v24

Casady 2021 (debated)

University of Kansas 2025 (debating)

I want the ev. (also questions) pls- alexpbarreto1@gmail.com

Conflict me if you know you're committed to debating at KU.

Follow speech times, don't clip/miscut ev, and don't be problematic.

Things

Understanding decisions is hard my goal is not to try to convince you I am right but to try and help you understand why I rendered my decisions as outlined below. Feel free to ask lots of questions/email---I'm not a very reactive person so feel free to to tell me why you think you are right---That said, time limits etc... I try to write into my decisions several ways in which each team could have improved and how the losing team could have gotten my ballot.

As a debater, I hate when I felt that judges decided based on perception/opinion rather than using the instruments presented to them in the debate. I will seek to couch my decision in your wording, your choices, your evidence, and your ethos. That said while I think too many judges rely too much on instinct, intuition, their own debate experience for decision PERCEPTION ie: how a judge perceives a debate is inevitable, and it often always is not the same as how the debaters perceive it. Two things you can do to help me with this, everything else is how my perceptions will inevitably function.

A: Ethos, or rather, the confidence "your argument" "can win". If you don't believe you can win it becomes very hard for a judge to vote for you, I believe this is largely inevitable, and though there are technical exemptions usually the team that seems like they are winning, does. Many debates exude a simple failure of the debaters to meet the above statement: if you see a pairings and give up, that might contribute to why you lose. That said on a less literal level it represents many things I inevitably perceive throughout the debate. Your knowledge of your argument, how you treat your opponents and their arguments, the quality of your evidence, your decision-making etc.. The more these things seem out of continuum I believe every judge would agree it becomes harder to vote for you---because they all represent that "your arguments" "can't win". Ensuring your arguments have internal consistency, you have met a baseline of foundation for your arguments, and set up the winning rebuttal earlier in the debate are all simple things you can do that ensure I can craft a ballot for you.

B: Framing. Tell me how I should decide, read evidence, evaluate moments in the debate etc... The more you do this the more you give me the language to the explain the debate in your terms rather than having to do so in the other teams(or mine). I find this especially important in debates about different "levels" ie: fiat, education, consequences etc... not because it's uniquely needed in these debates---Framing is important in both, how I read ev/decide portions of every debate BUT debaters seem to forget to respond to the other teams argument when they are each have a different starting point for the "what" in the debate. Don't get lost in the theoretical, by the final rebuttal you should be able to evaluate the likelihood the argument you are extending will be a winning argument and then use that estimation to implicate it out for how I should decide-often manifesting in approaching arguments with best/worse case lines of answers.

1---I will always start with my decision with “I vote (aff/neg) for x” where x is the world gone for by the 2NR/2AR debated. If it’s neg on aff bad, it’s for the squo. But almost always I will start deciding by finding where the rebuttal encapsulated why I should vote for you(ideally the start); and if I don’t understand what I’m voting for…. That will be tough. This framing is especially important in debates that operate at different scales ie: subject formation, consequentialism, fiat. Though also important in simple impact calculus, more and more debaters move to vague scenarios that fail to explain how their impacts are both external to and can implicate the other teams-which is usually the best combination for success.

2---Internal argument consistency matters for me way more than most-If the logical conclusion of your arguments seem to be that the other team is right it is gonna be hard to vote for you. You should capitalize on 1ACs that that contain evidence/mechanics that substantiate alt causes/reasons the aff is bad. Similarly capitalizing on ways 1NCs undercut themselves and the ability for the 2NR to then go on with the "business as usual" strategy. I am thus significantly more willing to grant large "risk" of arguments that has premises unchallenged earlier on in the debate and to significantly lower the risk of arguments that has even a single premise(usually it's weakest) heavily challenged throughout the debate. What this means is I much better for the 2NR/2ARs that go for 1 or 2 key issues on most arguments, and emphasizes covering weakness, than trying to put words next to everything they said. I am more willing to grant larger "risk" to well debated defensive arguments like presumption, thumpers, alt causes, no internal links even when they lack evidence if they are well debated substantiated with criticism of the other teams arg/ev. In critical debates I find this plays out the most with performative contradictions/double turns---I struggle to make internally consistent decisions when teams decide debates should be about subject formation/x issue and then simultaneously find themselves linked to an argument about said issue.

