Email: debatecards.charlotte@gmail.com. Please add me to the email chain.

NDT/CEDA Experience: Debated at Weber State for Omar Guevara and Ryan Wash. Graduate Assistant at Kansas State for Alex McVey and JT.

Other Experience: Assistant coach for Manhattan High, Layton, and Lincoln Southeast doing LD and speech. Harbinger Debate, Shanghai.

Current Position: 3L at University of Nebraska-Lincoln law school. Clerkship for the Lancaster County Public Defender.

Judging Thesis: I understand my role to be evaluating the PERSUASIVENESS of the arguments debaters make, in whatever format they choose to present it. This role may shift if I am given a clear and persuasive argument to do so. FACTORS WHICH MAKE AN ARGUMENT MORE PERSUASIVE TO ME INCLUDE: IDENTIFIED CONCESSIONS ON THE FLOW, EXAMPLES, CORRECT APPLICATION OF KEY TERMS FROM YOUR SCHOLARSHIP, CREDIBILITY OF SOURCE AUTHORS, EXPLANATORY POWER, AND STRATEGIC CHOICES.

Disability Accommodations: All reasonable requests for accommodation for any disability will be granted, or the team will lose. Debaters do not need evidence to prove that they have a disability. I am seeking to reward alternative speaking styles which are not based on the traditional norm of spreading and technical jargon, although mastery of that style is indeed very impressive. Please see this article for more discussion of disability access in policy debate: https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1281&context=speaker-gavel

Advice for Debaters:

K AFF v FW: I am entirely willing to entertain kritikal affs. However the affirmative will probably lose if they fail to contextualize their argument to the actual dispute happening in the round. One way this often occurs is when the affirmative proffers some kind of alternative which they aren't actually doing. The negative will probably lose if they fail to elaborate on why fairness or education matter. Fairness is only an impact in relation to the ethics of a specific community, the value of competition, etc. Education is only an impact in relation to a specific role for debaters, the value of certain literature bases, etc. Why should your values and the community you imagine succeed over theirs? What are debaters supposed to do with the type of education you prioritize?

THEORY: I will only write a ballot for frivolous arguments if I have no other choice. Disagreements about rules or procedures CAN have substance and are NOT discouraged, but you must use your judgment to decide whether the argument you are making is worth the air you spend saying it.

KRITIKS: High theory is cool and good when you are cool and good. I am excited to learn more about your literature and what you think it means. However, I will notice common sense questions about what you are saying and if there is no satisfying answer, I will not be persuaded to vote for you.

DA's: These are available to you by right. Go hog-wild. However, just because your terminal impact has the same label as the affirmative impact does not mean that your disad turns the aff. You must explain how your scenario interacts with theirs.

CP's: I have a pretty high bar for abuse. If there is any relevant difference between the CP and the plan, I think the aff has ground and its generally good to test that difference. I think part of aff ground is some wiggle room on intrinsicness. I think an affirmative can argue that some reasonable action, outside the plan, could be taken to resolve the CP net benefit in order to show that the CP is not competitive. This wiggle room is limited and certainly does not allow object fiat. Teams operating in this zone should construct additional theory arguments.

ROB/ROJ: This can be a valuable opportunity to explain the implications of your position and to make my decision clearer. But, I have zero interest in a ROB argument which merely serves to repeat your impact weighing argument or your alternative. That's not what this type of argument is for.

I think the negative has a burden to ENGAGE WITH THE AFFIRMATIVE in some way. Links should be contextualized to the specific affirmative that you are debating.

In high school debates, I WILL NOT evaluate an argument which is overly hostile toward another competitor’s identity or presence at the tournament, and I WILL consider dropping the team. Almost everything is permitted, but there are certain lines you cannot cross. In college y’all are mostly adults so go off, but I will probably need some clarification about my role in resolving that dispute, because my default assumption is that I don’t have jurisdiction over the value of a person’s life/presence/identity. I will always have a low bar to defeat hate, because HATE IS NOT PERSUASIVE.

\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.

POLICY DEBATE PARADIGM

Name: Jamelle Brown

Current Affiliation: The Pembroke School, Kansas City, MO

Debate Experience: 25+ years as a Head HS Coach, Competed 4 yrs in High School and 1 semester during college

List types of arguments that you prefer to listen to.

1. I appreciate real world impacts.

2. I love the kritical arguments/AFF’s with this year’s resolution. Make the debate real and connect to the real social issues in the SQ.

3. For T, neg if you want to prove that the AFF is untopical, provide valid standards and voters. AFF, then correctly answer these standards and voters. However, don't expect to win a ballot off T alone.

