Barb Anderson is an Assistant Debate and Forensics coach at Blue Valley Northwest High School. Ms. Anderson stresses communication, logic, and credible evidence over speed. Eye contact and persuasion are preferable to resolving issues. Please adapt accordingly.

Please include me on the email chain; shane.billig@gmail.com

I'm a fairly adaptable judge; 10+ years of debate experience as a competitor/coach. I default to policymaker framework and I am very familiar with CP/DA theory and am generally okay with any generic arguments, but I'd prefer to have the links analyzed to be as specific as possible. In general analysis and comparison of cards and warrants is the best way to convince me that your evidence is superior, and I find that many 2AC/2NC rely too much on reading more blocks rather than providing unique in round analysis.

I have and will vote on kritiks, and there are many times I think the K is the smartest choice in the round, however the more specific your kritiks get, the less familiar I am with the authors and literature. There are some key exceptions and generally any form of IR kritik or kritik of the general "structure" of society I will understand (Fem IR/Cap/Militarism for example). You must explain the kritik, the role of the ballot, and specifically explain the link and how the alternative functions. Explain the kritik in your own words, don't just read a block at me.

On topicality I default to reasonability, but this doesn't mean that I won't vote on topicality, especially if you give me reasons why I should prefer competing interpretations. In slow/quick rounds I am generally able to get citations on my flow, but in fast rounds you won't be able to extend just by author/year. Talk about the card, its tag, and its role in the round (this is just good extension advice in general). With all arguments if I don't understand your point, it doesn't make it onto my flow because you weren't clear, it got flowed onto the wrong sheet, etc then you didn't say it and I won't evaluate it. This happens most often on theory/T/K where I don't understand the violation or alternative or some other aspect of the argument--and the easiest solution to this problem is again to slow down for a second and use your own words to explain the argument.

If the round is going to have more than 5+ minutes of T/Theory I think everyone is better off if you go at 90% of your speed on those arguments. I am not as fast as you think I am, and while it's rare that I'm sped out of rounds, it does happen, and when it does 90% of the time it's me missing theory analysis because you're blazing through a pre-written block like its a politics card. I am more than happy to answer any questions you may have, and I do my best to adapt my judging style to the round I am in. One thing that I feel many teams do is over-adapt, and it often hurts them. Debate the way you want to debate, and I will evaluate it however you tell me to. I'd much rather judge really good debates over K literature I'm not familiar with prior to the round than bad or bland CP/DA debate.

\I am a former 4 year debater from Olathe Northwest.

I'm a policymaker judge, if the affirmative does not successfully defend against the impacts proposed by the negative then I simply cannot vote in favor of the plan. This can be accomplished by attacking the stock issues of the plan, or a good DA and/or CP.

Kritiks are not my favorite arguments by a long shot, but, I do evaluate them in a decision, and overall I default to impacts so I'm not going to get angry if I see one, just don't abuse it, and have it make sense.

I like slow flow rounds, and do not like spreading or speeding. If you go a bit faster than the average debater then I will most likely be able to understand you, but more than that is unnecessary.

How to win as aff with me as your judge: Make sure your advantages link to your solvency, defend Solvency, Inherency, and Topicallity with your life, and answer DAs, CPs, and Ks.

I love to watch clash, don't just ignore your opponent's arguments.

On a personal note, just don't be rude? I want to be able to evaluate a round without bias, but if one team is being unnecessarily aggressive or condescending then I'm going to be biased towards the other team, which is something I don't want to have happen. Also, if you personally insult or are in any way discriminatory against another team then I will feel no remorse in siding against you, this activity should be kept cordial and should be open to everyone, not just people you decide should be allowed to compete.

Generally i'm Tabula Rasa, but will default to a policymaker who values stocks if I'm not told how I should evaluate the round.

I operate under the mindset that the Aff and Neg have defined roles within CX Debate. The aff needs to propose a substantive change to the status quo that is germane to the resolution. The neg needs to argue for a retention of the status quo - either through that status quo being good or less harmful.

I am a judge that does not generally like K. I believe that CX Debate operates within a defined set of rules and boundaries, and that Ks refusal to work within that set of rules and guidelines fundamentally harms the structure and fairness of the debate. If you are going to run a K, please attempt to link it to the case.

That is not to say that I am wanting conservative HITS style arguments. Make it unique and interesting! Not a fan of Topicality arguments, so maybe best to avoid those as well.

Email: wcornett@trinityacademy.org

Lincoln-Douglas

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

Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AFFILIATIONS:

Coach at Kansas City Piper (Kansas)

Let me start this by saying that I kind of hate paradigms. I actively try not to have one. That said, certain preferences are inevitable despite my best efforts, so here we go...

I'm a coach. This is an educational activity above everything else. That's important to me. I will naturally vote for the team that does the work in the round. In the end, my entire philosophy revolves around your work. Pick a position and advocate for it with whatever skills you have. It's not my job to tell you what those skills are or should be.

I'll vote truth over tech every time. Your execution of technicalities won't make up for fallacious argumentation. I really crave clash in a round where we really examine what is at the core of our understanding. That said, I do love pretty tech. Feel free to be clever, but be aware that clever is not the same thing as cute.

I prefer communication over speed. At least go slower on your tags and analysis. On this vein, you are responsible for the words that come out of your mouth. Speech is always an act of advocacy.

I wish I could tell you preferences about CPs, Ks, and what the debate space means, but the truth of it is that I will vote how you tell me to. Provide me a meaningful framework (and you know... tell me why it's meaningful) and actual clash, and I'll follow along.

I’m a head coach.

My priorities as a judge are based on equal amounts of communication and resolution of substantive issues.

My paradigm is based on skill, and I’m closer to a Tabula Rasa judge than anything else.

Fairly rapid delivery is okay, but if I don’t understand you, I will not flow your argument. It must be articulate, include tonal differences/variation, and have clear points. Tag lines should be short and to the point. I can’t flow a whole paragraph if you’re moving fast. You should keep an eye on me to make certain I am keeping up. If not, I strongly sugges you adjust.

I dislike spreading during Rebuttals. I do NOT find that persuasive at all.

Rudeness or condescension toward your competitors is never welcome. Part of what you're supposed to learn from Debate is collegiality, professionalism, and decorum.

Offensive language (curse words, slurs, etc.) is unnecessary and in most contexts, repugnant. There are a few, very limited instances where they might be ok, but would need to have a point far beyond the shock factor or emphasis.

Prep time is 8 minutes. You should be tracking your opponents prep time. If they are stealing prep, call them on it.

Counterplans are just another argument but should be consistent in the overall Negative approach.

Topicality is an argument that I will vote on if it’s ignored or dropped by the Affirmative, but it has to be pretty blatant for me to vote on it otherwise. I particularly dislike T args that use an obviously disingenuous interpretation.

Generic disadvantages are fine so long as specific links are clearly analyzed.

Kritiks are just another argument, though I prefer that links are clearly analyzed. Simply linking the other team to the kritik is not enough for me to vote on. There has to be a clear alternative. I am not well versed in Krit lit, so explanation is welcome. Aff Ks are tough because the topic exists for a reason and ignoring it entirely is outside the bounds of fairness. Somewhere in the argument should be an alt or explanation as to why we should a. Ignore the topic and b. That it is fair and reasonable for a negative team to be prepared for doing so in this context. Framing is crucial to this end.

Narratives/Story-telling/Performative/Poetry/etc. Is interesting, as my background is in Forensics and it’s where I began my coaching career, but Debatel has structure and norms. I believe these things have their place in Debate as they are all potentially persuasive, I would also need to know why you’re using your precious few minutes on something that is not an argument.

Debate is primarily about education and partly about fun. Try your best but don't take things too seriously, as we won't implement any of the plans based on how a high school Debate round goes.

Feel free to ask me questions for clarity or specifics on any of this.

Keeping track of your time and opponents' time is your job and part of Debate's challenge.

Please add me to your email chain: dunlap_johnny@443mail.org.

Experience:

Former Policy Debater, Shawnee Mission East

Former University of Kansas Mock Trial Competitor

Former Policy and Mock Trial Coach, Shawnee Mission East

Former Policy and Mock Trial Coach, Blue Valley Northwest

Former Policy, LD, PF and Mock Trial Coach, Olathe North

Former Policy, LD, and PF Coach, Louisburg

Current Policy, LD, and PF Coach, Piper

POLICY

Style Preferences:

I have no speed preferences, debate to the style you are best at. I have heard only a few people too fast for me to understand, but if you choose to spread and you are unclear I will stop flowing.

A few tips to prevent this from happening:

Slowing down on tags, dates, authors, important lines in evidence and important analysis. Higher speed is more appropriate for cards and less so for analysis and theory. If you speed through your 8 one-line points on condo I probably won't get them all (this also happens a lot on perm theory). If it's super important it's worth slowing down. It is you and your partner's responsibility to make sure I am following what's happening. If you're stumbling, slow down and then speed back up when you're back on track instead of trying to push through, which just makes everything messy.

Open CX, flashing, off-time roadmaps (this is much prefered for me to flow) are all fine if both teams are ok with it.

There is a line you can cross of disrespect. What you say and how you say it matters. Although I do not consider this a voting issue unless the other teams argues that it should be, it's harder for me to vote for you if I think you're a jerk. Wit is great, rudeness is not.

Argumentation Preferences for Policy:

I'm fine with any and all forms of argumentation. Just justify why I should vote on it. Be the better debaters in the round and you will win. I vote on what I hear in the round and what is persuasive. Substance is much more important than style.

I generally default policy maker and will need offense to vote, however, if you argue framework and win it I am happy to change the roll of the ballot. Please do not leave it up to me what impacts are most important, if you don't weigh the round for me it is at your own peril.

K debate is fine, but do not assume I have read the philosopher/theorist you are using in depth. It's your responsibility to explain the theory to me. I am much more persuaded by alts that solve the K or have real world impacts.

CP debate is fine, topical CPs are a very very hard sell for me, but if the other team doesn't tell me it's abusive and should be rejected or does not effectively answer Topical CPs good theory I will still vote for it. Generally advocating for the CP is severance and abusive (although I'm open to being persuaded otherwise), but again I need to hear the argument and be told it's a voting issue to vote on it.

I generally view T as an abuse check. If there's no in-round abuse I will rarely vote on it, however if it's answered poorly I'll vote on the better augmentation. Again if you argue that I should change my evaluation to competing interp, etc. and win that argument I will vote accordingly.

Realistic impacts are more effective. I don't mind long chain link stories to get there as long as they are well explained.

New in the 2 is only abusive if teams are spreading

I've tried to cover everything here, but if there is something else you would like to know or need clarification please ask before the round.

LD

Please don't lose focus of the round being about a position on a moral issue. While policy and realistic results of a moral position are important for showing the impact of the value, this is not a policy round. Please choose a value and criterion that you can explain and that work well with your contentions.

The line by line argumentation is important, but don't get so caught up in it that you lose sight of your overriding position. One dropped point won't lose you the round if you access the value the best.

I don't need you to win the value to win the round, but you do need to access the winning value best to win the round.

