya

My internet is terrible, so I'm going to leave off my camera to make sure that y'all don't get cut off.

Debate - When I judge debates based too much on misrepresentation or manipulation, I recommend debaters research the various fallacies I witnessed in the round - most often slippery slope, ad hominem attacks, false dilemma, and straw/steel man - if only to ensure otherwise amazing debaters don't fall back on flawed logic in the future.

Ultimately, it is up to the opposition to detect and decry these somewhat nefarious methods, but I also feel strongly that debate should center on fundamentally-sound logic, whether it's Policy, LD, PFD, or Congress. Fallacies are to debate as cheat codes are to video games: the only ones impressed by that sort of victory are those that don't know better. If either case hinges too heavily on fallacious reasoning, whether the opposition realizes it or not, you will see it noted on the ballot.

Also, it's another unpopular opinion, but spreading seems more often than not to unnecessarily negatively impact an otherwise well-articulated and supported case. Speed for its own sake seems to be the shibboleth of varsity debate, and judges expressing misgivings about it are often chalked up as lay judges. Really, many of us are just of the mind that one should learn to do something really well before doing it really quickly: as is so often the case in life, quantity rarely trumps quality. The side that presents and defends the most sound, organized, and professionally-presented case will win the round!

Visit this link for more helpful info on the fallacies:
https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/

Forensics - I tend to reward originality and intensity above almost every other factor. As a competitor in high school, I was awarded first at State the same year I qualified for Nationals in Original Oratory. I medaled throughout high school in various interpretation events before going on to serve as a Student Senator in college. I have always enjoyed and still tend to favor those performances in which the student's own unique ideas and interpretation takes center stage. Cliche, especially after these many years of judging, is a nearly unforgivable sin. POI is my new favorite event. I'd love to see more policy debaters doing extemp, oratory, Congress, and Big Questions. I look forward to this season's competition!

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

Daytona Hodson

Previous Olathe Northwest debater for 2 years (Including quarterfinals at Novice State)

Overall, debate is an educational event. Every competitor should actively participate and contribute to the argumentative landscape. This means promoting a environment that is inclusive of everyone (ie. being polite during CX and other team's speeches), yet competitive to decide a clear winner of the round. The first thing I look for in round is professionalism.

Topicality: While Topicality is meant to establish a more educational definition, I understand topicality as a time skew. When explaining topicality, I want to see all parts of the argument (Counter Interp, Violation, Standards, Voters). Without the key parts the entire argument can be lost. As the Aff team, meeting the interpretation of the Neg is good, but I strongly urge the Aff to provide the interpretation they used to develop their case to promote the educational aspect of topicality. Tell me why to prefer the definitions, debate the definitions. Use education and fairness as your reasons to prefer the counter interpretation.

CP / DA: I prefer a traditional negative argument including CP's and DA's. I look at DAs in four parts UQ, Link, Internal Link, and Impact. I prefer argumentation on the Link and Internal links as it directly brings the DA into relation with the AFF case, but if they have been already debated, Impact debate is the next best option. If the round consists of several different types of impacts (Dehumanization, poverty, war ...etc) I want to see framework on which Impact should be preferred. This can be in the form of Impact Calculus (Magnitude, Time Frame, and Probability), card evidence by an author, or both. Addressing framework should use impact calculus as the reason to prefer the other interpretation. CP's don't need to be topical. If they are topical, that is perfectly fine, but explain why it can't be achieved under the AFF plan. Also, if a CP does not have any net benefits, then I will not vote on it as you shouldn't prefer the CP. I will vote against the argument, and not the team. As long as you run other arguments, I will continue to look at your other arguments not apart of the CP.

K's: If I had to choose to hear or not hear a K, I would lean more on the NO side. I'm not familiar with K debate. I am open to hear it, but you must explain the importance of each piece of evidence and type of argument. If you run a K and the other team drops the argument, Obviously it is an easy vote for the team that ran it. If you want to run a K-AFF, same thing applies.

Theory: I support arguments with Theory about Fiat, Topicality of CP's, and other arguments. The largest piece to win my ballot with theory is to explain why debate overall is better with it being changed. Use Fairness and Education as the voter.