4. Know and understand what you are reading and debating. Be able to explain your card’s claims.

List types of arguments that you prefer not to listen to.

1. Every impact should not equal nuclear war. I want to hear realistic/real world impacts.

2. Generic disadvantages without clear links to the AFF.

List stylistics items you like to watch other people do.

1. I prefer medium-speed speaking. Completely not a fan of spreading.

2. Label and signpost for me. I like to keep a very organized flow!

3. Let me see your personalities in CX.

4. Impact Calc – I want to know why you want me to vote for you and weigh the round.

5. I am excited about performance teams!

List stylistics items you do not like to watch.

1. I dislike unrecognizable speed.

2. I am a Communications teacher, please allow me to see valuable communication skills. (Pre-2020 comment) For example, don’t just stare at your laptops for 8 minutes. Hello, I'm your judge – engage me!

In a short paragraph, describe the type of debate you would most like to hear debated.

Debate is a slice of life. I appreciate seeing a variety of styles and “risk takers.” Debate is also an educational venue. I enjoy K debate and appreciate high schoolers tackling K lit. There are so many important social justice issues that debaters can explore. As your judge, engage me into the round. I will not tolerate rude debaters or disrespectful personal attacks. I am a current high school Speech & Debate coach – please don’t forget about the value of communication skills! I coach all of the speech and debate events, so I love to see kids fully engaged in this activity by utilizing the real-world value it brings.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tim Ellis
Head Coach - Washburn Rural High School, Topeka, KS
Email chain - ellistim@usd437.net,

I am the head debate coach at Washburn Rural High School. I dedicate a large portion of my free time to coaching and teaching debate. I will work very hard during debates to keep an accurate flow of what is being said and to provide the best feedback possible to the debaters that are participating. I cannot promise to be perfect, but I will do my best to listen to your arguments and help you grow as a debater, just like I do with the students that I coach at Washburn Rural.

Because I care about debate and enjoy watching people argue and learn, I prefer debates where people respond to the arguments forwarded by their opponents. I prefer that they do so in a respectful manner that makes debate fun. Tournaments are long and stressful, so being able to enjoy a debate round is of paramount importance to me. Not being able to have fun in a debate is not a reason I will ever vote against a team, but you will see your speaker points rise if you seem to be enjoying the activity and make it a more enjoyable place for those you are competing against.

I will do my best to adjudicate whatever argument you decide to read in the debate. However, I would say that I generally prefer that the affirmative defend a topical change from the status quo and that the negative team says that change from the status quo is a bad idea. I am not the best judge on the planet for affs without a plan (see the first part of the previous statement), but I am far from the worst. I am not the best judge on the planet for process counterplans (see the second part of the previous statement), but I am far from the worst. Much like having fun, the above things are preferences, not requirements for winning a debate.

Topic specific things about intellectual property rights:

• The neg is in a tough spot on this year's topic in terms of generics. If you are good at debating topicality, it will likely not be difficult to convince me that a more limited version of the topic could be better. However, limits for the sake of limits is not really a persuasive argument, so a big limits DA alone does not automatically result in a negative victory.
• Equally debated, I can be convinced that the mere presence of resolutional words in the plan is insufficient to prove that the affirmative's mandate is topical.
• Please debate the affirmative case. I know it can be tempting to just impact turn the aff, but generally the scenario you are turning lacks solvency or an internal link, and perhaps that would be a better use of your time than ripping into heg bad cards off your laptop for 13 minutes.
• This topic is dense and difficult to research. Speaks will likely reward teams who engagein specific research, affirmative or negative, for the positions that they present.
• I am not going to stop you from doing open cross-ex, but I really think it is overutilized and generally uneducational. In most situations, the best outcome is that you look mean or make your partner look incompetent. If your strategy revolves around not letting your partner speak in cross-ex, do not expect to receive high speaker points from me.

I have worked with the SM East Debate program for 3 years. You may run any arguments that you want. Be prepared to explain if reading multiple cards. Read at the speed you are comfortable with.

please add me to the chain– kareemhammouda@gmail.com

I’m a junior at KU. I debated in high school (open). For the 3 years since I’ve been coaching at SMS, mostly working with novices/2nd years. The extent of my knowledge on the topic is the novice case-list.

Because I did open, i’m most comfortable in slower debates.

I'm most familiar with policy oriented arguments, as this is the extent of my experience; However, I am absolutely open to other arguments as long as they are explained well.

Please be organized, signpost, provide roadmaps, etc.

Tell me how you want me to evaluate this round–ex. impact calc is important.