Please please please engage with the other team's arguments. Don't just say it didn't make sense or didn't apply or that your previous card answers it. Explain why what they say is incorrect. Substance is much more important than style.

PF

You need to have a warrant that supports your claims effectively. Pretty talking will not be enough to win my ballot. The team that best utilizes empirical examples, logic, and (most effectively) evidence to support their claims is typically the winner. At the same time, reading a bunch of cards and providing no analysis will also not serve you well. I'm not a huge fan of emotional personal examples, because they cannot be verified they feel manipulative so I would avoid them.

In my experience sometimes PF rounds get a little snarky. There is a line, and like I said above your demeanor is not a determining factor unless the other team argues that it should be and justifies why you should lose the round over it. But because I am a person, it's hard for me to vote for you if you're a jerk. Wit is appreciated, rudeness is not.

Kansas Wesleyan University Director of Debate and Forensics

Current Coach: I have several Private Coaching and Tutoring students in speech and debate :) But I'm a principal at McPherson HS now.

Former Coach: Salina South HS, Abilene HS, El Dorado HS, Buhler HS

College Competitor: NPDA and NFA LD

High School Policy 4 Years (I debated in the glory days of Champ Division. I’m getting old.)

I'm just going to say this up top: Flowing is literally the most important skill in debate. If you think you don't need to flow, or that a speech doc is a replacement for flowing you are wrong. If I'm flowing (and I will be) you should be too. A speech doc is not a replacement for a flow and often means that you miss valuable line by line analysis, logical arguments, theory, and can answer cards that weren't read into the round.

I will listen to whatever you choose to say, however you wish to say it. I will make every effort to fairly evaluate those arguments that you make in the round. (That means speed is fine in most cases. You will know if I can't understand you or can’t keep up. I’ll put my pen down. You may want to look up and check if you’re real speedy or at least have your partner check.)

I’m a fan of following the line by line, so you should tell me where to put the argument on the flow, and more importantly tell me why it matters (Impact Calc).I believe in the Toulmin model of argumentation and think that your evidence should matter and be of good quality with data and warrants and you should be able to articulate that information. Extending Claims or Tags isn’t enough to win an argument. Blocks are cool, but you should make an effort to directly clash with your opponents blocks as well. I also think that you should have an in round vision and that you and your partner should work to ensure that vision flows through the round to the end and that I get a completed picture at the end.

I'm not predisposed to certain types of arguments in a round as liking/disliking them more than others so I will try to listen with an open mind to the arguments that you make. You should also probably not make the decision to drastically alter your style or what you do in round based on my paradigm. I want to see what you do well, how you do it, not what you think I want to see or something you aren’t comfortable with.

Some Specific Argument Notes:

Framework:This is important. You need to give me a frame for the round and win that debate or I will more than likely default to policy maker. However, do not attempt to frame the debate in way that eliminates nearly all ground for one side of the debate. I probably believe that ground should be equitable and predictable for both aff and neg.

Theory:I will listen to it. I will weigh it. Tell me why it matters and have clear demonstrable abuse. Be able to articulate the impact and why Theory matters. I also think that to win a theory debate you probably have to give me more than fragment or single sentence. I need an argument and time to write it down, and if you think it’s important enough to merit a ballot, then I expect you to spend some time on the argument.

Topicality:I do feel that Topicality is an underdeveloped and under used strategic tool. Too many teams use it as part of a game with little strategic value or execution. A good T debate is a thing of beauty. I can default to competing interps or reasonability and be convinced either way depending on the debate, but I likely default to competing interps unless I have clearly articulated reasons not to. Please do work on the Standards/Voter level. And for the love of debate, if you are winning this argument and the aff isn’t topical please go for T in the 2NR…

Counterplans:I think they are strategic. I'm good with Topical CP's, Advantage Cp's, Smart PIC’s, Multiple CPs, etc. Delay Cp’s aren’t my favorite, but you can win that debate. I probably believe that all arguments are at the core conditional, but I will listen to debate on Status Theory and evaluate what happens in the round. I prefer specific solvency to generic on Cp’s and I don’t think that CP solves better is a net benefit.

Kritiks:Sure. Win the argument. I prefer more tangible alternatives rather than reject the team.I also think you should not assume that I know and/or understand your literature (Unless it’s Fem/Fem IR). You need to explain the literature and clearly articulate the impact and alternative and win the debate on how this matters. Critical Aff’s are fine too.

DA’s/Adv/Turns: Please utilize turns. I grant some risk to weak link stories. Make sure you still do the work and answer all levels. Impact Calc. is crucial.

Case: It’s important and neither side should neglect case debate. I love a good case debate. And smart analysis of evidence.

What not to do: 1. Be Rude or disrespectful. Be aware of the language that you use and how it’s employed. This is a communication activity don’t be racist, sexist, ablest, etc. I reserve the right to give you a loss, or at least penalize your speaker points. 2. Don’t steal prep time or abuse flash time. 3. Don’t Clip Cards.

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.

Yes, email chain: sohailjouyaATgmailDOTcom

PUBLIC FORUM JUDGING PHILOSOPHY IS HERE

Update:

- Probably not the best judge for the "Give us a 30!" approach unless it becomes an argument/point of contestation in the round. Chances are I'll just default to whatever I'd typically give. To me, these kind of things aren't arguments, but judge instructions that are external to making a decision regarding the debate occurring.

BIG PICTURE

- I appreciate adaptation to my preferences but don’t do anything that would make you uncomfortable. Never feel obligated to compete in a manner that inhibits your ability to be effective. My promise to you will be that I will keep an open mind and assess whatever you chose. In short: do you.

- Tech guided by Truth.All this means is that I recognize that debate is not merely a game, but rather a competition that models the world in which we live. This doesn’t mean I believe judges should intervene on the basis of argumentative preference - what it does mean is that embedded clash band the “nexus question” of the round is of more importance than blippy technical oversights between certain sheets of paper - especially in K v K debates.
Don't fret: a dropped argument is still a concession. I likely have a higher threshold for the development of arguments that are more intrinsically dubious and lack warrants.

- As a former coach of a UDL school where many of my debaters make arguments centred on their identity, diversity is a genuine concern. It may play a factor in how I evaluate a round, particularly in debates regarding what’s “best” for the community/activity.

Do you and I’ll do my best to evaluate it but I’m not a tabula rasa and the dogma of debate has me to believe the following. I have put a lot of time and thought into this while attempting to be parsimonious - if you are serious about winning my ballot a careful read would prove to serve you well:

FORM

- All speech acts are performances, consequently, debaters should defend their performances including the advocacy, evidence, arguments/positions, interpretations, and representations of said speech acts.

- One of the most annoying questions a judged can be asked: “Are you cool with speed?”
In short: yes. But smart and slow always beats fast and dumb.
I have absolutely no preference on rate of delivery, though I will say it might be smart to slow down a bit on really long tags, advocacy texts, your totally sweet theory/double-bind argument or on overviews that have really nuanced descriptions of the round. My belief is that speed is typically good for debate but please remember that spreading’s true measure is contingent on the number of arguments that are required to be answered by the other team not your WPM.

- Pathos: I used to never really think this mattered at all. To a large degree, it still doesn’t considering I’m unabashedly very flowcentric but I tend to give high speaker points to debaters who performatively express mastery knowledge of the subjects discussed, ability to exercise round vision, assertiveness, and that swank.

- Holistic Approaches: the 2AR/2NR should be largely concerned with two things:
1) provide framing of the round so I can make an evaluation of impacts and the like
2) descriptively instruct me on how to make my decision

Overviews have the potential for great explanatory power, use that time and tactic wisely.

While I put form first, I am of the maxim that “form follows function” – I contend that the reverse would merely produce an aesthetic, a poor formula for argument testing in an intellectually rigorous and competitive activity. In summation: you need to make an argument and defend it.

FUNCTION

- The Affirmative ought to be responsive to the topic. This is a pinnacle of my paradigm that is quite broad and includes teams who seek to engage in resistance to the proximate structures that frame the topic. Conversely, this also implicates teams that prioritize social justice - debaters utilizing methodological strategies for best resistance ought to consider their relationship to the topic.
Policy-oriented teams may read that last sentence with glee and K folks may think this is strike-worthy…chill. I do not prescribe to the notion that to be topical is synonymous with being resolutional.

- The Negative’s ground is rooted in the performance of the Affirmative as well as anything based in the resolution. It’s that simple; engage the 1AC if at all possible.

- I view rounds in an offense/defense lens. Many colleagues are contesting the utility of this approach in certain kinds of debate and I’m ruminating about this (see: “Thoughts on Competition”) but I don’t believe this to be a “plan focus” theory and I default to the notion that my decisions require a forced choice between competing performances.

- I will vote on Framework. (*This means different things in different debate formats - I don't mean impact framing or LD-centric "value/value criterion" but rather a "You must read a plan" interpretation that's typically in response to K Affs)That means I will vote for the team running the position based on their interpretation, but it also means I’ll vote on offensive responses to the argument. Vindicating an alternative framework is a necessary skill and one that should be possessed by kritikal teams - justifying your form of knowledge production as beneficial in these settings matter.
Framework appeals effectively consist of a normative claim of how debate ought to function. The interpretation should be prescriptive; if you are not comfortable with what the world of debate would look like if your interpretation were universally applied, then you have a bad interpretation. The impact to your argument ought to be derived from your interpretation (yes, I’ve given RFDs where this needed to be said). Furthermore, a Topical Version of the Affirmative must specifically explain how the impacts of the 1AC can be achieved, it might be in your best interest to provide a text or point to a few cases that achieve that end. This is especially true if you want to go for external impacts that the 1AC can’t access – but all of this is contingent on a cogent explanation as to why order precedes/is the internal link to justice.

- I am pretty comfortable judging Clash of Civilization debates.

- Framework is the job of the debaters. Epistemology first? Ontology? Sure, but why? Where does performance come into play – should I prioritize a performative disad above the “substance” of a position? Over all of the sheets of paper in the round? These are questions debaters must grapple with and preferably the earlier in the round the better.

- "Framework is how we frame our work" >>>>> "FrAmEwOrK mAkEs ThE gAmE wOrK"

-Presumption can be an option. In my estimation, the 2NR may go for Counterplan/Kritik while also giving the judge the option of the status quo. Call it “hypo-testing” or whatever but I believe a rational decision-making paradigm doesn’t doom me to make a single decision between two advocacies, especially when the current status of things is preferable to both (the net-benefit for a CP/linear DA and impact for a K). I don't know if I really “judge kick” for you, instead, the 2NR should explain an “even if” route to victory via presumption to allow the 2AR to respond.
“But what about when presumption flips Affirmative?” This is a claim that I wish would be established prior to the 2NR, but I know that's not gonna happen. I've definitely voted in favour of plenty of 2ARs that haven't said that in the 1AR. The only times I can envision this is when the 2NR is going all-in on a CP.