Inherency/ Solvency/ Advantages: Inherency is why you should be passing the plan. If a Neg team can prove that the plan has either already happened or the problem doesn't exist, then the NEG will win. While advantages are benefits to passing your plan, they are not the reason to pass your plan. I will vote NEG if the plan doesn't solve. If the NEG shows that the case will not solve, then your plan no longer has advantages. Circumvention is a viable argument, but the NEG must prove all of the solvency is gone and not just a small part of it. Even if the AFF still solves for some substantial amount, they will win on Solvency. For any governmental circumvention case by the NEG, I am open to listen on how the plan will be circumvented after it's implementation. On Advantages, I look to see that the AFF prevents the largest impact in the round (look at how I measure impacts in CP / DA section). I also look to see if the advantages you claim are probable. Maintaining the link story is the most important part for an AFF team to maintain their advantages in round.

Flowing / Judge Requests: I often cross apply several arguments when flowing. The evidence used in one argument will be compared to the other evidence used in the round. I also please ask don't speed read. I think it completely devalues the entire point of debate. Obviously talking fast is perfectly fine, but if the goal is to run a ridiculous amount of off-case arguments just so you can say that the other team forgot to address 1 of your 5 arguments, that will reflect on your ballot.

I ask that you please provide me with a copy of evidence before speeches. This enables me to better listen to arguments and look into accusations of inaccurate claims by teams. I also ask for closed cross examination as it provides the most education for individuals during the activity. I strongly encourage teams to communicate with each other and track each others time. Unless specifically stated by the tournament, prep times should not include putting evidence on a flash drive. The most important thing I ask is for coherent road maps. If a team brings up new arguments in the rebuttals, I will not vote on them. A response by the other team directing me to the new argument would be appreciated, but not required.

While judging the largest thing I look for is sportsmanship. During my time in debate, I have seen the good, ugly, and bad. Don't make arguments personal attacks on other competitors. At the end of the day, you have to debate both sides of an argument at a tournament. After that, the best way to my ballot is preventing solvency. If the AFF solves, explain why the disadvantages overwhelm solving the problem.

Hello, I am Stephen Kautt, I am a traditional debater, but I vote tech over truth. If you drop an argument you lose that argument, make sure you extend everything. This is my 4th year debating at Lansing High School. I do know some technical arguments in debate, also I love clash, if there is no clash, the debate is just boring.

If you are doing an email chain, my email is: stephen.kautt.lansing@gmail.com

TLDR: Debate the way you want to, but make sure you signpost, extend, and are clear, so that I can make sure I flow the round properly, if you are not clear, I may lose arguments you read, and I am voting off my flow. I also have a high threshold for new arguments in the rebuttals, you can read new evidence (even though you really should not unless you absolutely need to), but do not read new arguments. I also read evidence, but if your evidence does not make the claim you said, I will not vote you down unless the other team brings it up. I will just mention it on the ballot.

Speed

I can handle fast speeds, I speak fast myself, but I do take clarity over speed, so if you just sound like you are mumbling, I will deduct speaks.

Topicality

I like topicality, but do not make topicality the focus of the debate, do not make it the one thing you go for, unless it makes sense, I will vote on T if the aff does not do a good job answering the parts of T, also make sure you extend your counter interpretation standards, and the impact of the T.

Disads

I have ran disads a ton, so I know whats going on. Make sure when you run a disad, I buy the link chain, I do not want some stupid link chain to make me believe that the Aff leads to your impact. I will vote on generic links, but I prefer specific links, I will read evidence. Also make sure you extend your link, impact, and internal link. Just extend and make me buy the argument. If the Aff is able to make me believe there is no link or there is no impact, then I will flow the disad to the aff.

Counterplans

I have ran counterplans a ton, so I know what's going on. Make sure the counterplan is able to solve the aff, make sure the cp has a net benefit, if you lose the net benefit you lose the cp. I also love perms, read a lot of them but do not forget to extend them, or answer them on the neg.