Disclosure is good

Cut cards ethically

Don't clip (I pay attention)

Racism/sexism/ other isms won’t tolerated, and will lose my ballot

TLDR; I’m a policy maker fLAY judge

If you have any specific questions let me know!

Hey y'all - I assume you're here to figure out how I evaluate debate - all of that information is included below.

Addendum for College LD:

I think most of this information will apply to LD - most of my experience with LD is from the Kansas High School circuit, which is traditional in comparison to the National College circuit, but hopefully my description of how I evaluate policy arguments will help! Also please feel free to ask questions!

A few things about me as a person:

First and foremost, I would appreciate a content warning for domestic violence and sexual assault. Thanks!

Second, I am no longer coaching in high school. I’m typically average 5-10 rounds a year on the high school topic now that I don’t coach. I sometimes coach and judge NFA LD. I remain current on politics, the economy, international relations, etc. I previously coached at Topeka High and Shawnee Heights. I debated the space topic, transportation infrastructure topic, and Latin America topic. I divided my paradigm into several categories - an overview of my paradigm, a list of arguments and how I feel about them, and general framing concerns. Any questions? just ask

Third, I’m open to different speeds, but I am telling you right now that I will be unable to flow top speed without a speech doc. Additionally, be cognizant of the fact zoom can make you less clear. Also, I will not do the work to flow top speed theory, overviews or general analysis - slow down when you want me to pay attention. I'll be fairly apparent when I stop flowing. If it is especially bad I will clear you. I want to be on the email chain - hannahjohnson93@gmail.com

Overview:

I'm open/willing to hearing any type of argument (performance, critical, semi-critical, policy, etc.). If y'all don't provide me a framework for how to view the round or a Role of the Ballot that is clearly articulated and developed, then I will default into a policy maker mindset. If y'all are rude to each other, I will write about it on your ballot and most likely dock you speaks, ranks or even give you the L depending on the severity of your actions. I am easy to read as a judge so if you see me stop flowing or looking annoyed it probably means what you're doing is rude or doesn't make sense to me. I'm fine with speed, but clear tags and analysis are appreciated. I want you to be empowered to debate what you want to debate in front of me - this is your round, not mine.

How I evaluate Debaters and their actions:

I've developed a zero-tolerance policy if debaters are rude to any of the debaters in the round - expect a reduction in speaks or losing the round due to your behavior. You are accountable for the way you act so I don't feel like warnings are necessary. Additonally, I hold you accountable for the arguments you choose to read. Therefore, if your arguments are sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or targeted towards any person or group in a negative-way, expect a reduction in speaks or losing the round. If you have questions about this, please ask me before the round starts - I want to make debate educational and inclusive.

Affs:

I'm open/willing to listen to any type of affs. Non-T affs are fine IF they are rejecting the topic. If you are Non-T and upholding the use of the Fed Gov, you better have good T blocks written. Any aff needs to provide me with a clear method of how you solve and a way I should view the round.

Topicality:

When I wasn't taking politics in the 2NR, I was probably taking T. Every level of the T flow is important to me so you must extend and explain interp, standards and voters. Saying "we access fairness and education best" isn't going to win you the round. You need to tell me HOW you access fairness and education the best. I enjoy Topical Versions of the Aff, Case Lists and Core of the Topic args. If you can explain to me why your interp is better for fairness/education in this round and in debate in general, you'll have an easy time winning my ballot. Also, I probs default to competing interps.

Disads:

Generics are fine, but I prefer them to have case-specific links (analytical or carded). When I was in high school, I ran politics disads and would often take them into the 2NR so I'm fairly confident in my ability to understand them.

Counterplans:

I am fine with listening to any CP, but you have to be able to answer why PICs are bad, Delay CPs are bad, Condo is bad, etc. I will vote on any of these arguments depending on the level of abuse in round. Otherwise, when running a CP have a clear net ben. Also, I'm fine with CP funding planks. I don't buy 2NC CP amendments, but I'll only vote against them if the aff makes an arg - make sure your plan text read in the 1NC makes sense and isn't just "the 50 states (insert plan text here).

Kritiks:

I'm not familiar with most K lit so you'll want to develop clear analysis about the K. I am most familiar with Neolib, Cap and Security, but my familiarity DOES NOT mean I will do the necessary analysis of cards for you. In the rounds I've watched so far this year, framework has been underutilized by teams. Read framework!!! Explain your alts - your alt solvency is important and I won't vote on a blippy extension of Zizek.

Framework:

You need a clear interp of what the framework or Role of the Ballot should be. There needs to be clash on the framework about why the aff/neg team's framework is good/bad for debate and for education/fairness in the round.