3---What you read matters way less for me than most, how you read it though... I think debate has evolved metas---that condition judges and debaters in a similar way to echo chambers. After a seasons worth of debates we feel like we've figured it all out---People dismiss evidence by author name of their read, assume teams are making arguments because they know the args better than the team making them, and essentially often interpolate debaters arguments into their mind as if they were their own arguments to make a decision rather than use what the debaters have given them. This paradigm is to represent that other things matter significantly more for me--That you have demonstrated you have thought through a win condition for the argument you are making and that you understand it enough to explain it to me in words I can repeat with confidence. I try not to read along in the doc unless I think your clipping/I miss something reasonable enough to fill in---That said I do skim the docs/evidence during the debate and read evidence noted in the 2NR/2AR. The quality of the ev, it's highlighting, and my ability to locate your arguments in it often matter a lot---particularly in debates that don't have a clear deciding issue/mechanism presented in the final rebuttals. What "evidence" is I find highly open to interpretation whether it's a standard card, art, lived experience, empiric, metaphor etc... but what I find matters is how you can use it as a base for the arguments in your latter speeches and that the best teams use that base to seemingly transition to the expansion of their argument. What that means is, it does not seem out of nowhere. If you are not saying what your card says, what you were saying earlier on in the debate, or you are substantiating claims with claims rather than ev/warrants it will become immensely harder to vote for you even if you could still win on the other teams mistakes.

4---I flow speeches and CX until told otherwise... I try to write down the words you are saying. What I don't think debaters often realize is the Sisyphean nature of this task. In lieu of perfect hearing and typing speed I use shorthand/abbreviation. When debates often come down to the specific words said---if you are speaking inordinately fast/unclearly I will not feel bad saying I didn't get it as a reason I did not vote for you. I have good memory but tangibles like Pen time and if you think your that fast, slowing down slightly, might behoove you. Effectively "flagging" your argument with titles/numbers/letters is also helpful in creating a memory of the debate in my head closer to yours. In CX this relates to your decisions of what you choose to say---or really nowadays choose to avoid saying it seems. I find I'm much more convinced cross ex is used effectively when you use it to effectively communicate both a question/answer and a perception/moment of the debate that I should be thinking about.

5---I think part of the problem with judging as a community of former debaters and current coaches is that debate thought is constantly increasingly. I often find this played out in games of diminishing marginal utility where debaters engage in practices they believe will be helpful but become ultimately so divorced from reality, they have little practical value. Focusing on your args, understanding what's wrong with your opponents args, and how to explain that in a way I get will matter exponentially more than things like not sending analytics, obfuscating your arguments to confuse your opponents, trying to gain some artificial pre round advantage. I probably spend very little time thinking about you outside of the context I'm judging you in so I would emphasize "best practices" that convince me your a good person rather than things that will not impress/likely end up hurting your speaks.

Some people I liked decisions from/try to emulate as a judge.
Tommy Snider

Especially for policy debates,

Brett Bricker, Yao Yao Chen, Ned Gidley, Ethan Harris, Hunter McCullough

Especially for k debates,

Nathan Rothenbaum, Scott Harris, David Kilpatrick, Scott Phillips, Jared Spiers

O/V

She/her pronouns. I am a kritikal debater, but I do understand and will vote on policy-centric arguments. I place a high importance on respect of your opponents which means DO NOT 1)speak over your opponents 2) be unnecessarily rude to your opponents 3)disrespect your opponent's preferred pronouns or name. If you exhibit any of the behavior I have stated, it will reflect in your speaker points and may even cost you the round. I will not be doing any work on the flow for you, so it is up to YOU to tell me what matters in the round, extend your arguments, and explain your arguments. Organization is super important, makes it easier for me to follow and understand your arguments. I am good with spreading, but make sure you are clear, signpost, and clearly state tags. My email for questions/email chain is dixonn808@gmail.com. (If you play LOONA or Rico Nasty I will boost your speaks ;))

Kritikal Args

I mainly run identity-based, queerness, or colonialism arguments in debate so I am pretty comfortable with most critical lit. If you run a "high-theory" argument make sure you clearly explain it. I WILL NOT put in extra work to understand your argument, it is YOUR job to tell me what you run. Impact calculus is super important. Make sure you flesh out your arguments and clearly tell me WHY I should be voting for your kritik.