- Role of the Ballots ought to invariably allow the 1AC/1NC to be contestable and provide substantial ground to each team. Many teams will make their ROBs self-serving at best, or at worse, tautological. That's because there's a large contingency of teams that think the ROB is an advocacy statement. They are not. Even more teams conflate a ROB with a Role of the Judge instruction and I'm just now making my peace with dealing with that reality.
If the ROB fails to equally distribute ground, they are merely impact framing. A good ROB can effectively answer a lot of framework gripes regarding the Affirmative’s pronouncement of an unfalsifiable truth claim.

- Analytics that are logically consistent, well warranted, and answer the heart of any argument are weighed in high-esteem. This is especially true if it’s responsive to any combinations of bad argument/evidence.

- My threshold for theory is not particularly high. It’s what you justify, not necessarily what you do. I typically default to competing interpretations, this can be complicated by a team that is able to articulate what reasonability means in the context of the round, otherwise I feel like it's interventionist of me to decode what “reasonable” represents. The same is true to a lesser extent with the impacts as well. Rattling off “fairness and education” as loaded concepts that I should just know has a low threshold if the other team can explain the significance of a different voter or a standard that controls the internal link into your impact (also, if you do this: prepared to get impact turned).

I think theory should be strategic and I very much enjoy a good theory debate. Copious amounts of topicality and specification arguments are not strategic, it is desperate.

- I like conditionality probably more so than other judges. As a young’n I got away with a lot of, probably, abusive Negative strategies that relied on conditionality to the maximum (think “multiple worlds and presumption in the 2NR”) mostly because many teams were never particularly good at explaining why this was a problem. If you’re able to do so, great – just don’t expect me to do much of that work for you. I don’t find it particularly difficult for a 2AR to make an objection about how that is bad for debate, thus be warned 2NRs - it's a downhill effort for a 2AR.
Furthermore, I tend to believe the 1NC has the right to test the 1AC from multiple positions.
Thus, Framework along with Cap K or some other kritik is not a functional double turn. The 1NC doesn’t need to be ideologically consistent. However, I have been persuaded in several method debates that there is a performative disadvantage that can be levied against speech acts that are incongruent and self-defeating.

- Probability is the most crucial component of impact calculus with disadvantages. Tradeoffs ought to have a high risk of happening and that question often controls the direction of uniqueness while also accessing the severity of the impact (magnitude).

- Counterplan debates can often get tricky, particularly if they’re PICs. Maybe I’m too simplistic here, but I don’t understand why Affirmatives don’t sit on their solvency deficit claims more. Compartmentalizing why portions of the Affirmative are key can win rounds against CPs. I think this is especially true because I view the Counterplan’s ability to solve the Affirmative to be an opportunity cost with its competitiveness. Take advantage of this “double bind.”

- Case arguments are incredibly underutilized and the dirty little secret here is that I kind of like them. I’m not particularly sentimental for the “good ol’ days” where case debate was the only real option for Negatives (mostly because I was never alive in that era), but I have to admit that debates centred on case are kind of cute and make my chest feel all fuzzy with a nostalgia that I never experienced– kind of like when a frat boy wears a "Reagan/Bush '84" shirt...

KRITIKAL DEBATE

I know enough to know that kritiks are not monolithic. I am partial to topic-grounded kritiks and in all reality I find them to be part of a typical decision-making calculus. I tend to be more of a constructivist than a rationalist. Few things frustrate me more than teams who utilise a kritik/answer a kritik in a homogenizing fashion. Not every K requires the ballot as a tool, not every K looks to have an external impact either in the debate community or the world writ larger, not every K criticizes in the same fashion. I suggest teams find out what they are and stick to it, I also think teams should listen and be specifically responsive to the argument they hear rather than rely on a base notion of what the genre of argument implies. The best way to conceptualize these arguments is to think of “kritik” as a verb (to criticize) rather than a noun (a static demonstrative position).
It is no secret that I love many kritiks but deep in every K hack’s heart is a revered space that admires teams that cut through the noise and simply wave a big stick and impact turn things, unabashedly defending conventional thought. If you do this well there’s a good chance you can win my ballot. If pure agonism is not your preferred tactic, that’s fine but make sure your post-modern offense onto kritiks can be easily extrapolated into a 1AR in a fashion that makes sense.
In many ways, I believe there’s more tension between Identity and Post-Modernism teams than there are with either of them and Policy debaters. That being said, I think the Eurotrash K positions ought to proceed with caution against arguments centred on Identity – it may not be smart to contend that they ought to embrace their suffering or claim that they are responsible for a polemical construction of identity that replicates the violence they experience (don’t victim blame).

THOUGHTS ON COMPETITION

There’s a lot of talk about what is or isn’t competition and what competition ought to look like in specific types of debate – thus far I am not of the belief that different methods of debate require a different rubric for evaluation. While much discussion has been given to “Competition by Comparison” I very much subscribe to Competing Methodologies. What I’ve learned in having these conversations is that this convention means different things to different people and can change in different settings in front of different arguments. For me, I try to keep it consistent and compatible with an offense/defense heuristic: competing methodologies require an Affirmative focus where the Negative requires an independent reason to reject the Affirmative. In this sense, competition necessitates a link. This keeps artificial competition at bay via permutations, an affirmative right regardless of the presence of a plan text.

Permutations are merely tests of mutual exclusivity. They do not solve and they are not a shadowy third advocacy for me to evaluate. I naturally will view permutations more as a contestation of linkage – and thus, are terminal defense to a counterplan or kritik -- than a question of combining texts/advocacies into a solvency mechanism. If you characterize these as solvency mechanisms rather than a litmus test of exclusivity, you ought to anticipate offense to the permutation (and even theory objections to the permutation) to be weighed against your “net-benefits”. This is your warning to not be shocked if I'm extrapolating a much different theoretical understanding of a permutation if you go 5/6 minutes for it in the 2AR.
Even in method debates where a permutation contends both methods can work in tandem, there is no solvency – in these instances net-benefits function to shield you from links (the only true “net benefit” is the Affirmative). A possible exception to this scenario is “Perm do the Affirmative” where the 1AC subsumes the 1NC’s alternative; here there may be an offensive link turn to the K resulting in independent reasons to vote for the 1AC.

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

AFFILIATIONS:
Current Director of Debate and Forensics (JC Harmon High School - Kansas City, Kansas)

(DEBATE - Kansas City)

(NSDA - East Kansas)

Yes, email chain - kevinjaykinsella@gmail.com

Yes, you may shake my hand. Shaking hands and introducing oneself is a cultural norm that I value.

PHILOSOPHY:

I do not get "lost in the sauce" in regard to technicalities in debate. However, if I comment "lost in the sauce" on your ballot, then you probably lost. Debate is a game of chess, in which teammates are setting up his/her/their partner for the next move. I was raised in a stock issue style debate mentality. Through the years and moving from and participating in more traditional, suburban debate to more progressive, urban debate, I am more flexible to all styles. I often find that I make my decision during Cross-Examination (CX). Anyone can read files that someone from the University of Michigan wrote and put in DropBox. Trust me. I have read all the files that you will run unless you wrote them yourself. You have to bob and weave with the flow of the debate. I ultimately reward whichever team convinces me that they have the better argument (sound simple, eh?).

AGRESSIVENESS:

I love when teams are aggressive, not rude, but aggressive. I often find that whichever team is able to control the narrative of the debate, is often crowned the victor.

SPEED:

I love a high rate of speed. However, if you are not comfortable or confident in your ability to spread, then don't.

EVIDENCE:

I value reputable and recent evidence. If you use some trash source, I will judge you (that's my job). I also believe that it is highly important that you promote your evidence and chastise your opponents. I am a voracious reader of the news. Impress me with your knowledge of how the current topic applies to today, not whenever someone from Northwestern cut this card a year ago from a source that is several years old.

KRITIKAL DEBATE:

I am a fan of K debate. I am an urban debate coach, so K and performance debate is what we are all about. However, K arguments are a double-edged sword. They offer high risk, yet high reward for debate teams. If you run a "K" because your argument is weak or you are unprepared, it is painfully obvious. The "K" that you run must have some reason that it is being run for this particular debate. If it is not relevant to the debate at hand, then do not run it. Many teams try to run a "K' (especially one that they deem as controversial and outside mainstream thought) in an effort to shock a judge and hide a weak and unprepared argument.

COUNTER PLAN:

I am a big fan of Counter Plans. However, CPs are a double-edged sword. They offer high risk, yet high reward for debate teams.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

I want to be on the email chain/flashed any shared files - mattlamunyon@gmail.com

I debated throughout high school and for a year at Emporia State. I'm most comfortable with policy arguments, but I have ran some Ks and read some literature. Overall, I’ll listen to most arguments as long as you can explain them well. Tell me how to vote and why. Don't assume that since you said it, you won it. I want clash. Prefer truth over tech unless told otherwise. If you don't extend warrants with your authors I'll assume you've dropped it. Please extend more than just an impact.

I really don't like nuclear war impacts, but I'll vote on them if you win them. Don't let this turn you away from running them if they're already built into your argument.

T - I enjoy good T debates, but don’t feel like you have to run it. Abuse and reasonability are big factors for me. Not a big fan of brightline. I think model for debate is a good reason as to why certain interps are bad. Voting issues need to be extended throughout the round for my vote. This is probably where my bias shows through most in the debate.

FW/Theory/Etc. - Enjoy these debates. Most things from T-specific analysis apply here. Real-world/logical explanations will usually win me over. RoB arguments are really intriguing to me and I’ll follow the role I’m given. I'll vote either way on most arguments. Examples of why you're right are useful. TVAs help. I'm willing to vote on most theory arguments as long as you can prove that something the other team has done is abusive in-round or creates a bad model for debate overall. I'll vote on presumption. I've started to enjoy reps debates and am willing to vote either way solely based on representations as long as it is a significant part of the debate and not just something that you tack on at the end of the 2N/AR (preferably start in the 2A/NC. Will vote on narratives and/or un-T affs if you win your reasoning.

DAs - Generics are fine as long as you can explain how the aff generally applies. I will vote for aff even if the DAs are won if the aff proves that their impacts outweigh.

CPs - Don’t have a problem with them. I need to see a clear, stand-alone net benefit; better solvency isn’t enough for me. I'm starting to dislike PICs, but I'll vote for them.

Ks - Like stated before, didn’t run many Ks, but have done a decent amount of reading/research over various arguments. Find these debates super interesting, but I don’t want to hear it unless you understand it. Explain your alt and what it means. If you're running it on the neg against a K aff, explain why it's different than the aff's alt. I ran Cap with a rejection alt, so my understanding is going to be best over that area, but I don't really care what you do. I also ran a nuclearism aff, so my knowledge of that has transferred over to the neg side. If you want to read a K based on language/action, please do it because of some legitimately derogatory, offensive, etc. language either from the debaters or from their authors. Reading these types of Ks will lead to more judge intervention because I will have to determine whether I believe there was any significant action/language that violated the K's thesis.

Impact Framing - I default to deontology, but I am willing to vote for util if you prove it's better. More willing to vote on probability, but again will vote on whatever if you prove that timeframe or magnitude is more important.

Case - Important. At the least, I want to see debate over the impacts. Neg case debate makes me much more willing to vote neg. I want to see the affs knowledge on their case and the resolution. I want the evidence and warrants extended or I'll assumed it's dropped. I've voted against multiple teams for not extending case.