Fringe Args:

I'm not the judge to talk about aliens/wipeout/goos/etc in front of, but if you still feel inclined to do so, impact out your illogical args logically.

Generic Framing:

I view debate as an educational activity. I want the best education and most fair experience for both teams. Use this framework when explaining your theory arguments. Otherwise, anything you do to directly harm a debater in round will be counted against you because it conflicts with the aim of using debate as an educational tool.

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

Policy Debate

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

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

Non-Negotiables

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

Speed

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

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

sara-kilpatrick@hotmail.com

Theory

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

Kritiks

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

Lincoln-Douglas

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

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

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

Let me know if y'all have any questions

I 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.

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.

Growing old is mandatory...growing up is optional!

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

I think you should have content warnings if your arguments may push this debate into uncomfortable territory.

Mandatory Autobiography:

I debated in High School in the 1900's (Lansing HS, KS, '02), College 2002-2006 at ESU (RIP!), and coached at the following places: ESU (06-07), Topeka High School (2007-2024), Lawrence High (2024-present).

What I used to Read in the 1900's:

In terms of my argument preference while I was actively debating, I dabbled in a little bit of everything from straight up policy affirmatives, to affirmatives that advocated individual protests against the war in Iraq, to the US and China holding a press conference to out themselves as members of the illuminati. In terms of negative arguments, I read a lot of bad theory arguments (A/I spec anyone?), found ways to link every debate to space, read a lot of spark/wipeout and read criticisms of Language and Capitalism.

My Coaching Present

For the first time in decades, I am not actively teaching a debate class. This means that if it comes to rounds which might get faster or more tech-y, my brain might take a second to boot up to these. If this is your cuppa, then take a second and slow down a little bit, let me get use to your voice and speaking pattern, and then once you see my odd nodding and moving back and forth, you are probably good to go off to the races!

My coaching past

In terms of teams I have coached, most of my teams have been traditionally policy oriented, however over the last 2-3 years I have had some successful critical teams on both sides of the ball (like no plan texts, or slamming this activity....). For the past 2-3 years, I have been working with teams who read mostly soft left affirmatives and go more critical on the negative.

My Philosophy in Approaching Debate:

I understand we are living in a time of questioning whether debate is a game or an outreach of our own individual advocacies for change, and I don't know fully where I am at in terms of how I view how the debate space should be used. I guess as a high school educator for the past two decades and a current middle school teacher, my approach to debate has been to look for the pedagogical benefit of what you say/do. If you can justify your method of debating as meaningful and educational, I will probably temporarily be on board until persuaded otherwise. That being said, the onus is on you to tell me how I should evaluate the round/what is the role of the ballot.

This is not me being fully naive and claiming to be a fully clean slate, if you do not tell me how to judge the round, more often than not I will default to an offense/defense paradigm.

Topicality

I tend to default to competing interpretations, but am not too engrained in that belief system. To win a T debate in front of me, you should go for T like a disad. If you don't impact out your standards/voters, or you don't answer crucial defense (lit checks, PA not a voter, reasonability etc.) I'm probably not going to vote neg on T. Also, if you are going for T for less than all 5 minutes of the 2NR, I'm probably not voting for you (unless the aff really messes something up). I am more likely to vote on T earlier in the year than later, but if you win the sheet of paper, you tend to win.

I do think there is a burden on the negative to either provide a TVA, or justify why the aff should be in no shape-or-form topical whatsoever.

In approaching T and critical affirmatives. I do believe that affirmatives should be in the direction of the resolution to give the negative the basis for some predictable ground, however in these debates where the aff will be super critical of T/Framework, I have found myself quite often voting affirmative on dropped impact turns to T/Framing arguments on why the pedagogical model forwarded by the negative is bad.

Hack-Theory Arguments

Look, I believe your plan text should not be terrible if you are aff. That means, acronyms, as-pers, excessive vagueness etc. are all reasons why you could/should lose a debate to a crafty negative team. I probably love and vote on these arguments more than I should.....but....I loved those arguments when I debated, and I can't kick my love for them.....I also am down to vote on just about any theory argument as a "reject the team" reason if the warrants are right. If you just read blocks at me and don't engage in a line-by-line of analysis....I'm probably not voting for you...

I am on the losing side of "condo is evil" so a single conditional world is probably OK in front of me, but I'm open to/have voted on multiple conditional worlds and/or multiple CPs bad. I'm not absolutely set in those latter worlds, but its a debate that needs hashed out.

I also think in a debate of multiple conditional worlds, its probably acceptable for the aff to advocate permutations as screens out of other arguments.