Kritik

I know what ks are, and i do not mine hearing. I am the most comfortable with setcol and cap. Be careful though, i am especially attentive when it comes to framework. And be careful, I am attentive, I will hear if you make the debate space unsafe on the topic of race or gender. If it does not make sense, I will not vote for it. Explain your k and the world of the alternative.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I enjoy debate, I am excited to hear everyone debate, just listen to what I said above, and listen and have fun. Debate is all about having fun.

Cant wait to judge you,

Stephen

im a first-year out, ex-DCI debater from Lawrence.

i will listen to and believe any argument assuming you can sell it. that being said, i think that actual discussion and debates about the aff are better than running like twenty da's and wacky t args.

i don't believe in tabula rasa. stock issues don't matter to me as much as a coherent argument. i won't vote you down if you don't "prove" harms or inherency.

if you tell me that you don't understand what USFG or some other acronym stands for, you've lost my ballot.

truth = tech, its more about the framework, in my opinion. you could honestly convince me either way, but i tend to lean towards truth > tech. i think there is an inherent value to the debate space but that's a different tangent.

i am most read on kritikal arguments and enjoy watching them but do what you do!

if you say anything sus i will vote you down.

if you have any questions feel free to ask.

please put me on the chain Email:Rose.joel2003@gmail.com

I debated for 4 years at Lawrence high, I mostly did Fast kritical debate but I feel comfortable judging any style of debate

basic rules-

- I don't do hand shakes

- don't be mean for no reason if I think your being over the top rude it will reflect that on your speaks

- I will automatically vote you down for being discriminatory, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or creating an unsafe debate space

- if you go top speed on anylitics put them in the speech doc or I'm likely to miss arguments

- you cant win a round without offense.

I'm a former NDT-CEDA debater at Missouri State University and debated policy and LD debater all four years at Lawrence High School, with experience at both regional and nat circuit levels.

I'd like to be on the email chain, also for any questions: jshew1923@gmail.com

TLDR: You can run pretty much anything in front of me except racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia/ableism and etc. good or args that are explicitly problematic. I'll default to flow unless instructed otherwise. Just tell me how to evaluate the debate and I'll vote.

That being said, I think that you should just have fun and not worry too much about me as a judge. Competition is good, but can easily turn toxic - don't worry about the ballot too much at the expense of your partner or the other team. We're all people who enjoy and care about the same activity and community, so mutual respect is super key.

I really don't enjoy people who are overly aggressive or rude - make your point and move on.

Arg by arg breakdown if interested:

Ks:

I really enjoy K debate. I'm most familiar with lit on Cap, Sett Col, Abolition, Queer Theory, and a smattering of small lit bases about care, cyborgs, etc. That being said, just because a K isn't lit I'm necessarily familiar with doesn't mean you shouldn't run it - just means you might have to give me a solid overview of what the K means, how the alt functions, what my role is, etc. which you should be doing anyways

The more specific your K is to the topic the more generous I will be about it. I love topic specific alts and link stories, and vastly prefer these debates over a recycled backfile K

Please please please do not make me evaluate an impact turn on the K (for example, don't make me evaluate something like gender binary good) because it will not turn out well for you. That also means if you're neg, DON'T drop an impact turn and force me to make a decision like this. However, impact turns like "cap good" are obviously fine, often strategic, and an exception to this.

Topicality:

I find myself generally pretty comfortable in T debates, as long as both sides do comparison of impacts and there is warranted analysis and line-by-line on every level of the T debate.

I <3 specificity in violations - in round abuse, plan text analysis, gimme all that

I will always prefer a smart analytic specific to the round over fairness and predictability good blocks - please answer their voters, don't just read your own - if not I might make a decision you'll be frustrated with because I'm parsing out both of your T backfiles

I'm open to voting on an RVI if it's impacted out, explained in the context of the round (i.e. why their T shell is specifically bad) and my ballot can resolve it. Otherwise it's just a meme.