CX/Roadmaps/Flashing/Etc. - Don’t care as long as you aren’t taking forever or blatantly stealing prep.

Delivery - I prefer anything up to a moderate/fast level, but don’t really care as long as your tags/cites are moderate and understandable.

Miscellaneous - Impact calc is necessary to get my ballot and I love good impact framing. Turns should be explained. If you claim abuse, I want examples. I prefer depth over breadth but will vote on whichever is won in the debate. I probably won’t vote on an argument if it’s most important pieces of evidence aren’t extended throughout the debate. I really hate when neither team does the important extensions because then I have the burden of deciding whether something was dropped or not. Analytics are fine. I don't evaluate any new arguments made after the 1AR. Don’t be rude. Ask me at the end of the debate if you want any comments on certain arguments and I'll be happy to give them, assuming it won't hold the tournament up. You can also find or email me post-round and I'll be happy to explain anything. (It's best to do this sooner rather than later because I will probably forget what happened in the debate.)

This is a work in progress, so ask me any other questions you might have and I’ll do my best to answer them.

I have been judging debate for over twenty years, but am old myself so when I debated in high school it was very different (real cards). I am a teacher (I teach cultural anthropology so we discuss a lot of social justice issues) but not a debate coach. I like to see that debaters understand what they are saying - that they can explain in their own words, not just read endless cards at top rate speed without explaining why the cards are relevant.

Harms, inherency, and solvency are the most important Aff stock issues for me. I want to know what problem you are trying to solve and how you are going to do it. And why it will continue to be a problem without your plan. I am very interested in real world problems.

Counterplans and generic DAs are fine from Neg, but again, I like to at least see a firm link.

Topicality is fine - but I don't love the generic harm to debate, I love some good word play, so if you can convince me something isn't topical by really delving into language I will sometimes judge on that.

Kritiques are sometimes okay- I like to see real world issues being brought up and debate tied to real world issues. But if they get really esoteric I honestly get lost.

Again - I like to see direct clash, ties to real world, debaters who understand what they are saying and can explain it to me.

I prefer medium speed - if you are unintelligible I get nothing out of that.

Currently Head Coach at Campbell Hall (CA)

Formerly Head Coach of Fairmont Prep (CA), Ransom Everglades (FL) & Pembroke Hill (MO), and Assistant Coach for Washburn Rural (KS), and Lake Highland (FL).

Coached for 20+ years – Have coached all events. Have coached both national circuit PF & Policy, along with local LD and a bit of Parli and World Schools. Also I have a J.D., so if you are going to try to play junior Supreme Court Justice, please be reasonably accurate in your legal interpretations.

Address for the email chain: millerdo@campbellhall.org

Scroll down for Policy or Parli Paradigm

_____________________

Public Forum Paradigm

_____________________

SHORT VERSION

1. If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST EXTEND it in every speech, BEGINNING WITH THE 2ND REBUTTAL. That INCLUDES defensive case attacks, as well as UNANSWERED LINK CHAINS AND IMPACTS that you want to extend from your own case. JUST FRONTLINING WITHOUT EXTENDING the link and impact stories MEANS YOU HAVE DROPPED THOSE LINKS AND IMPACTS, and I won't evaluate them at the end of the debate.
2. Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm.
3. Please send speech docs in a static format (Word Doc or PDF - Not a real-time editable Google Doc) to the other team and the judge WITH CUT CARDS BEFORE you give any speech in which you introduce new evidence. If you don't, A) I will be sad, B) any time you take finding ev will be free prep for your opponents, and C) the max speaks you will likely earn from me will be 28. If you do send card docs I will be happy and the lowest speaks you will likely earn will be 28. This only applies in TOC & Championship-level divisions.
4. Don't paraphrase. Like w/ speech docs, paraphrasing will likely cap your speaks at 28. Reading full texts of cards means 28 will be your likely floor.
5. Read tags to cards, or I won't flow them.
6. Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. This should start in the 2nd Rebuttal.
7. No new cards in 2nd Summary. No new cards in 1st Summary unless directly in response to new 2nd Rebuttal arguments.
8. I'm OK w/ Theory & Ks - IF THEY ARE DONE WELL. Read below for specific types of arguments.

DETAILED VERSION

(Sorry for the insane length. This is more an ongoing exercise for me to refine my own thoughts, but if you want more detail than above on any particular issue, here you go.)

1. 2nd Rebuttal & Summary extension

If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in BOTH the 2nd Rebuttal & Summaries. Yes, that includes defense & turns from the 1st rebuttal. Yes, that includes unanswered link chains and impacts in the 2nd Rebuttal. For example: 1st Rebuttal just answers your links on C1. If you want to go for C1 in any meaningful way. you not only need to rebuild whatever C1 links you want me to evaluate at the end of the round, but you also need to explicitly extend your impacts you are claiming those links link to in at least a minimum of detail. Just saying" extend my impacts" will not be sufficient. At least try to reference both the argument and the card(s) you want me to extend. You need to explicitly extend each of the cards/args you will need to make a cohesive narrative at the end of the round. Even if it is the best argument I’ve ever heard, failure to at least mention it in the 2nd Rebuttal and/or Summary will result in me giving the argument zero weight in my decision. And, yes, I know this means you won't be able to cover as much in 2nd Rebuttal. Make choices. That's what this event is all about. This is # 1 on my list for a reason. It plays a major factor in more than half of my decisions. Ignore this advice at your own peril, especially if you are the team speaking 2nd. Also, if you do properly extend your links and impacts, and your opponents don't, call them out on it. I am very likely to boost your speaks if you do.

2. Offense defense

Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm. Just going for defensive response to the the opposing case in FF won’t be persuasive in front of me. I am open to non-traditional framing arguments (e.g. rights, ontology, etc), but you will need to have some pretty clear warrants as to why I should disregard a traditional net offensive advantage for the other team when making my decision. You need warrants as to WHY I should prefer your framing over the default net benefits. For example, just saying "Vote for the side that best prevents structural violence" without giving reasons why your SV framing should be used instead of util is insufficient.

3. Bad Debate Practices

A. Send Speech Docs to the other team and judges with the cut cards you are about to read before your speech

This is the expected norm in both Policy and LD, and as PF matures as an event, it is far past time for PF to follow suit. I am tired of wasting 15+ min per round while kids hunt for cards that they should already have ready as part of their blocks and/or cases to share, and/or just paraphrasing without the cut card readily available. To discourage these bad practices, I choose to adopt two incentives to encourage debaters use speech docs like every other legitimate form of debate.

First, if you do not send a speech doc w/ all the cards you are about to read in that next speech to the email chain or by some other similar means in a timely fashion (within the reasonable amount of time it should take to send those cards via your chosen means - usually a couple of minutes or so) before you begin any speech in which you read cards, you can earn speaker points up to 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 27. If you do send a speech doc with the cut cards you are about to read in order, it is highly likely that the lowest speaks you earn will be a 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 29. If you don't have your cards ready before the round, or can't get them ready in a reasonable amount of time before each relevant speech, don't waste a bunch time trying. It defeats the part of the purpose aimed to speed up rounds and prevent tournaments from running behind because kids can't find their evidence. If speech docs are not a thing you normally do, don't let it get into your head. Just consider me as one of the many judges you'll encounter that isn't prone to hand out high speaks, and then go and debate your best. I'll still vote for whomever wins the arguments, irrespective of speaks. Afterwards, I would then encourage you to consider organizing your cases and blocks for the next important tournament you go in a way that is more conducive to in-round sharing, because it is likely to be the expected norm in those types of tournaments.

Several caveats to this general rule:

1) the obvious allowances for accidentally missing the occasional card due to honest error, or legitimate tech difficulties

2) if you engage in offensive behavior/language/etc that would otherwise justify something lower than a 25, providing a speech doc will not exempt you from such a score,

3) I will only apply these speaker point limitations in qualifier and Championship level varsity divisions - e.g. state, national, or TOC qualifiers & their respective championship tournaments. Developmental divisions (novice, JV, etc) and local-only tournaments have different educational emphases. So while I would still encourage timely sharing of evidence in those divisions, there are more important things for those debaters to focus on and worry about. However, if you are trying to compete for a major championship, you should expect to be held to a higher standard.

4) As referenced above, these artificial speaker point limitations have no impact on my ultimate decision regarding who wins or loses the round (unless one team attempts to turn some of these discouraged practices into a theory argument of some kind). I am happy to give low-point wins if that's how it shakes out, or else to approximate these same incentives in other reasonable ways should the tournament not permit low-point wins. The win/loss based upon the arguments you make in-round will always take priority over arbitrary points.

Basically, I won't require you to provide speech docs, but I will use these two measures to incentivize their use in the strongest possible way I feel I reasonably can. This hopefully will both speed up rounds and simultaneously encourage more transparency and better overall evidence quality.

B. Don't Paraphrase

It's really bad. Please don't do it. As an activity, we can be better than that. In CX & LD, it is called clipping cards, and getting caught doing it is an automatic loss. PF hasn't gotten there yet, but eventually we should, and hopefully will. I won't automatically vote you down for the practice (see my thoughts on theory below), but I do want to disincentivize you to engage in the practice. Thus, I will apply the same speaker point ranges I use for Speech Docs to paraphrasing. Paraphrase, and the max speaks you will likely get from me is a 28. Read texts of cut cards, and 28 is your likely floor. This penalty will apply even if you have the cut cards available at the bottom of the document. That's still card clipping, and is bad. The same relevant caveats from speech docs apply here (minimums don't apply if you're offensive, only applies to higher-level varsity, and it won't impact the W/L).

C. Read Tags

I can't believe I'm having to write this, but READ TAGS to your cards. "Anderson '23 furthers..." or "Jones '20 continues..." without anything els isn't a tag. It is hard enough to flow the super blippy cards that seem to be everywhere in fast rounds these days, but if you don't give me a tag, it makes flowing functionally impossible. Have some respect for the work your judge has to do to get everything down, and give us a tag so that we can both be more accurate in our flow, and also be able to know what to listen for in the cards. Simply put, if you don't give me a tag for a card, I won't flow it. I don't have time to go back to the speech doc and read every card after you read it in an attempt to reconstruct what argument you think it is making so that I can then take a guess at what you want me to write down. That's what a tag is for. That's your job, not mine. If you want to go fast, that's cool. But you have to meet your judge at least part way. Read tags. That's the price you have to pay for spreading.

4. Narrow the round

It would be in your best interest to narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level link & impact story and 1-2 key turns on your opponents’ case, and then spend most of your time doing impact comparisons on those issues. Going for all 3 contentions and every turn you read in rebuttal is a great way to lose my ballot. If you just extend everything, you leave it up to me to evaluate the relative important of each of your arguments. This opens the door for judge intervention, and you may not like how I evaluate those impacts. I would much rather you do that thought process for me. I routinely find myself voting for the team that goes all in on EFFECTIVE impact framing on the issue or two they are winning over the team that tries to extend all of their offensive arguments (even if they are winning most of them) at the expense of doing effective impact framing. Strategic choices matter. Not making any choices is a choice in itself, and is usually a bad one.