The K

Eh.......the more devoted and knowledgable to your literature base, the easier it is to pick up a ballot on the K. Even if you "beat" someone on the flow, but you can't explain anything coherently to me (especially how your alt functions), you may be fighting an uphill battle. I am not 100% compelled by links of omission, but if you win a reason why we should have discussed the neglected issue, I may be open to listen. The biggest mistake that critical debaters make, is to neglect the aff and just go for "fiat is an illusion" or "we solve the root cause" but....if you concede the aff and just go for some of your tek, you may not give me enough reason to not evaluate the aff...

I am the most familiar with anti-capitalist literature, biopolitics, a small variety of racial perspective arguments, and a growing understanding of psychoanalysis. In terms of heart of the topic critical arguments, I've been reading and listening to more abolitionist theory, and if it is your go-to argument, you may need to treat me like a c+ level student in your literature base at the moment.

Case Debates

I like them.....the more in depth they go, the better. The more you criticize evidence, the better...

Impact turns

Yes please......

Counterplans

Defend your theoretical base for the CP, and you'll be fine. I like clever PICs, process PICs, or really, just about any kind of counterplan. You should nail down why the CP solves the aff (the more warrants/evidence the better) and your net benefit, and defense to perms, and I will buy it. Aff, read disads to the CP, theory nit-picking (like the text, does the neg get fiat, etc.) make clear perms, and make sure you extend them properly, and you'll be ok. If you are not generating solvency deficits, danger Will Robinson.

I think delay is cheating, but its an acceptable form in front of me...but I will vote on delay bad if you don't cover your backside.

Misc

I think I'm too dumb to understand judge kicking, so its safe to say, its not a smart idea to go for it in front of me.

Don'ts

Be a jerk, be sexist/transphobic/racist/ableist etc, steal prep, prep during flash time, or dominate cx that's not yours (I get mad during really bad open CX). Don't clip, misrepresent what you read, just say "mark the card" (push your tilde key and actually mark it...) or anything else socially unacceptable....

If you have questions, ask, but if I know you read the paradigm, and you just want me to just explain what I typed out.....I'll be grumpier than I normally am.

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.

Email chain: aliyahs.movingcastle@gmail.com

Experience:

2 years–MS Congressional Debate

4 years–HS Policy Debate

2013 Debate Kansas City Award Winner Top Policy Speaker, Top Policy Debater

2015 KSHSAA 2-Speaker Award Winner

Summary:

I try to be open to different types of Debate styles, so feel free to have fun. One thing to note is that I do not enjoy Spreading, as I feel it takes away from the Debate round overall. I'm not always the most expressive, but I listen to everything throughout the round. I ask that everyone be respectful, and refrain from any negative remarks that are on the basis of race, gender, or sexuality. (No racism, xenophobia, sexism, transphobia, or homophobia).

I do flow every round, but I also appreciate a concise and consistent structure for the speeches.

Affs:

My preference is usually toward engaging and analytical Affs, but if you don't follow that model strong analysis and delivery is something I always look for.

Not a big fan of Framework or Topicality.

DAs:

I don't really like generic DA's, but will still go for them if there is a clear link to the Aff.

Impact Calc is something I find crucial in a round.

Counterplans:

Open to them, but would like to see a definitive structure to the argument.

K's:

Strong preference for K's. I thoroughly enjoy them, but ask that the analysis is substantial & clear. Links are your friend here!

Email chain: lfsdebate@gmail.com

Who Am I: I debated four years at Field Kindley High School in Coffeyville, KS, did not debate in college, and have been an assistant coach at Lawrence Free State High School in Lawrence, KS since 2013. I have a Master's degree in International Relations.

General Approach: Tell me what I should be voting on and why. If you want me to evaluate the round differently than they do, then you need to win a reason why your framework or paradigm is the one that I should use. If no one does that, then I'll default to a policymaker paradigm. I don't view offense and defense as an either/or proposition, but if you do then I prefer offense.

Standard Operating Procedure: (How I will evaluate the round unless one of the teams wins that I should do something different) The affirmative has a non-severable duty to advocate something resolutional, and that advocacy must be clear and stable. The goal of the negative is to prove that the affirmative's advocacy is undesirable, worse than a competitive alternative, or theoretically invalid. I default to evaluating all non-theory arguments on a single plane, am much more willing to reject an argument than a team, and will almost always treat dropped arguments as true.