Counterplans:

Are good! They should be competitive, solve at least some of the aff, and have a net benefit. Other than that it's really free range. I think it's more convincing for me to have specific warrants to the plan, not just "executive branch good" or something, otherwise I'll prefer their undoubtedly more specific analysis every time. On the aff, give me contextualization on how the perm functions and avoids linking into the net ben. It'll be beneficial for neg teams to explain how the CP accesses the aff's framing so they can't just outweigh you.

Fun PICs are fun - don't go too overboard with like 30 PICs in the 1NC obviously but I love word PICs and making the aff defend all their choices

Disadvantages:

Disadvantages are a very good option in front of me, as with every other judge, as long as you do impact comparison and framing. Generic links to DAs are cool in the 1NC on this topic, but I think in the block you need to either contextualize your generic link to the actions of the affirmative or read a specific link. Similar to CPs, it will be helpful to have an external impact as well as a turns case argument, as it helps generate even if statements that make my decision easier. If you're aff, you should call out terrible politics DAs for being terrible, because they usually are.

Theory:

I kinda hate when it's clear an argument in the 1NC is not even a 2NR consideration for you - I am not the judge for your 10 off strats. I think condo is good but has been pushed way too far - I would much rather judge a 1-5 off debate than vote on a counterplan because you can spread fast and they dropped it.

Other than condo, I lean towards rejecting the arg on more specific theory, and you probably should only run it if it's warranted - if you're going for theory in the 2AR, go all in.

Miscellaneous Weird Things:

I would rather listen to a debate on a unique, creative off case position that forces debaters to get off their blocks and do critical thinking than another states CP debate, but those are very cool too. Meaning, run the random stuff.

Humor is good - within bounds

You need to do evidence comparison. I think that my role as a judge is to minimize intervention as much as possible, and to evaluate the debate based on the content of the speeches - that means you probably won't get an "I don't think these warrants are good enough" decision or something unless you specifically tell me to read a piece of evidence after the round, and then I'm happy to.

I don't get the minor clipping hate, if you accidentally skip a word I won't immediately vote you down on 0s and tweet about it.

Other than that just ask and I'll try my best to answer!

I'm a college freshman at Northwestern University with four years of debate and forensics experience at Lawrence High School, focusing on Policy and LD. I will listen to any range of arguments (excluding those that are racist/sexist/bigoted or blatantly incorrect) as long as you appropriately respond to your opponent (pull through warrants, signpost, etc); create as much direct clash as possible! However, I usually prefer args that are based in truth testing over technical skills. Also, if a DA/K/T/CP doesn't have its necessary components (ex. UQ, Link/ILs, Impact), I won't evaluate it. Spread if you want to, I will say "clear" if you become unintelligible. Safety and education in the debate space is my biggest concern. Have fun! Don't be mean to each other!

Hey y'all!

LHS '22

Two years open + two years DCI

KU '26 - Econ + Mandarin - not currently debating

23-24 Topic : I have not judged any rounds on this topic yet but am familiar with the concepts it outlines

Add me to the email chain or ask questions @ Hviloria71@gmail.com

or give me the code if you're using speechdrop

GENERAL INFO:

I will listen and vote on anything if you can convince me, literally!

Run what you feel most comfortable with, idc if thats a simulation K or 50 states, I'll do my best to adapt ;)

Don't be rude! Don't say anything problematic, but that should go without saying.

Just have fun and do whatever you want, EXCEPT run 8 off

I definitely feel like I was one of those people who got too caught up in the round and didn't have as much fun as I should've, so please make jokes and have fun, I promise you it's not that deep!!

Tech > truth

I want to try and prevent judge intervention as much as possible, so judge instruction is rlly nice!

MORE SPECIFIC THINGS:

Speed:

I'm okay with speed, but I'd rather have you be clear than to go fast so just make sure you are aware of what is articulate and what is not(I'll clear you if I think its absolutely necessary but I don't like to lol).

slow down on tags

If you're going to spreading a pre-written block or something- either go slowww or send out your analytics, spreading your opponents out of the room isnt cool!

that being said also make sure if you are gonna spread/go faster than normal plz check with the opposing team so we're all on the same page

T : I can't say I am terribly good at T debates but I understand the basic mechanics

• default to competing interps
• I really enjoy when people impact out standards and voters
• Against a K aff, TVA's are super helpful!