5. No new cards in Summary, unless they are in direct response to a new argument brought up in the immediately prior speech.

1st Summary: If you need to read cards to answer arguments first introduced in opponents case, those needed to be read in 1st Rebuttal, not 1st Summary. Only if 2nd Rebuttal introduces new arguments—for example a new impact turn on your case—will I evaluate new cards in the 1st Sum, and only to specifically answer that new 2nd Rebuttal turn. Just please flag that your are reading a new card, and ID exactly what new 2nd Rebuttal argument you are using it to answer.

2nd Summary: Very rarely, 2nd summary will need to address something that was brought up new in 1st summary. For example, as mentioned above, 2nd Rebuttal puts offense on case. 1st Summary might choose to address that 2nd Rebuttal offense with a new carded link turn. Only in a case like that will I evaluate new evidence introduced into 2nd Summary. If you need to take this route, as above in 1st Summary, please flag exactly what argument you say was new in the 1st Summary you are attempting to answer before reading the new card.

In either case, unless the prior speech opened the door for you, I will treat any new cards in Summary just like extending things straight into FF & ignoring the summary—I won’t evaluate them and your speaker points will take a hit. However, new cross-applications of cards previously introduced into the round ARE still OK at this point.

5A. No new cross-applications or big-picture weighing in Final Focus.

Put the pieces together before GCF - at least a little bit. This includes weighing analysis. The additional time allotted to teams in Summary makes it easier to make these connections and big-picture comparisons earlier in the round. Basically, the other team should at least have the opportunity to ask you about it in a CF of some type. You don't have to do the most complete job of cross-applying or weighing before FF, but I should at least be able to trace its seed back to some earlier point in the round.

6. Theory

I will, and am often eager to, vote on debate theory arguments. But proceed with caution. Debaters in PF rarely, if ever, know how to debate theory well enough to justify voting on it. But I have seen an increasing number of rounds recently that give me some hope for the future.

Regarding practices, there is a strategic utility for reading theory even if you are not going for it. I get that part of the game of debate, and am here for it. But if you think you want me to actually vote on it, and it isn't just a time suck, I would strongly encourage that you collapse down to just theory in the 2nd Rebuttal/1st Summary in a similar fashion that I would think advisable in choosing which of your substance-based impact scenarios to go for. Theory isn't the most intuitive argument, and is done poorly when it is blippy. If it is a bad practice that truly justifies my disregarding substantive arguments, then treat it like one. Pick a standard and an impact story and really develop it in both speeches AND IN GCF in the similar way you should develop a link story and impact from your substantive contention. Failing to collapse down will more than likely leave you without sufficient time to explain your abuse story and voter analysis in such a way that it is compelling enough for me to pull the trigger. If you are going to do it (and I'm good with it if you do), do it well. Otherwise, just stick to the substance.

In general, I tend to start any evaluation of theory arguments through a lens of competing interpretations, as opposed to reasonability. However, I can be moved out of that evaluative framing, given the right well-warranted arguments.

My leanings on specific types of theory arguments:

Fiat & Plans – For policy resolutions, while teams cannot utilize a "plan or counterplan,"—defined as a "formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation"—they can "offer generalized, practical solutions (GPS)." If you can figure out what that word soup means, you are a step up on me. The PF wording committee seems hellbent on continuing to give us broadly-worded policy resolutions that cry out for fiating some more specific version of the resolution. I used to be very much in the "Aff must prove their advocacy is the most likely version of the resolution" camp, but I am starting to move away from that position. I'm pretty certain that a 12 plank proposal with hyper-specific identification of agency, enforcement, and funding mechanisms would constitute a "formalized, comprehensive proposal," and thus be verboten as a "plan" under the above quoted NSDA rule. But does a single sentence with a basic description of a particular subset of the resolution meet this same threshold? IDK. I think there is room for interpretation on this. I haven't seen anyone get into the weeds on this as a theory argument, but I'm not sure just saying "plans aren't allowed" cuts it anymore, especially given the direction the topic committee seems to be moving. Does that also arguably leave open similar room on the Neg for some sort of "counter-solution" or an alternative? I honestly don't know. I guess that means I am open to debates on this issue, if people want to try to push the boundaries of what constitutes a "generalized, practical solution." One thing I am certain on, though, is that if you do attempt to offer some sort of plan-esque "GPS," you probably should have a written text somewhere in your case specifically committing to what exactly the solution is your are advocating. Moving target advocacies that can never be pinned down are insanely abusive, so if you are going to go the "GPS" route, the least you can do is be consistent and up front about it. It shouldn't take a series of CF questions to figure out what exactly it is you are advocating.

Multiple conditional advocacies – When teams read multiple advocacies on the Aff and then decide “we’re not going for that one” when the opposing team puts offense on it is the zenith of in-round abuse. Teams debating in front of me should continue to go for their unanswered offensive turns against these “kicked” arguments – I will weigh them in the round (assuming that you also extend the other team's link and impact stories), and am somewhat inclined to view such practices as a voter if substantial abuse is demonstrated by the offended team. If you start out with a 3-prong fiated advocacy, then you darn well better end with it, or kick out of it properly. Severance is bad. If teams are going to choose to kick out of part of their advocacy mid-round, they need to effectively answer any offense on the "to-be-kicked" parts first.

Paraphrasing - Don't paraphrase. I come down strongly on the side of having cut cards available. This doesn't mean I will automatically vote for paraphrasing theory, as I think there is minimal room for a conceivably viable counter-interp of having the cards attached to blocks/cases or something similar. But blatant, unethical, and lazy paraphrasing has, at times, really threatened the integrity of this activity, and it needs to stop. This theory arg is the way to do that. If your opponents paraphrase and you don't, and if you read a complete paraphrasing arg and extend it in all of the necessary speeches, it is going to take a whole lot of amazing tap dancing on the part of the guilty party for me not to vote for it.

Trigger Warning - I am likely not your judge for this. I'm not saying I won't vote on it, but it would be an uphill battle. Debate is a space where we shouldn't be afraid to talk about important and difficult issues, and opt-outs can too easily be abused to gain advantage by teams who don't genuinely have issues with the topics in question. There would need to be extensive use of graphic imagery or something similar for me to be likely to buy a sufficiently large enough violation to justify voting on this kind of argument. Not impossible, but a very high threshold.

Disclosure - Disclosure is good. My teams do it, and I think you should too. It makes for better debates, and the Wiki is an invaluable tool for small squads with limited resources and coaching. I speak from experience, having coached those types of small squads in policy against many of the juggernaut programs with armies of assistants cutting cards. Arguments about how it is somehow unfair to small teams make little sense to me. That being said, I don't think the lack of disclosure is as serious of a threat to the integrity of PF as the bad paraphrasing that at one point was rampant in the activity. Disclosure is more of a strongly suggested improvement, as opposed to an ethical necessity. But if the theory arg is run WELL, I will certainly vote on it. And that also includes arguments about proper forms of disclosure. Teams that just post massive blocks of unhighlighted, ununderlined text and/or without any tags read to me as acts of passive aggression that are just trying to get out of disclosure arguments while not supporting the benefits that disclosure provides. Also, responses like "our coach doesn't allow us to disclose" or "email us 30 minutes before the round, and this counts as terminal defense against disclosure arguments" are thoroughly unpersuasive in front of me. I'm sorry your coach doesn't support disclosure, but that is a strategic decision they have made that has put their students at a disadvantage in front of judges like me. That's just the way it goes.

Where to First Introduce - I don't yet have a strong opinion on this, as I haven't had enough decent theory rounds to adjudicate for it to really matter. If you force me to have an opinion, I would probably suggest that theory be read in the first available speech after the infraction occurs. So, disclosure should probably be read in the Constructives, while paraphrasing shells should likely be in either the 2nd Constructive or 1st Rebuttal, once the other team has had a chance to actually introduce some evidence into the round.

Frivolous Args - I am totally here for paraphrasing and disclosure as arguments, as those practices have substantial impact on the quality of debate writ large. Ditto for conditionality arguments, arguments on the nature of fiat in PF, or other arguments about intrinsic or severance-based alterations of advocacies mid-round. However, I am less likely to be receptive to silly cheap shot args that don't have the major benefit of improving the activity. Hence, leave your "no date of access" or "reading evidence is bad" theory args for someone else. You are just as likely to annoy me by reading those types of args than to win my ballot with them. Reading them means I will give the opposing side TONS of leeway in making responses, I will likely shift to the extreme end of reasonability, and I will likely look for any remotely viable reason I can to justify not voting on them.

Reverse Voting Issues - Theory is a perfectly acceptable strategic weapon for any team to utilize to win a round. I am unlikely to be very receptive to RVIs about how running theory on mainstream args like disclosure or paraphrasing is abusive. If a team properly narrows the last half of the debate by kicking substance and going for theory, that pretty much acts as a RVI, as long as the offending team still at least perfunctorily extends case. Now, once we stray more into the frivolous theory territory as referenced above, I will be much more likely to entertain a RVI, even if the team reading theory doesn't kick substance first.

7. Critical Arguments

In general, I would advise against reading Ks in PF, both because I think the event is not as structurally conducive to them, and because I've only ever seen one team in one round actually use them correctly (and in that round, they lost on a 2-1, because the other two judges just didn't understand what they were doing - ironically emblematic of the risk of reading those args in this event). However, since they are likely only going to increase in frequency, I do have thoughts. If you are a K team, I would suggest reading the Topicality and Criticisms portions of my policy paradigm below. Many of the thoughts on argument preference are similarly applicable here. A couple of PF-specific updates, though:

A) Alternatives - I used to think that since PF teams don't get to fiat a counterplan, they don't get to fiat an alternative either. But as my ideas on plans vs "generalized, practical solutions (GPS)" evolve, so do my thoughts on alts. I used to think that the only alt a Neg could get was some variation on "reject." But now, I think there is more wiggle room for a traditional alt under that "GPS" language. I think most alts definitely are generalized solutions (sometimes overly generalized to their detriment). The question is, then, are they "practical" enough to meet the "GPS" language in the NSDA rules. Maybe, maybe not. My gut would tell me more often than not, K alts are not practical enough to meet this threshold, but I could certainly be convinced either way in any given round. That being said, I see no rules-based problems with reject or "do nothing" alts, although they usually have some serious problems on the solvency end of things, absent a good ROTB arg. And of course, you can garner offense off of all of the traditional ontology and/or epistemology first in decision-making framework args you want.

B) Role of the Ballot args - "Our role of the ballot is to vote for the team that best reduces structural violence" isn't a role of the ballot. It is a bad impact framing argument without any warrants. Proper ROTB args change what the judge's vote actually represents. Normally, the ballot puts the judge in the position of the USFG and then they pretend to take or not take a particular policy action. Changing the ROTB means instead of playing that particular game of make believe, you want the judge to act from the position of someone else - maybe an academic intellectual, or all future policy makers, and not the USFG - or else to have their ballot do something totally different than pretend enacting a policy - e.g. acting as an endorsement of a particular mode of decision-making or philosophical understanding of the world, with the policy in question being secondary or even irrelevant to why they should choose to affirm or negate. Not understanding this difference means I am likely to treat your incorrectly articulated ROTB arg as unwarranted impact framing, which means I will probably ignore it and continue to default to my standard util offense/defense weighing.