Mechanics: (I'm not going to decide the round on these things by themselves, but they undeniably affect my ability to evaluate it)

• Signposting - Please do this as much as possible. I'm not just talking about giving a roadmap at the start of each speech or which piece of paper you're talking about during the speech, but where on the line-by-line you are and what you're doing (i.e. if you read a turn, call it a turn).
• Overviews - These are helpful for establishing your story on that argument, but generally tend to go on too long for me and seem to have become a substitute for specific line-by-line work, clash, and warrant extension. I view these other items as more productive/valuable ways to spend your time.
• Delivery - I care way more about clarity than speed; I have yet to hear anybody who I thought was clear enough and too fast. I'll say "clear" if you ask me to, but ultimately the burden is on you. Slowing down and enunciating for tags and analytics makes it more likely that I'll get everything.
• Cross Examination - Be polite. Make your point or get an answer, then move on. Don't use cross-ex to make arguments.
• Prep Time - I don't think prep should stop until the flash drive comes out of your computer or the email is sent, but I won't police prep as long as both teams are reasonable.

Argumentation: (I'll probably be fine with whatever you want to do, and you shouldn't feel the need to fundamentally change your strategy for me. These are preferences, not rules.)

• Case - I prefer that you do case work in general, and think that it's under-utilized for impact calc.  Internal links matter.
• CPs/DAs - I prefer specific solvency and link cards (I'm sure you do, too), but generics are fine provided you do the work.
• Framework - I prefer that framework gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
• Kritiks - I prefer that there is an alternative, and that you either go for it or do the work to explain why you win anyway. "Reject the Aff." isn't an alternative, it's what I do if I agree with the alternative. I don't get real excited about links of omission, so some narrative work will help you here.
• Performance - I prefer that you identify the function of the ballot as clearly and as early as possible.
• Procedurals - I prefer that they be structured and that you identify how the round was affected or altered by what the other team did or didn't do.
• Theory - I prefer that theory gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
• Topicality - I prefer that teams articulate how/why their interpretation is better for debate from a holistic perspective. TVAs and/or case lists are good. My least favorite way to start an RFD is, "So, I think the Aff. is topical, but also you're losing topicality."

Miscellaneous: (These things matter enough that I made a specific section for them, and will definitely be on my mind during the round.)

• I'm not planning to judge kick for you, but have no problem doing so if that instruction is in the debate.  The Aff. can object, of course.
• Anybody can read cards, good analysis and strategic decision-making are harder to do and frequently more valuable.
• Individual pages on the flow do not exist in a vacuum, and what is happening on one almost certainly affects what is happening on another.
• Comparative impact calculus. Again, comparative impact calculus.
• You may not actually be winning every argument in the round; acknowledging this in your analysis and telling me why you win anyway is a good thing.
• Winning an argument is not the same thing as winning the round on an argument. If you want to win the round on an argument you've won or are winning, take the time to win the round on it.
• The 2NR and 2AR are for making choices, you only have to win the round once.
• I will read along during speeches and will likely double back to look at cards again, but I don't like being asked to read evidence and decide for myself. If they're reading problematic evidence, yours is substantively better, etc., then do that work in the debate.

Zen: (Just my thoughts, they don't necessarily mean anything except that I thought them.)

• Debate is a speaking game, where teams must construct logically sound, valid arguments to defend, while challenging the same effort from their opponents.
• It's better to be more right than the other team than more clever.
• A round is just a collection of individual decisions. If you make the right decisions more often than not, then you'll win more times than you lose.

I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Last Updated: January 2025

Speech and Debate at Olathe Northwest High School for 4 years (2014-2018)

Speech and Debate Team at Texas Christian University (2019-2021)

Email me with further questions, or just ask in the room: a.shively30@gmail.com

POLICY DEBATE

* Put me on the email chain

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

* Disclosure Theory: I'm not going to vote on it. Debate is an activity in critical thinking - you should be able to provide argumentation on your opponents claims whether you know their case ahead of time or you find it out in the 1AC.

*Speed:Just make sure I’m on the email chain or SpeechDrop, and that analytical arguments are clear.

*Topicality: If you genuinely think there is a violation of the resolution, go for it! Otherwise, I promise you I'm not going to be sad if I don't hear a T argument. I default to competing interpretations, but I'll accept reasonability if it's uncontested. T debates are all about the standards for me - make sure there is clash. Just because their block says "____ Good" and yours says "____ Bad," that doesn't mean you've refuted your opponents claims. Specificity and actual engagement is how you win on T.

*Theory/Framework: If you feel that a theory argument is a reason to reject a team, be very thorough in your explanation. For framework, really detail why your framework is better than your opponent's.