Policy Args

I run some policy arguments and understand them enough to vote on them. Impact calculus is extremely important here, if you don't do impact calc I probably will not vote for you. I do not like rounds that have over 3 offcase positions, I feel that they are unfair and make shallow debates. I prefer 1 or 2 offcase positions that are explained well.

Theory

Run whatever theory args you want, as long as they are fleshed out and explained well.

FW/Topicality

Honestly, I probably will not vote on either unless you give me a good reason it would be influential. Most of the arguments I see of this kind are usually policing-esque and I do not like that at all. If you are going to run these arguments though, make sure you give specific reasons to prefer and respond to the actual arguments your opponents make.

O/V

She/Her pronouns.

I'm a Moore varsity debater, and I've been debating policy for 3 years now. That being said, I've ran just about any kind of argument there is in policy, examples include: Topicality, Counterplans, Kritiks, Disads, Theory, etc.

I'm open to any kind of arguments as long as it's not offensive, examples include: racism good, genocide good, pineapples on pizza good, etc.

Clarity over speed, I'm not tryna decipher jibberish. If I can't understand it, I won't flow it. However, I don't have a problem with spreading, and I believe in being organized. Clearly signposting = me flowing your args well = better chance at getting the ballot

My email for questions/email chain is han.le052@gmail.com

Don't email me for questions unless it's about debate or how great I am

Kritiks

I'm a Moore debater, we're all filthy K hacks, enough said. I'm well versed in K lit, but I won't be making your arguments/filling in the gaps for you. Either you know what you're doing, or you don't run it. Don't try to run kritiks to get my ballot, I won't be voting for you if you don't know what's going on, even if I do like Ks. Impact calc is sexy, and so is solvency. Make sure you flesh out your arguments and clearly tell me why I should be voting for your K.

If you run anthro or baudrillard I'll hate you, but I'll still flow it.

Case arguments

They're good. They're great. They're reliable. They have your back. Use them. Please.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

DAs - make sure you have a link to the AFF, I'll take generic ones but I prefer specific ones. Extend your impacts. Explain to me why the AFF causes extinction or whatever. If you thoroughly convince me that the AFF will cause the DA, it should be an easy win for the NEG.

CPs - on god, please tell me why the CP is better than the AFF. I'd prefer it if you run CPs with DAs, but you do you.

Theory

As long as it's fleshed out well and you can explain to me why this theory debate isn't just a time waster, I'll consider it.

FW/Topicality

Unlike Stephanie Dixon, a disgusting K hack, I'm down for FW and T. Unfortunately, many teams only use T and FW as a time waster instead of an actual argument, so unless the argument is fleshed out and you sell me how unfair the other team is being, I probably won't vote on it unless the other team drops it entirely. I have a high threshold on T and FW, tell me how the other team is violating your interp and tell me why your interp is better for debate.

Speaker Points

Stan Exo and I'll be more considerate to your speaker points.

Respect your opponents. Don't speak over them in CX, don't yell at them, don't be condescending, don't misgender your opponents on purpose. This will reflect on your speaker points, and if it gets extreme, it'll reflect the ballot.

Kiran Naidu - he/him

University of Oklahoma '26 (chemical biosciences pre-med)

Casady School '22

kirannaidudebate@gmail.com (Put me on the email chain)

TLDR

I have not judged any rounds on this year's topic, but I have a lot of experience in policy debate and am quick to pick things up. I am not partial for policy v. k. Just be articulate, know your ev, and be organized. Default to 2AC order. If you are deciding between throwing in another off and having a better case debate, I would prefer a more in depth case debate.

AFFs

I’m good with K Affs as long as they are articulated well. Don’t read them just to be cool. You should have a reason why this debate is a more important debate to have than any other debate about the resolution. I read mostly soft left/K affs, but I'm good for whatever. On policy affs, I think generally less is more, meaning less advantages/impact scenarios, but with better I/L chains.