8. Crossfire

If you want me to evaluate an argument or card, it needs to be in a speech. Just mentioning it in CF is not sufficient. You can refer to what was said in CF in the next speech, and that will be far more efficient, but it doesn’t exist in my mind until I hear it in a speech. Honestly, I'm probably writing comments during CF anyway, and am only halfway listening. That being said, I am NOT here for just not doing cross (usually GCF) and instead taking prep. Until the powers that be get rid of it, we are still doing GCF. Instead of just not wanting to do it, get better at it. Make it something that I should listen to.

9. Speaker points

See my policy on Speech Docs & Paraphrasing. If I were not making the choice to institute that policy, the following reflects my normal approach to speaks, and will still apply to how I evaluate within the 25-28 non-speech doc range, and within the 28-30 speech doc range. My normal reference point for “average” is 27.5. That’s where most everyone starts. My default is to evaluate on a scale with steps of 0.1, as opposed to steps of 0.5. Below a 25 means you did something offensive. A true 30.0 in HS debate (on a 0.1 scale) doesn’t exist. It is literally perfect. I can only think of 3 times I have ever given out a 29.6 or higher, and each of them were because of this next thing. My points are almost exclusively based on what you say, not how you say it. I strongly value making good, strategic choices, and those few exceptional scores I’ve given were all because of knowing what was important and going for it / impact framing it, and dumping the unnecessary stuff in the last half of the round.

10. Ask for additional thoughts on the topic

Even if you’ve read this whole thing, still ask me beforehand. I may have some specific thoughts relating to the topic at hand that could be useful.

11. Speed

Notice how I didn't say anything about that above, even though it's the first questions like half of kids ask? Basically, yes, I can handle your blazing speed. Aren't you cool. But it would still probably be a good idea to slow it down a little, Speed Racer. Quality > quantity. However, if you try to go fast and don't give a speech doc with cut cards before you start speaking, I will be very, VERY unhappy. The reason why policy teams can go as fast as they do is that they read a tag, (not just "Smith continues..." or "Indeed...") which we as the audience can mentally process and flow, and then while they are reading the cite/text of the card, we have time to finish flowing the tag and listen for key warrants. The body of the card gives us a beat or two to collect ourself before we have to figure out what to write next. Just blitzing through blippily paraphrased cards without a tag (e.g. "Smith '22 warrants...") doesn't give us that tag to process first, and thus we have to actively search for what to flow. By the time we get it down, we have likely already missed your next "card." So, if you are going to try to go faster than a broadly acceptable PF pace, please have tags, non-paraphrased cards, and speech docs. And if you try to speed through a bunch of blippy paraphrased "cards" without a doc, don't be surprised when we miss several of your turns. Basically, there is a way to do it right. Please do it that way, if you are going to try to go fast.

________________________

Policy Paradigm

________________________

I debated for 4 years in high school (super old-school, talk-pretty policy), didn't debate in college, and have coached at the HS level for 20+ years. I am currently the Head Coach at Campbell Hall in Los Angeles (focusing mostly on national circuit PF), and previously was an Assistant Coach at Washburn Rural in KS, and head coach at Fairmont Prep in Anaheim, CA, Ransom Everglades School, in Miami, and The Pembroke Hill School in KCMO. However, I don't judge too many policy rounds these days, so take that into account.

Overview:

Generally, do what you do, as long as you do it well, and I'll be happy. I prefer big-picture impact framing where you do the comparative work for me. In general, I will tend to default to such analysis, because I want you to do the thinking in the round, not me. My better policy teams in the past where I was Head Coach read a great deal of ontology-based Ks (cap, Heidegger, etc), and they often make some level of sense to me, but I'm far from steeped in the literature. I'm happy to evaluate most of the normal disads & cps, but the three general classes of arguments that I usually find less persuasive are identity-based strategies that eschew the topic, politics disads, and to a lesser degree, performance-based arguments. But if any of those are your thing, I would in general prefer you do your thing well than try and do something else that you just aren't comfortable with. I'll go with the quality argument, even if it isn't my personal favorite. I'm not a fan of over-reliance on embedded clash, especially in overviews. I'd rather you put it on the line-by-line. I'm more likely to get it down on my flow and know how to apply it that way, and that's the type of debating I'll reward with higher speaks. Please be sure to be clear on your tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks. Hard numbering/”And’s” are appreciated, and if you need to, go a little slower on those tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks to be sure they are clear, distinct, and I get them. Again, effort to do so will be rewarded with higher speaks.

Topicality:

I generally think affs should have to defend the topic, and actually have some sort of plan text / identifiable statement of advocacy. There are very few "rules" of debate, thus allowing tons of leeway for debaters to choose arguments. But debating the topic is usually a pretty good idea in my mind, as most issues, even those relating to the practices and nature of our activity and inclusion therein, can usually still be discussed in the context of the topic. I rather strongly default to competing interpretations. I like to see T debates come down to specific abuse stories, how expanding or contracting limits functionally impacts competitive equity, and exactly what types of ground/args are lost/gained by competing interps (case lists are good for this in front of me). I usually buy the most important impact to T as fairness. T is an a priori issue for me, and K-ing T is a less than ideal strategy with me as your judge.

Theory:

If you are going to go for it, go for it. I am unlikely to vote either way on theory via a blippy cheap-shot, unless the entire argument was conceded. But sometimes, for example, condo bad is the right strategic move for the 2AR. If it's done well, I won't hesitate to decide a round on it. Not a fan of multiple conditional worlds. With the notable exception of usually giving epistemology / ontology-based affs some flexibility on framework needing to come before particulars of implementation, I will vote Neg on reasonable SPEC arguments against policy affs. Affs should be able to articulate what their plan does, and how it works. (Read that you probably ought to have a plan into that prior statement, even if you are a K team.) For that reason, I also give Neg a fair amount of theoretical ground when it comes to process CPs against those affs. Severance is generally bad in my mind. Intrinsicness, less so.

CPs:

Personally, I think a lot of the standard CPs are, in any type of real world sense, ridiculous. The 50 states have never worked together in the way envisioned by the CP. A constitutional convention to increase funding for whatever is laughable. An XO to create a major policy change is just silly (although over the last few administrations, that has become less so). All that being said, these are all legit arguments in the debate world, and I evaluate and vote on them all the time. I guess I just wish Affs were smart enough to realize how dumb and unlikely these args actually are, and would make more legit arguments based on pointing that out. However, I do like PICs, and enjoy a well thought out and deployed advantage CP.

Disads:

Most topic-related disads are fine with me. Pretty standard on that. Just be sure to not leave gaping holes / assumptions in your link chains, and I'm OK. However, I generally don't like the politics disad. I would much rather hear a good senator specific politics scenario instead of the standard “President needs pol cap, plan’s unpopular” stuff, but even then, I'm not a fan. I'll still vote for it if that's what is winning the round, but I may not enjoy doing so. Just as a hint, it would be VERY EASY to convince me that fiat solves for most politics link stories (and, yes, I understand this places me in the very small minority of judges), and I don't see nearly as much quality ground lost from the intrinsic perm against politics as most. Elections disads, though, don't have those same fiat-related issues, and are totally OK by me.

Criticisms:

I don’t read the lit much, but in spite of that, I really kind of like most of the more "traditional" ontological Ks (cap, security, Heidegger, etc). To me, Ks are about the idea behind the argument, as opposed to pure technical proficiency & card dumping. Thus, the big picture explanation of why the K is "true," even if that is at the expense of reading a few more cards, would be valuable. Bringing through traditional line-by-line case attacks in the 2NR to directly mitigate some of the Aff advantages is probably pretty smart. I think Negs set an artificially high burden for themselves when they completely drop case and only go for the K in the 2NR, as this means that they have to win 100% access to their root cause, “Alt solves the case,” or framework args in order for the K to outweigh some super-sketchy and ridiculous, but functionally conceded, extinction scenario from the 1AC. K's based in a framework strategy (e.g. ontology first) tend to be more compelling in front of me than K's that rely on the alt to actually solve something (because, let's be honest here - alts rarely do). Identity-related arguments are usually not the most compelling in front of me (especially on the Aff when teams basically put the resolution), and I tend to buy strategic attacks against them from the left as more persuasive than attacks from the right.

Random:

I understand that some teams are unbalanced in terms of skill/experience, and that's just the way it goes sometimes. I've coached many teams like that. But I do like to see if both debaters actually know what they are talking about. Thus, your speaks will probably go down if your partner is answering all of your cross-ex questions for you. It won’t impact my decision (I just want to know the answers), but it will impact speaks. Same goes for oral prompting. That being said, I am inclined to give a moderate boost to the person doing the heavy lifting in those cases, as long as they do it respectfully.

________________________

Parli Paradigm

________________________

Parli is not my primary debate background, so I likely have an atypical paradigm for a parli judge that is influenced by my experiences coaching policy and circuit PF. Please adapt accordingly if you want to win my ballot.

First, I honestly don't care how you sound. I care about the arguments you make. Please, don't read that as an immediate excuse to engage in policy-style spreading (that level of speed doesn't translate super well to an event that is entirely analytics and doesn't have cards), but I will likely be more accustomed to and be able to handle debates that are faster than most of the HS parli rounds I have seen to date.

Two general things that I find annoying and unnecessary: 1) Introducing yourself at the top of each speech. I know who you are. Your name is on the ballot. That's all I need. This just seems to be an unnecessary practice designed to turn an 8 minute speech into a 7:30 speech. Forget the formalities, and just give me the content, please. 2) I don't need a countdown for when you start. We aren't launching a rocket into space or playing Mario Kart. Just start. I am a sentient enough of a being to figure out to hit the button on my timer when you begin talking.

I'll go speech by speech.

1st Gov/PMC: Spending the first minute or so explaining the background of the topic might be time well spent, just to ensure that everyone is on the same page. Please, if you have a contention-level argument, make sure it has some kind of terminal impact. If it isn't something that I can weigh at the end of the round, then why are you making the argument?

1st Opp/LOC: Same as above re: terminal impacts in case. Any refutations to the Aff case you would like me to evaluate at the end of the round need to be in this speech, or at least be able to be traced back to something in this speech. That means you probably shouldn't get to the Aff case with only a minute or two left in the speech. If your partner attempts to make new refutations to the Aff case in the 2nd Opp, I won't evaluate them.

2nd Gov/MGC: Similar to the 1st Opp, any parts of your case that you want me to consider when making my decisions need to be explicitly extended in this speech. That includes all essential parts of an argument - link, internal link, and impact. Just saying "extend my Contention 2" is insufficient to accomplish this task. You will actually need to spend at least a modicum of time on each, in order for me to flow it through, in addition to answering any refutations that Opp has made on it in the prior speech. Considering that you will also need to spend some time refuting the Neg's newly introduced case, this means that you will likely NOT have time to extend all of your contentions. That's fine. Make a choice. Not all contentions are equally good. If you try to go for everything, you will likely not do anything well enough to make a compelling argument. Instead, pick your best one (or maybe two) and extend, rebuild, and impact it. Prioritizing arguments and making choices is an essential analytical skill this activity should teach. Making decisions in this fashion will be rewarded in both my decision-making at the end of the round, as well as in speaker points.