Ks: These are probably what I'm most familiar with and what I love to see! I mainly worked with cap, set col, abolition, undercommons, and a small amount of queer theory. However, I'm not entirely sure what k ground looks like for this topic so don't assume I already know the lit lol.

• the MOST important thing for K's is the link and impact! Generic links are ok but need to be well articulated, that means you're pulling lines from the aff's case, using in-round reps, etc to be the most specific - if there isnt a lot of link work it'll make the K debate a lot harder for everyone involved. Also make sure to impact out everything, explain why the aff is bad for debate, bad for the world, and plz say what the role of the ballot/role of the judge is!
• I don't think the alt neeeedsss to solve, but still do work on it - I think conceding the alt can be strategic in some rounds(like in a situation where you believe the link and impact substantially o/w the case) but you should be prepared to defend your methodology - basically I see kicking the alt as a last resort.
• LINE BY LINE <3
• win framework = win k debate
• If you do not plan on going for the K, kick it *first thing* in the 2nc. Don't go all in on certain advocacies and representations if you don't plan on defending them for the whole round.

Planes offs/kicking the plan text : I have no problem with it. Just be thorough and explain your methodology/praxis(ie why is not having a plan text critical to your methodology, how is it better for debate, what’s the impact in and out of this round, etc.)

Disads and CPs : I don't have a strong preference towards either of them. Specific links and impact calc :)

Theory: I like theory - vulnerable to voting on condo when it's warranted/if you can convince me it's warranted - in most cases I will reject the argument not the team unless instructed otherwise

I probably left some things out so PLZ do not hesitate to ask questions!!

Tab, default to policy. This means I will not vote on stock issues unless you convincingly tell me WHY I should.

Good with faster speed as long as clear

SIGNPOSTING

I debated 4 years in high school and graduated in 2017. I've been judging since then.

Ask about anything that is unclear! Especially novices!

Put me on the chain: savanareedvalizan@gmail.com

Hello!

Disclaimer: Some people, including me, have been jerks in debates and potentially ruined someone else's chance at loving the activity. Knowing I have been apart of the problem, I want to be apart of the solution. Actions that are not cool with me include but are not limited to: rude in CX, clipping cards, anti-Blackness, homophobia, sexism, etc.

Experience:

Debated for 2 years at Lawrence Free State.

In my 2nd year of debating at Emporia State. (STINGERS DOWN).

If you would like to check out what I'm familiar with, you can check out my wiki, I'm one half of Emporia KR! You can find us in 21-22 and 22-23.

Important Things:

1. I flow on paper and would consider myself less proficient at it than the average college debater.

2. I don't trust my ability to understand your evidence and how it applies to the debate and neither should you.

3. Roll of the ballot/ framing for how my ballot should operate are filters through which I will view the debate and not explicitly discussing this is both a missed opportunity AND can lead to confusions that lead to a very different decision than you are expect or desire.

Here are some of my thoughts:

T:

In general, I think these debates should be about competing interpretations. I think T should be similar to a DA with UQ, Link, I/L, and Impacts. If I think these parts of T aren't clear then... I think T is about the plan text in a vacuum, but I don't think your plan saying the word "X" is a reason why you meet the interp. I have no idea what the high school topic is, so maybe include the plan-text in the doc lol.

FW:

This debate is just T with different conventions about offense/ defense. TVAs and switch side act as cps to access the affs offense.

Theory:

I think theory debates can be so fun! Unfortunately, many of these debates are people reading blocks at each other and not a lot of actual debate happening. That is A LOT of judge intervention that I’m not sure you want me to do! Because of my own deficiencies as a debater, I’m often frustrated with the amount negative teams get away with in their sneaky counter-plans! I’m not sure if this will ever translate into any decisions on this matter, but I predict it may affect how I evaluate aff solvency deficits against tricky cps.