Case [NEG]

I think there should be a viable 2NR strat from case if you are doing a good job.

Impact turns? Yes.

Kritiks

I am a pretty big fan of K lit. The more specific the link to the plan the better. Do not read excessively long overviews (I will not flow it on a different sheet). I would much rather hear it on the line by line. Try not to get hooked on trigger phrases. If you can’t explain the K in a clear manner then don’t read it. I think that weighing the aff is probably a good idea and it would probably be an uphill battle to convince otherwise. Likewise, I think that aff FW interps should not exclude critical approaches as a whole. [FW debates can be hard to decide -- I will default to weighing the aff unless you win that it is bad.] On the neg you should really engage with the substance of the kritik more, because more often than not it will have built in answers to things like Util or alt DA's.

DA

Disads are great. The more specific it is to the plan the more convincing it is to me. I’m not a huge fan of politics DAs because they make most debates sound the same. But that doesn’t mean I won’t vote on it. In order for me to vote for a DA, I need strong impact calc in the 2NR. For example, "the disad outweighs and turns case because..."

CP

Make sure you clearly have a net benefit. Counterplans should be read in the 1NC with a solvency advocate. Again, a common theme in my paradigm, I value CPs more when they are crafted to be specific to the AFF, but generic CPs on the topic are fine to read in front of me. I think aff perms should be very developed in the 2AC. I will tend to default neg on CP theory when it comes to process or agent CPs, but I will probably err aff on theory when it comes to private actors, international actors, or consult CPs. I will instinctively judge kick the CP, unless told otherwise by the aff.

T

I do not really like T debates that much, but if you have a clearly reasonable interp, or if the AFF is just not T, then I won’t hesitate to vote on it. Give me standards as to why I should prefer your interp. For me to vote on T it must be impacted out. Don't read T as a time skew.

Theory

I am down to vote on theory if your args are fleshed out. Tell me about the harmful implications of their theory within and outside of debate.

I think condo is generally good as its a good strategy for the neg since the aff chooses what the debate is about. But I do think the neg can abuse condo. Generally I think 2-3 condo is good for debate, any more and that’s a little bit sus.

I think more people should read vague alts. It’s a good arg.

Misc.

Don't call me "judge." Just call me Kiran.

Tech > Truth [but with that being said I have a higher tech threshold for less truthful args and I have a lower tech threshold for more truthful args]

Have fun and don't be rude to each other.

Be nice to each other but be passionate about what you’re talking about. Pathos builds up Ethos.

I will vote a team down for being rude.

I don't count sending out the email as prep.

I am good for speed as long as you are clear. If not I will say “clear.”

Don’t steal prep or clip cards.

Please make your speech docs organized.

I think like a 2A.

Don't feel like you need to change how you debate in front of me. Do you want you do best, and I will do my best to evaluate the debate.

Please ask me as many questions after the round as you want and feel free to email me.

A bit of background:
I debated policy 3ish years at the University of Oklahoma and 4 years at Edmond Santa Fe High School. I've judged policy/LD/PF debate since then.

Yes put me on the email chain:
parkerstephennelson@gmail.com

Most of what is below is tailored towards policy debate:

I believe that debate is a game that fosters a multitude of positive things: critical thinking, problem solving, logical decision-making, communication skills, and exposure to an abundance of topics that no other activity provides. Because of this, I try to give back to this community and support it in every way I can. There is no wrong way to debate, and bringing your own flavor/style is encouraged. I have an extensive amount of experience with critical arguments but I can get down to a good policy debate too. The best judges I had were the ones willing to listen to positions from every possible angle, and that's what I strive to emulate.
Thus, I try to outline my general preferences in technical terms:
-- Each argument must have a claim, warrant, and be properly impacted out. The other team dropping the argument doesn't mean putting a 30 second blurb at the end of the 2NR/2AR, expecting my unequivocal vote.
-- Coherence is a must, and your evidence should say what you claim it says. Don't under-highlight to put out incoherent arguments. Evidence quality wins more debates.
-- I'm a big advocate for framing arguments, which make my evaluation of the round easier.
-- My argument preference in my past debates/decisions won't grant you any type of benefit in the next round.
-- Understand and adequately explain how your argument interacts with the specific nuances of the opposing teams. So many debaters get bogged down in jargon instead of properly explaining how these concepts should shape my decision.
-- There is a significant difference in being strategic and being squirrely; the latter is incredibly annoying.