Opp Block: If you want me to evaluate any arguments in the these speeches, I need to be able to trace the responses/arguments back to the 1st Opp, except if they are new answers to case responses that could only have been made in the the 2nd Gov. For example, 2nd Gov makes refutations to the Opp's case. New responses to these arguments will be evaluated, but they need to be made in the 2nd Opp, not the 3rd. However, to reiterate, I will absolutely NOT evaluate new refutations to Gov case in these speeches. Just as with the 2nd Gov, I also strongly advocate collapsing down to one contention-level impact story from your case and making it the crux of your narrative about how the debate should be decided. Trying to go for all three contentions you read in the 1st Gov is a great way to not develop any of those arguments well, and to leave me to pick whatever I happen to like best. I don't like judge intervention, which is why I want you to make those decisions for me by identifying the most important impact/argument on your side and focusing your time at the end of the round on it. Do my thinking for me. If you let me think, you may not like my decision.

Both Rebuttals: Just listing a bunch of voters is a terrible way to debate. You are literally just giving me a menu of things I could vote on and hoping that I pick the one you want. You would be much better served in these speeches to focus in on one key impact story, and do extensive weighing analysis - either how it outweighs any/all of the other side's impacts, or if it is a value round, how it best meets the value framing of the debate. As I stated in the Opp Block section, please, do my thinking for me. Show that you can evaluate the relative worth of different arguments and make a decision based upon that evaluation. Refusing to do so tells me you have no idea which of your arguments is superior to the others, and thus you do not have a firm grasp on what is really happening in the round. Be brave. Make a choice. You will likely be rewarded for it. Also, there is very little reason to POO in these speeches. I keep a good enough flow to know when someone is introducing new arguments. If it is new, I won't evaluate it. I don't need you to call it out. I largely find it annoying.

I have judged policy debate occasionally over several years, beginning in 1999 when I began assisting with the debate and forensics program at Shawnee Mission North. Since then, I've judged at many tournaments, including NFL and CFL.

I hold strength of arguments above all. I feel that debate, even though a competition, is a training ground for future policy makers, and therefore should be arguing for (or against) the policy, not simply to win a contest and be rewarded. Therefore, arguments that are thoughtful and thorough are crucial.

I am an English teacher, so I look for clarity of argument and awareness of audience. Debaters should understand their arguments well enough to reach a lay audience - not just their fellow debaters. In other words, judges with limited debate protocol experience should be able to follow the arguments presented. The stronger the arguments, the clearer the links, the better.

NSDA qualifier - Just wanted to clarify for the NSDA qualifier this weekend that this is the first tournament of the season I will be judging. I am good with speed, but I do not recommend you go your fastest. With that being said, make sure you contextualize any kritiks as I have not judged a round on this topic.

emporia high school 2015-2019

ku 23

they/them

yes add me to your email chain: itslenamose@gmail.com

about me

i did policy debate for all four years of high school and a semester of college debate at KU. i ran mostly policy arguments in high school but i spent most of my time running Ks and K affs my last year and a half in debate.

high school experience = two time DCI qualifier, 5A two speak policy debate finalist, and two time NCFL qualifier in LD.

yes spread. yes be clear.

prep doesn't end until the speech doc is sent.

top level

i will listen to most of what you have to say. here's what i think is super important/things people mess up a lot:

1. win your aff -- case is super important and if you win it, then you can win a lot of other stuff on the flow (like case o/w and using the aff as an impact filter)

2. engage with arguments and understand your arguments -- shadow extending cards/making claims with no warrants does not persuade me. clash is good.

3. good cx -- a lot of people don't have goal oriented cross examinations anymore and it's pretty sad. cross ex is a speech. you can get a lot from cx, and when you do you should point those things out in your speeches.

4. impact calc -- do impact calc. often times debaters don't do good enough impact calc and it becomes difficult for me to judge debates. probability, magnitude, and timeframe are important things and you should talk about them. doing impact calc is what will help you write out the ballot for me.

T

i default to competing interps unless convinced otherwise. i will vote on T and i enjoy t debates. limits is probably the only convincing impact to T. obviously warrant out fairness and education claims, but if you don't talk about limits in your 2nr it will be easier for me to vote aff.

theory

theory debates are pretty cool. i'm familiar with condo debates. if you wanna go for it, go for it. please go slow on theory though, spreading at top speed on theory will become frustrating for me.

disads

love a good disad debate ngl. if you can give me a good story and do some good line by line AND win impact calc, then you have a good shot with most DAs. i tend to be a fan of ptx.

K

i like K debates. these are probably some of my favorite debates to judge. as long as you can explain your K and it isn't some death good args then i can evaluate it.

i am most familiar with queer theory, cap, set col, and identity based kritiks

perm debates on the K are fun and good overviews are also fun.

i also like good alts. alts that are specific and well explained will def boost speaks but i can also evaluate a debate where you kick the alt and go for the link.

CP

i like creative CPs and just any CP that tests the aff well. CPs are good and should be competitive. please understand your perms.

I've been involved in debate as either a competitor, a judge, or a coach for over a decade in both policy as well as Lincoln Douglas debate.

I default to a policy maker paradigm, and if all else is truly equal in the round then that's the side that I'll err on, but I have voted on kritikal arguments before and have no problem doing so again if those are the relevant issues in the round. However when I am making decision on kritikal arguments both framework as well as the role of the ballot are very important to me.

On topicality I err on the side of reasonability, but I've voted neg on topicality many times and you should certainly run topicality if you believe the affirmative isn't topical and you feel like that's the strategy you want to go for. If you do go for topicality, unless your opponent has straight up conceded most of the flow, the majority of the 2NR should probably be on topicality. With voters I have a preference for education.

Theory debates are great. Just be sure to legitimize the theory argument with a reasonable voter. Otherwise I have no reason to care about the theory no matter how well you argue it.

Counter-plans are great. Many of the teams I've worked with (including my own partnership) spend the majority of their rounds going for nothing except a single counter-plan and its net benefit, so I'm very familiar with that debate.

I can probably handle whatever speed you throw at me as long as you remain clear. I give two warnings for clarity before I stop telling you to be clear and just flow whatever I can understand.

If your partner prompts you at all during your speech, know that I will not flow a single word of what they say. If you want me to flow it and acknowledge that it was said in the round, then the person giving the speech has to physically say the words.

Unless a speech, CX, or prep timer is running, there should not be preparation going on for either team. During flashing/emailing time, neither team should be prepping. That includes writing on your flows, reading through evidence, and talking to your partner about any arguments in the round.

The bottom line for me in debate is - be reasonable. Conditional arguments are fine, just don't run a large number of them because that becomes unreasonable. Open cross-ex is fine, but if one partner is doing the vast majority of their team's participation in CX then that is no longer reasonable. Flashing evidence to your opponent off-time is fine, but it should be done in a reasonable time (and obviously flashing to your partner is prep time). When in doubt - just ask me.

Add me to the email chain: alonso.pena91@gmail.com

***The big picture***

1. I have 18 years of involvement with debate. I debated in high school and in college at Garden City (2006-2010) and Kansas State (2011, 2014-2017), respectively. In high school I did "traditional" policy debate, and in college I did critical and performance style debate. I read poetry and talked about queer and trans people of color, Chicanx people, decolonial feminist studies, performance studies, etc. I coached high school debate in Kansas for the last 7 years, and this is my second year coaching at UTSA.

2. Debate is a persuasive activity, so your primary objective should be to persuade me to vote for you.

3. I try to be as open-minded as possible, and I will base my decision on the things that happen in the round. That being said, I embody a lived experience, and I will not pretend that I can separate myself from that. I am a queer chicanx man, and I acknowledge that my positionality influences how I move in the world.

4. Do "you" - Be yourself to the best degree possible, and I will be happy. I believe the beauty of debate is that students get power and control over how they express themselves through argumentation.

5. Please don't annoy me about these two things. Prep-stealing and evidence sharing. When you say you are done with prep, I expect you to be ready to give your roadmap and share evidence.

***The Details***

Disads

Disadvantages are very important and underutilized in debate. I love a good disad debate. To win a disad in front of me you will need (at least) a unique link and an impact. You should explain why the disadvantage turns and outweighs the case, and you should compare impacts. If you're reading politics, then you should know that I am NOT a news watcher, so you should be explaining your politics disad. Also, I generally dislike politics disads because their stories feel like pieced together lies. I'm not saying I won't vote for them, but it'll be an uphill battle for you.

Counterplans

Counterplans are cool. I am more likely to be persuaded by counterplans that do the following: (1) have text that is clear and understandable and/or well explained, (2) solves the affirmative, or at least enough of the affirmative to outweigh the aff impacts, (3) have a net benefit or external impact that only the counterplan can solve.

Process counterplans (such as executive orders CPs, courts CPs, etc.) are typically less persuasive to me, but I will vote for them if they solve the aff and have a net benefit.

PICS (Plan inclusive counterplans) are cool, but they should have some basic theoretical defense as to why PICing out of part of the aff is legitimate and good.

Critiques

I enjoy them. To win a K in front of me you will need to win a framing question, a link to the affirmative, and an impact or implication. You should read an alternative, but I am willing to consider voting for a K without an alternative if you tell me why I should. I have a pretty good foundation on critical literature, but you should not assume I have read your literature base. Dense theoretical concepts should be unpacked. Explain how the alt solves the links/impacts.

On the affirmative, if you don't answer the K's framework I will be less persuaded by the affirmative.

Topicality

I think topicality debates can be really good and fun to watch when they are done well. I am persuaded by the following: (1) A reasonable definition and interpretation (2) A well-defined violation, or an explanation of how the affirmative is outside of the resolution, (3) Standards, or defense of why your interpretation is the best way to determine what is topical/untopical. and (4) voters, or reasons why I should vote on topicality in this particular debate.

If the negative doesn't win standards and voters I am way less likely to be persuaded to vote negative on topicality.

Speed

I don't have the quickest ear any more. I need pen time and I need moments where you are speaking to me and not at me. Spreading on zoom doesn't work for me. I cannot keep up and I'm going to be fully honest about it.

I debated in high school and college but that was in the 1980s; I have coached the past 38 years but at a 5A or 4A school in Kansas. With those two pieces of information, I'm pretty traditional in my approach to debate. I am a policymaker. I like communication, but I will try to keep a good flow if you will PLEASE signpost and label arguments; real words make it easier for me to flow than big gasps and high-pitched droning noises. I will NOT be looking at any electronic copies of arguments or evidence; I believe that debate is an oral communication activity, so I will be listening to and flowing what you actually say. I try to avoid being interventionist in the round, but I will struggle with believing things that are unrealistic. I don't care for a lot of theory discussion; I would prefer to hear about this year's resolution. I LOVE direct clash!