Kritiks:

Please tell me how your theory broadly works and then specifically apply it to the aff. I do not know a lot of tricks so try not to be too tricky. I think you'll win my ballot easily if you can spin a link specifically to the aff. I don't like to be bombarded with a bunch of cards to read after a debate to explain your theory to the other team. I think that alternative debates can be really engaging and I would love some specific example work to make it cleaner. I should have an idea of what the alt does if you think I'm gonna vote on it unless you have an offensive reason why I shouldn’t.

Disads/Counterplans/Case:

Love a good da debate! Case debates are so cool, especially offensive ones. I <3 impact turns.

Evan Winden

Shawnee Mission East '20

University of Kansas '24

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

Top Level

I think debaters work really hard and will reward teams with good evidence, good technical ability, and good communication.

Clipping results in a loss and 0 speaks- make sure to mark cards when you say “mark the card”.

I will not vote on things that happen outside the round.

Topic knowledge is limited; I seemingly am aff biased on this topic.

Tech issues are way too frequent in the post-online debate world. I will be patient but attempt to resolve these issues prior to the round.

Critical/Non-traditional Affirmatives

I think the affirmative should be topical. Most definitely, the aff should be in the direction of the topic. Otherwise, you need distinct reasons why reading the aff under the topic is good.

Not a fan of debate bad.

Fairness is an impact, but my favorite impact is clash/iterative testing.

Creative TVAs will be rewarded and serve as a way to subsume aff offense.

I enjoy substance/presumption debates against critical affirmatives.

I'm not sure that discussions of the issues/problems of debate are best in-round.

Ks

I think the aff should get to weigh its impacts.

I would not like to hear a long overview; it can probably be done on the line by line.

Good links win debates; bad links lose debates- impacting out these links is important. Links need to be contextualized to the aff.

Links of omission are not links.

The alternative should resolve the links. If not, the kritik is most likely a non-unique disad.

I don't think kicking the alternative and going for it as a linear disad is strategic.

Not highly versed in obscure literature. Even if I am, explanations will serve to your benefit.

When answering - make strong permutation arguments and explain the net benefit.

Disads

Good. Impact overviews with turns case and impact calculus should be near the top of every disad debate.

Disads are not low/no risk unless that's proven.

Politics disads are good and comparing evidence in these debates is what wins. Author qualifications, data, and dates are a good way to start.

Quals are underrated.

Counterplans

I won't judge kick unless it's in the 2NC and 2NR.

Cheating counterplans are only cheating counterplants if that's proven - process, agent, consult, etc. are probably cheating, but you have to say it is and win that they are bad.

Always down for a counterplan competition debate - counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive.

The aff needs to impact out solvency deficits and have more warrants than just permutation do both in the 2AC.

Theory

Highly underrated and I think theory debates can be interesting but most of the time it's just blocks.

Cheating counterplans are cheating counterplans- warrant out why they are bad for debate.

A certain amount of conditional advocacies being bad is arbitrary, but condo can be a voter. I generally think debate should be hard.

I think disclosure and open sourcing are good. The difference between "big" and "small" schools is somewhat arbitrary, but I do think small schools exist. However, this is not a reason to not disclose (this is mostly a Kansas thing).

New affs- good & strategic, but should be prepared for the 8 off debate.

Topicality

I default to competing interps.

I am not the biggest fan of techy topicality debates.

Plan text in a vacuum arguments aren't very persuasive. Extra-T affs aren't topical.

Never a reverse voter.

Affs

Stubborn 2A thing- I think a lot of 2A's blow through the case debate without extending proper warrants or referencing 1ac cards.

I have mostly read big-stick impacts through my career and do not think sitting on framing in the 2AR as a reason to vote aff is very persuasive.

Defending strong internal link chains is easier than bad ones.

"The aff is your home. Protect it." - Martin Osborn

Stolen from David Sposito's paradigm: I appreciate unconventional arguments more than I previously did. Debate is now an echo chamber that does not prepare students to answer all arguments, bad or not. It really bothers me that some debaters "scoff" at certain arguments as an answer rather than engaging in debate. Good debaters should have the tools to answer those bad arguments.

Feel free to email questions or ask me before/after the round.