*DA's: I'll listen to anything. I understand the need for generic DAs, but specific links are always preferred. All DA debates should include discussions of uniqueness, links, and impacts. Strongly against terminal impacts unless you can provide a very, very realistic link story. Impact turns are always great if you can explain it.

*K's: I'm not well-versed in most of the K literature that's out there. I'm open to hearing a K if you are confident that you understand it and can explain it in detail to me. Keep it real, and explain why the K is important. Again, I'm not going to be sad if you don't run a K.

*CP's: Any CP is an acceptable CP if you can effectively prove how it solves the aff. Aff - creative perms or doesn't solve arguments are your best bet. Negative - Advantage CPs are fun.

*Other Notes: Open cross is fine if you can keep it civil. The more "real-world" you can make the debate, the better. Explanations are the key to winning - I care more about how YOU are debating, and what analysis YOU can provide. Simply reading tags, cards, and pre-made blocks will not win you the round.

...

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

* Direct clash is very important to this event. Reference other speakers and analyze the pros/cons of what they are saying.

* If you repeat a pro or con point that is very similar to another speaker, make it meaningful and add something new to the argument. Additionally, explain why the addition you made was necessary/important to recognize.

*Presiding over a chamber is just as important as giving speeches. A nearly flawless PO, who is confident in their rulings, is one of the most impressive things in student Congress.

* Act like you're in congress. That's what the event is for. "At my school" claims and high school jokes are only going to hurt your ranking. Be creative and fun, in a professional matter, and you'll be happy with the results.

*Discrimination or bigotry of any kind will not be tolerated.

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.

Overview:

I enjoy a good debate. I dislike unnecessary rudeness (sometimes rudeness is called for) and I dislike lazy argumentation. Run whatever makes you feel comfortable and I’ll evaluate it in the context of the round to the best of my ability and not the context of my own personal preferences. Of course, removing all implicit bias is impossible but I encourage all forms of effective argumentation. As long as you are persuasive and educational, you’ve got a fair shot. That being said, I do enjoy a nice critical debate, just make sure you’re not lazy with it and clearly articulate the arguments. Otherwise, I love to see folks having a good time in a round. Don’t be so uptight! We gotta spend at least an hour with each other in a little room. If we’re not all relaxed it’s gonna be painful.

Arguments:

T- I never ran this so I don’t have much experience on the argument just like anything else flesh it out and articulate all areas like the definition, violation, voters etc. Overall, not something I default to reasonability unless you convince me otherwise.

DAs- Dope arguments, depending on how they’re framed can be super devastating or just ok.

CPs- Fine with me all the way.

K’s- Love ‘em but don’t be lazy just cuz you think you can win me over with one.

Condo- Up to the round, tell me what’s up and I’ll evaluate accordingly. However, if your strategy involves running a K and a traditional FW arg, then you're digging a deep hole for yourself.

Framework- I have a high threshold for a traditional FW argument. You really gotta go all in and be way better than your opponent to convince me that they should have stuck to traditional policy structure.

Experience: I debated for 4 years at Sumner Academy and have debated a few years at KCKCC. I believe that debate is a dope activity through which people can shape their own realities.

Last Updated: Spring 2025

Assistant Speech Coach for 4 years at Lawrence High

Debated at Olathe Northwest for 2 years and Speech all 4 years.

Graduated from University of Kansas

Please email me with further questions: easvetlak@gmail.com

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

Experience: I competed in this event from 2014-2018. Have been coaching this event for 4 years.

What I look for:

- Early speeches should both provide general pros/cons for the bill while referencing the bill and what each section is changing.

- Direct clash is very very important to making Congressional debate, debate. However, when referencing speeches, make it meaningful and add something new to the argument. If you are adding to an argument, make it clear why your addition was necessary.

- Presiding over a chamber can be just as important as giving speeches

- Knowing the rules of the chamber and tournament, even when not the PO, is important.

- Discrimination or bigotry of any kind will not be tolerated. It will show up on your ballot and when necessary, be reported.

POLICY

Overall: This is a working paradigm that will and should change with each round and new arguments I see. If you have any questions I would love for you to ask them to me before the round. For most arguments- if you don't understand what you are reading and can't explain it to me clearly, I will not take the time to figure it out myself (understand what you read!!) With that said- I am fine with most basic arguments and as long as you ACTUALLY do the work to explain whatever link, impact, etc. I should be voting on.

Speed: I didn't spread in high school but if you give me the speech docs I can keep up for the most part. Don't be crazy.

T: I really don't care if you run T and don't go for it if it makes at least a little sense. I will vote on T with a violation of the resolution but it needs to be apparent and both teams need to be doing the work and engaging in the debate to tell me what standards I should evaluate.