The Specifics:
Framework/Topicality:
You NEED evidence/definitions for what portion of the resolution is being debated.
Ideally, the affirmative defends a position that is controversial, with plenty of literature granting ground on both sides and predictable elements to it. I probably have a reputation as a fairness/limits voter, but that's because it's the debate I hear the most. I also enjoy "clash" debates, but the biggest issue I run into is one side not engaging with how the other side portrays the debate, and instead hyper-focuses on turning every offensive standard without providing the over-arching context.
Topical versions of the Aff aren't required to solve all the world's problems. The 1AC is 9 minutes for Christ's sake.
Impact framing on the Topicality flow is just as important as anywhere else.

Kritiks:
***You need a link to the Plan itself--or at least to the representations of the Aff. One of the biggest reasons I vote Aff in Policy Aff vs K debates is that either:
a) Not enough work was put into establishing a specific link to the Aff or
b) work is put into establishing a link to the status quo, which the negative assumes automatically links to the Affirmative. That isn't the case.***
Using direct quotations from the Affirmative evidence in your link claims will get you leaps further than you think.
Permutation defense is just as important as link offense -- voting on links of omission aren't super compelling.
Expect me to allow the affirmative to weigh the advantages of the Aff unless there is an overwhelmingly explicit reason not to, aka violent representations of the plan, flawed epistemologies, etc.
No separate sheet of paper for overviews.
No underviews; please god.
Note: "Perm do the alt" is not a perm.
While I'm here, overview debates are exhausting. Spilling a prewritten 5 minute word-salad about your K, and expecting it to answer literally everything on the line-by-line is a meme and is bad debating. Debate the line-by-line.
You need an alternative. A coherent alternative. I keep using the coherence word, because discussions need to be had on how the alternative interacts with both the status quo, and advantages of the affirmative plan. It also must solve your links.

I'm most familiar with: Nietzsche, Capitalism, Heidegger, Reps, Fem IR, Anthro, Security, Anti-Blackness, SetCol and various flavors of such. I'm not your Deleuze/Baudrillard aficionado.


K Affs:
You do not have to have a plan, but you need to answer the question of advocacy. Why am I voting for whatever it is you're doing? Why is it good? If I'm left in the dark, typically it's due to teams thinking that obscurity is advantageous. It isn't.
I am persuaded by good presumption arguments made by the negative. Engaging with these is paramount to success with critical affirmatives. Ignoring them is a great recipe to lose.
Your advocacy--at minimum--needs to have a critical element that is tangential to the resolution, and a mechanism for achieving/overcoming/resolving this element.


CPs:
Counterplans? Yes.
Advantage Counterplans? Yes.
Plan Inclusive Counterplans? Ehhh, but acceptable, given proper justification/solvency advocates.
In all cases, the negative needs to win a few things:
1) The counterplan is competitive (textual and functional to be safe)
2) There is a uniquely accessed net benefit
3) Complete solvency of the affirmative harms WITH a solvency advocate (unless you weigh other things against the remaining portions of the Aff).
I will vote for permutations -- use your net benefits as offense.

DAs:
Love them. I absolutely adore specific link stories, or better yet case-specific disadvantages, but I will still take all of your generic links.
I find Affs hole-punching their way through weak link-chains to be the easiest way to dismantle a DA. Point out logical leaps in internal links.
Read the cards, especially the un-underlined portions. Point out cards having no warrant in your speeches.
I believe 0% risk is possible, but it's not always probable, so don't rely on only uniqueness take-outs or link defense.
Specificity of Uniqueness > stacks of cards that all have two sentences highlighted. The under-highlighting is proliferant and teams getting away with it is insane to me.
Please. Do. Impact. Calculus.

