for catnats -i have not judged a round on this topic but serena gave me a rundown of it so i’m good2go

-please add me to the email chain: mattbrandenburger@gmail.com

-debated 4 years at Lawrence Free State HS

-currently a junior at American University

-be nice

-i don't care what you read

-i think your aff should interact with the resolution

DA: i really like these especially when there are specific links and good turns case arguments that make it hard for the aff to weigh it's impacts against them. DA's are not a yes/no question it is all a question of comparative risk between them and the affirmative's advantages so debate them as such. i don't care how bad the DA is, so long as you have specific links to the aff and something to weigh in the end.

CP: i don't like bad CP's but you need to make theory arguments against them. if a CP has a high risk of solving the aff, it is easy for me to vote on any risk of a DA. aff's need to prioritize offense against CP's and recognize most 1AC cards have embedded warrants that can be used as solvency deficits.

T: please explain why your model of debate is good and why your opponent's is bad

K: i think they are more compelling when you put them in the context of the aff instead of the resolution writ large. i think impacts in the debate space are just as important as out of it. ultimately, you need to explain your theory and why it impacts the debate.

Case: definitely underused in round. i like when the aff uses the case offensively against the neg. on the other side, 2Ns should make it a clear point in the 2NR if there's a low risk of the aff

-tech>truth

questions? look at https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=30844 for more detail!

pronouns: she/her

add me to the email chain: bkcoleman@bluevalleyk12.net

I don't really care what you run, just don't be rude.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi!

They/them

If you are comfortable feel free to share your pronouns with me.

Freshman at UNL. I have experience debating open and one year of varsity debate. I also competed in student congress during forensics season. Your args need warrants. Racism, sexism, ableism, and queerphobia aren’t acceptable. If I see any of these you will get the four (or 25) and lose the round.

Please give content warnings if what you are going to say could be triggering.

SIGN POST. PLEASE. Tell me what card you are referencing and read your tags and authors.

Please don't spread.

Your args need warrants.

New cards are acceptable thru the 1ar.

K's: acceptable if you can explain them to me, but I have never been a K debater and I am not very familiar with Ks and K literature, so please keep that in mind.

CP: Needs a net benefit

DA: needs to have a link

Overall, think of me as a flay policymaker judge. (also don't call me judge. Call me August.)

Have a good round and I don't care if you swear but don't over do it and don't be mean.

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

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

I did policy debate for 4 years and LD (traditional V/C LD) for 2 years in central Kansas.

Policy Debate

I am not picky on argumentation, just make sure that it is cohesive and makes sense. I will adapt to whatever the participants bring to the debate room.

I tend to weigh stock issues very heavy, so affirmative must not only show that there is a problem now but that there is a legitimate block to the plan in the status quo.

Non-Negotiables

Do not create unsafe spaces in debate. If you have questions or concerns please bring them up when all parties are present before the debate begins.

Speed

Please be clear and signpost. I will let you know if your rate of speaking is too much for me. Slow down for line by line.

Adding me to the email-chain will also solve any continuity issues that may come up in round:

sara-kilpatrick@hotmail.com

Theory

Don't use it as a time suck. If you read it, make it make sense.

Kritiks

I am open minded to any literature but I did lean more towards Fem when I was a debater, so I am not incredibly well versed in other Ks (just make sure it makes sense)

Lincoln-Douglas

I have a preference for traditional value/criterion style of LD and will base my voting on that, but if you show me that the newer policy esk style is better then I am willing to operate under that paradigm.

I am cool with speed, just make sure that I have access to ev or that you at least slow for tags and the V/C level.

I am down with critiquing the resolution or the other teams positions (however I do not think that it should be structured like a K policy flow).

Let me know if y'all have any questions

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

She/Her

Email: annemarie.smith2003@gmail.com

UT Austin 2026 | Shawnee Mission South 2022

*Glenbrooks: I don't have extensive topic knowledge this year (didn't work at camp last summer)- just make sure to explain acronyms; I'd appreciate a little more explanation with generics than other judges who've judged more on this topic*

General Stuff

• I'm primarily a policy oriented judge
• Don't steal prep and try to be quick about sending the doc
• Email chain is best
• Wiki/Disclosure is good
• Be organized with your flow
• Slow down in the rebuttals

DA

• Existential impacts are fine, but I think that the aff can and should make a probability push
• Case turns and outweighs is good

CP

• Affs should always read a perm, but you don't have to go for it
• Perms you go for should be functionally and textually competitive, but it's up to you to make that argument
• Internal net benefits are fun and good
• I like theory on CPs (50 state fiat, process CPs, etc.), but it probably won't write the ballot
• Tell me to judge kick things

T

• I'm not the best judge for a high-level T debate.
• With that being said, if a team is obviously not T, and that's the best argument to go for, go for it.

FW

• I think you should read it and it's a good strategy for K affs in front of me
• You should not make arguments that K affs don't belong in debate; I think it's more persuasive to read DAs on the T flow or argue that debate isn't a healthy space to discuss specific issues

K (Neg)

• Read them, but make sure to explain anything that's uncommon
• A good alt explanation when compared to the aff plan is convincing- especially in the rebuttals
• The aff gets to weigh the plan

K (Aff)

• I have no experience reading K affs and some experience answering them, but I'm normally just taking FW (on the negative)
• I can flow, but probably require more judge instruction when it comes to the rebuttals
• The aff should probably have some relation to the resolution; if it doesn't, I think there should be an explanation as to why

Condo/Theory

• I dislike evaluating theory debates
• I default that you should get to kick positions, but there is such thing as too many off case positions (9+?)
• I think that 6+ off- case positions justifies condo in the 2AR, but if it were impacted out I would vote for it either way

LD

• 3 years of high school LD experience
• I did very traditional LD in high school
• I still think my policy experience makes me able to evaluate mostly all types of LD (just be sure to explain anything odd)
• Please don't do tricks. I will not like them or understand them
• You're welcome to read DAs, CPs, and Ks- explain anything that isn't common

Debated for four years at Blue Valley Southwest ['21]. I know very little about the water topic, so try to avoid using too many acronyms [without explanation] or assuming I know general topic information.

Add me to the email chain: rorystanfield03@gmail.com

I'm a junior at Blue Valley South West

Be nice, don't be rude

I like to have fun just don't become an irritating ball of crap

I rest my case

selinulusarac@gmail.com

I debated 4 years at BVN.