I have been the head coach at Blue Valley High school for the last 28 years. Before that, I debated in college at the University of Missouri Kansas City and in High School at Shawnee Mission West.

I am primarily a policy maker as a judge. I will filter all arguments through the lens of what policy I'm voting for and if it's the best policy on a cost-benefits analysis. Kritiks should also be filtered through this lens unless the team issuing it presents really compelling reasons why my policy lens should be suspended. I have a high threshold for the Negative on Topicality. The plan has to show clear abuse to the negative or future negatives through its interpretation in order for me to be persuaded on topicality. I would rather see counterplans run non-conditionally since affirmative plans rarely get to be conditional. However, this could change based on who convinces me in the round.

Stylistically, I still feel like debate should have some element of persuasion to it. You should be able to speak extemporaneously at me at times and not just read off your laptop. Talk to me about why you deserve my ballot through the issues presented. I hate open cross examinations because I feel like they tend to make one of the debaters look weak and another look domineering. I can listen to a fairly fast round but I don't like speed being used when it is not necessary to the the round. I should be able to understand your evidence as it is read to me and only have to look at it if I need a deeper understanding or context. Be polite and be efficient in sharing files so we're not all abusing prep time.

Sam Rinke

Olathe Northwest (2015-2019)

Contact: samrinke@gmail.com.

Topicality:

I like a good T round, just keep it organzied. When I debated, I typically preferred competing interps but I've leaned toward reasonability depending on the topic.

Disadvantages:

These were my favorite off-case argument. I'd prefer to hear DA's with a specific link, but it's not the end of the world if you use a generic link. I love politics disads, but don't run it if you haven't cut new evidence.

Counterplans:

I often ran CP's when I debated. I do default to Condo as the status of a CP.

Kritiks:

I have a very limited experience with kritiks. If you run a K, you will have to walk me through it. If I have to vote on a K at the end of the round, I'm basically making the decison based on my gut-instinct.(P.S. I was an accounting major in college in case that influences the K)

Framing/Impacts:

On the impact/framing debate, I default probability > magnitude, but I'm open to the debate.

Cross-X:

Be polite. I don't have a preference between open or closed, I'll leave that up to you all. If one team wants open and the other wants closed, I would defer to closed. If it's open Cross-X, the speaker should answer most questions instead of getting bailed out by their partner.

Speaking/Speed:

I never sped when I debated and I can't flow it - if you chose to speed then don't be upset when I misunderstand your arguments.

I debated at Lawrence High School for 4 years and debated in college at the University of Kansas. I have been an assistant debate coach for Shawnee Mission South High School for 4 years.

** Please add me to the email chain rose.haylee2000@gmail.com

Hello!

I've judged Debate for about 6 years, and have been an assistant Debate coach for the last 3 seasons. Although I did not Debate in high school, I consider myself a fairly experienced judge.

I prefer to judge based on Policy Making (the Legislative Model). In other words, I weigh the affirmative and negative arguments against each other and make my decision based on the comparison of pros and cons presented in the round. Common solvency arguments (impracticability, insufficiency, counterproductivity, etc.) dis-ads, and inherency arguments all play a role in this comparison.

In evaluating topicality, the impact calculus of the round plays a large factor in my decision, but can be overruled by debatability and fairness. In other words, if you are providing an argument that does not give the opposing team a fair opportunity to debate and reap the educational rewards of the round, it will count against you in my ballot.

In terms of speed, I am comfortable with rapid speech, but (and I cannot stress this enough) it MUST BE COMPREHENSIBLE. If you are spreading so fast that you're stumbling over words, mumbling, not enunciating clearly, or anything else that does not allow me to understand your argument, it will certainly count against you in the ballot.

I am not comfortable giving oral feedback at the end of rounds or revealing the results of a round. All feedback will be included in my ballots.

If you have any other questions about my paradigm or require any clarification, you are more than welcome to ask me before the start of the round. Good luck, and most importantly, have fun!

Last Updated: Winter 2021

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

Debated at Olathe South – didn’t debate in college

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions? Just ask!

Assistant Speech and Debate Coach for 11 years.

POLICY:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

Congressional Debate -

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

-Bigotry of any kind is not tolerated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Email: lswanonhs@gmail.com

Current Assistant Coach: Lansing HS

Former Head Coach: Thomas More Prep Marion Jr/Sr HS, Bonner Springs HS

High School Policy: 4 Years - Champs

EMAIL CHAIN - kelli.henderson@usd469.net (yes, I would like to be included on it)

Speed - I’m flexible. I prefer to be able to understand you and have clarity with your words. Make that happen for whatever that looks like for you. If I can’t understand you or follow, it will be obvious that I’m zoning out. I will listen to whatever you choose to say, however you choose to say it. Make it count.

Preferences - I’m a fan of line by line. Tell me where to put it on the flow and tell me why it matters. I like Impact Calc. I typically default to policy maker and like stock issues if no one is directing me how to vote. I like to see direct clash, I believe that quality evidence matters, and having a cohesive and clear vision for the round is a plus.

All in all I try to keep an open mind to the arguments being made as long as they are not blatantly false/illogical. I want you to debate how you know how to debate I do not want an altered version based off of what you think I want to hear.

Some Specific Argument Notes:

If you do not make clear your position and why I should vote a particular way, I will more than likely default to policy maker.

Case: I love a good case debate! Be sure to have smart analysis of what is being presented in the round. Do not overlook plan.

Topicality: I like topicality and believe it is an under used tool. I want standards/voters. Do not run T just for the sake of running T. I want it to be logical and well constructed.

Disads: I value a strong link. Impact Calc. is important. If running something along the lines like Nuc War, it had better be strong and well constructed for me to consider it.

CPs: They’re not my favorite. I prefer specific solvency over generic CPs. You can still win a CP debate but please make sure it is truly more beneficial.

Kritiks: I enjoy philosophy but it needs to actually make sense. Explain the logic of the K to me if you want to win it. If you are not able to clearly explain your literature, do not go for it.

Theory: You must be able to thoroughly articulate why Theory matters and what the actual impact is. I will listen to it. I will weigh it accordingly. Not my favorite.

Things that I do NOT like or will not tolerate:

Being disrespectful - Your words matter. Use them wisely, properly, and be in good taste.

Abusing prep/flash times - be honorable and courteous.

Falsifying evidence - just don’t.

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

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

Be nice to each other.

kmwhite@olatheschools.org

Policy:

I've been coaching in KS for about 15 years and debated in high school and college before that. It's been quite awhile since I've done much coaching and judging on the national circuit. I'm opening to listening to almost anything but don't assume I'm familiar with specific authors.

You're likely to be the most successful in front of me by debating in your comfort zone and doing it well. I'll list some preferences below but they are all flexible based on what happens in the round. Particularly smart, original arguments can persuade me to vote on just about anything.

I DO NOT want to listen to you be rude to each other. We're all in an activity that we enjoy. Please don't be rude or condescending.

Delivery - Speed is fine. I'll say clear or slow once or twice if you're too fast, but then if you don't adjust I won't keep it up. Please slow a bit during transitions to give me a second to process where you're going.

Round progression - Please narrow the number of arguments but deepen those arguments as you go along. Give me reasons to prefer your arguments that are based on analysis and warrants. Avoid answering developed arguments by just repeating a cite.

Topicality/Theory - I enjoy these types of arguments if they are well-developed and have warrants and impacts. I don't like blippy lists of theory or cheap shots where you read six quick perms and crow because they dropped #5. Tell me very clearly what I should do with your argument if you win it.

Policy impacts - I'm most comfortable evaluating rounds as a policymaker. If you don't specify another method, that's what I'll use. Focus on offense and impacts. I do believe it's possible to mitigate an impact or weaken the link to the point I shouldn't consider it. I have a slight preference for real-world, high probability impacts over low probability terminal impacts.

CPs - These are fine. I have a fairly high standard for competitiveness.

Ks - I like philosophy and enjoy listening to good K debates, but I'm not up on a lot of the literature. Please clash with the opposing arguments and explain exactly what I'm voting for and why. On the neg, apply your ideas directly against specifics from the aff case so I can tell you understand how the arguments interact.

Evidence - I prefer not to look at speech docs unless there's a specific point I'm trying to clear up. Debate is a verbal activity and I want to primarily judge what I hear you say. I will look at evidence if it comes into question.

I'm bothered by the increasing use of heavily biased evidence that hasn't been through an editorial process so please feel free to make source arguments or call their evidence into question. If I end up in a position where I'm comparing evidence directly because you're both telling me your evidence is the best, I will definitely take author's quals into account.

My speaker point midpoint is about a 27.5. If I think you had decently ok speeches, that's where you'll be. Noticeable strategic errors in argument choice or time allocation or delivery will reduce that, insightful arguments and solid strategy will bring it up. I don't mind open cross-x but if you stand up there silently while your partner answers all your questions instead of prepping, you'll both lose points.

LD:

My preference is for LD to be a discussion of philosophy and morality. That can definitely include evaluating outcomes, but don't assume that I'll always vote for the person who proves the "best" outcomes over somebody with a strong philosophical justification for their position.

I dislike both affs and negs who seem to be advocating a specific plan and whose argumentation seems mainly about poking very small and specific holes in each others' plans.

Due to the time constraints, I am much less likely in LD to vote on "gotcha" drops than I am in policy.

I am now the head coach for Lansing HS in Kansas. Previously, I was the head coach and director of debate and forensics at Truman High School in Missouri. I was a policy debater in high school. I have taught at debate and speech camps and I frequently judge policy debate, LD, PF, and speech.

EMAIL CHAIN: willarddebate@gmail

Things I like for you to do: send an email effectively and efficiently, speak clearly, and respond to arguments. Communicate TO THE judge.

GIVE THE ORDER AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SPEECH.

I flow on paper. Be clear when you are switching args.

The aff should be topical. The aff needs an offensive justification for their vision of the topic. I find the arguments for why the aff should be topical to be better than the arguments against it. (Read: I rarely vote on T. Running T? Go all in.) If you are reading an aff that is not topical, you are much more likely to win my ballot on arguments about why your model of debate is good than you are on random impact turns to T.

Evidence matters. I read evidence and it factors into my decision.

Clarity matters. If you have dramatic tone changes between tag and card, where you can barely be heard when reading the text of evidence, you will get lower points from me and you should stop doing that. If I can't understand the argument, it doesn't count. There is no difference between being incoherent and clipping.

The link matters. I typically care a great deal about the link. When in competition, you should spend more time answering the link than reading impact defense.

I am fine with K debate on either side of the the resolution, although I prefer the K debate to be rooted in the substance of the resolution.; however, I will listen to why non-topical versions of the aff are justified. Methodology should inform FW and give substance to FW args beyond excluding only other positions. Links should clearly identify how the other team's mindset/position/advocacy perpetuates the squo. An alternative that could solve the issues identified in the K should be included with solvency that identifies and explains pragmatic change. K debaters must demonstrate their understanding and purpose of their K lit. Moreover, if you would like for me to vote for the K, it should be the main argument in the round.