Theory:
I am a believer in theory interpretation debate and it's a hill I'll die on. It's also, coincidentally enough, a great way to defend/persuade your judge by having a basis for evaluation.
I probably lean more towards condo/multiple-worlds good, assuming the negative isn't trying to run away from the debate/spread people out of the round.
Going for the theory in the 2NR/2AR is a bold move, and I will vote on it, assuming you impact the debate well and answer back defense overwhelmingly, preferably with some in round-abuses tied to a violation of some sort by the opposing team.
This does not mean running incoherent, superfluous theory arguments and expecting a W.

MISC:
Clipping: I request a copy of all speech docs due to how egregiously offensive I find this to be. You will not pass GO. You will lose the round. You will receive 0 speaks.
I *will* vote against you without the other team claiming you are clipping.
I *will* give you minimum possible speaks if you have the un-underlined/highlighted portions of your evidence at a 1 point font. STOP.
Have a copy of your evidence for your opponent. This can be physical or digital.
Do not be rude to each other in Cross-Ex. Be engaging, but not overly aggressive.
I have no issues with speed -- I do have issues with people who think they're fast, but aren't clear. I only flow what I hear, and if I have to yell clear more than twice, I'd suggest slowing down and checking if my pen has stopped moving.
Please respect preferred pronouns. Mine are he/him.

I try to approach each round with a Tabula Rasa philosophy. I am willing to listen and evaluate any type/form of argumentation. I will want debaters to evaluate and frame arguments as the round progresses with emphasis on comparative analysis between those competing arguments.

Speed is generally not a problem.

-Emphasize solvency

- DO IMPACT CALC. <------------------------

- Be nice in round for high speaks:)

- Face me in cx

- Have fun and learn about current issues!

If you run a K aff you lose.

If you run an identity K on neg you'll probably lose.

Aff impacts can't outweigh if there's no solvency.

Contact info

Please add me on the chain

Email: colewolfelovesdebate@gmail.com

Background

Casady: 4 years

Wake: 2 years (ongoing)

TLDR

Never change your style or performance for me.

Things I find particularly awesome: examples, quotes, and judge instruction

Speed

Slow down on procedurals/analytics

If it’s anything else go as fast as you can while maintaining tag distinction

Decorum

Any harassment for an individual’s immutable characteristics will not be tolerated and will result in an immediate loss

Getting heated in debate is fine, especially during CX, the line between passion and disrespect can sometimes be grey. A good rule of thumb is to be passionate about your arguments not the people you’re debating.

Online Debate

Probably keep your camera on for speeches and prep, but I'm not into policing others

Please try and find a space without noisy backgrounds, if you’re unable to do so that’s fine just let me know so it doesn’t influence your speaks.

Headphones are the best way to go, if you can’t get ahold of a pair that’s fine just make sure to limit echoing if you and your partner are in the same room

Ks

Specific links will be handsomely rewarded, if you default to generics that’s fine but try and have some 2NC spin.

Bonus points for quotes or moments in the round you can pair with link analysis

If you need to give parts of the K to the 1NR please let me know where I should leave space on my flow

Examples. Win. Debates.

Reading K Affs

You need a reason why you are/aren't topical.

I will try to read advocacy evidence if time permits, this is mostly because of intellectual curiosity but a fun side effect is seeing if it lines up with the stated advocacy, the more it lines up the better!

Your authors are rad! Using their language in OVs or extensions is encouraged

Answering K Affs

Fairness isn't an impact, it's an internal link to clash and education.

Policy process knowledge is solid, but better if you contextualize it to the harms of the Aff

Contextualize your offense. For example: if the aff is missing everything but the word USFG you need to be specific about how that precludes certain debates and (most importantly) why that matters.

Super generic cap links make me sad, I will handsomely reward a specific cap link, marxist's hate each other, you can almost always find solid link ev

If the K-aff feels like it might give generic topic ground, read it, you can make T arguments based on 2AC link analysis

Policy stuff

Multi-plank CPs are fine - any plank limit I provide would be arbitrary - I'll leave it up to the 2AC to tell me what to care about

Going for impact turns on the aff is fine

Unlikely to vote for Condo interps that say one conditional advocacy is bad, but if it's dropped it's dropped.

Tech vs Truth

I lean more towards tech, unless a cursory google search can disprove your claim I’ll assume you’re not lying to me.

Final note

If there's anything here that you think is missing or unclear please let me know, I plan to consistently update my paradigm : D