Theory/Framework: For theory and framework you can run the basics but it would need a walk through. I mean tell me where and why I'm voting.

DA's: Great in front of me long as you can explain to me why their aff links to a DA you can run in every round I have no problem voting on it. I like specific DA's too. With any DA make sure to explain to me the link (or many links) to the aff and do impact work in explaining why the DA is the worst case scenario. I will vote on terminal impacts. And impact turns can be very strategic if done right. This would be a good strategy in front of me.

K's: If you're going to make this argument you have to be going very slow and walk me through it. Probably not the best strategy in front of me but if its important to you and you do it well go for it.

CP's: I like all most CP's. Again, if its complicated walk me through it. If you are going to run a CP as an off case, make sure to explain the net benefit to me (now the NB doesn't have to be a whole new DA, if you can articulate to me a creative NB I will consider it.) Aff- Arguments like no solvency work well for me on CP's.

Other notes:

Open cross is fine but don't be rude.

Don't be Racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

Rude comments about the other teams are also NEVER okay. Like that will show up on your ballot.

I would like the speech docs if you're doing an email chain or in out rounds.

I have been an assistant coach for around 12 years.

I do not value any one type of argument over another or automatically discount any type of argument. Anything is game.

That said, topicality should be reserved for when it's blatant or should only be pursued by teams who have a history of arguing it well. (In other words, I've seen a lot of bad attempts at topicality.)

Make sure you are listening to the other side and actually addressing what they are saying. Teams often don't read everything in their doc and nothing drives me crazy like a team arguing against evidence that wasn't read.

I do value good communication. I can't give you credit for an argument that I can't understand. That said, I am okay with speed as long as it is still enunciated well.

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.

I really prefer speechdrop. For email chain: rtidwell.gcea@outlook.com.

I have been the head coach at Garden City High School since 1994, and have been involved with judging or coaching debate since the mid-1980s. I have judged a LOT of debates over the years. I've judged a fair number of rounds on this topic, both at tournaments and in my classroom. I will do my very best to evaluate the round that happens in front of me as fairly as possible.

Paradigm-I will default to policy making if debaters don't specifically give me another way to evaluate the debate. I tend to default to truth over tech. I want debaters to clash with each other's arguments. I have come to dislike debates where both sides read pre-prepared blocks through the 1AR, and the arguments never actually interact.

You should probably watch me for feedback. I don't hide reactions very well...

I really want the 2NR and 2AR to tell me their stories. If you choose not to do that, I will absolutely sort the debate out for you, but then you should not complain about the decision. It's your job to frame the round for me. If you don't, you force me to intervene.

Speed- I like a quick debate, but I don't get to see those as much as I used to, so if you are incredibly fast, you may want to watch me a bit to see if I'm keeping up. You'll be able to tell. I also find that I can flow much faster rate if you are making tonal differences between tags and evidence. It also helps if your tags are not a full paragraph in length...

Style- I suspect that even adding this section makes me sound old, but these things matter to me:

I still think that persuasiveness matters- especially in CX and rebuttals. It's still a communication activity.

Professionalism also matters to me. I will (and have) intervened in a round and used the ballot to help a debater or a team understand that there are boundaries to the way you should interact with your opponents. This includes abusive or personally attacking language, attitude, and tone. At a minimum, it will cost you speaker ranks and points. I really do find offensive language (f***, racial slurs, etc.) to be truly offensive, and I don't find them less offensive in the context of critical arguments..

When everyone is in the room, I want to start the debate. I am not a fan of everyone arriving, asking me some clarifying questions, disclosing arguments to each other, and then taking another 10-20 minutes before we begin.

Prep time- I kind of despise prep time thieves, and I think that sharing evidence has allowed that practice to explode. If you say "I'm up", and then continue typing, that's prep. I will be reasonable about ev sharing time, in terms of moving the files between teams, but sharing it with your partner is part of your prep. You need to be reasonable, here, too. Again, this will affect speaker points and ranks.

CX- open CX is fine. In fact, I think it often makes for a better debate. That being said, if one partner does all the asking and answering, that debater is sending a pretty important, negative message to me about how much his/her colleague is valued.

Disadvantages- As I said, I'm a policymaker. I vote on the way that advantages and disadvantages interact more than I vote on anything else. I don't mind generic DAs, but I prefer that Neg take the time to articulate a specific link. I'm also a big fan of turns from the affirmative (or from the negative on advantages). I really enjoy a case-specific DA, but they just don't happen very often. I like buried 1NC links that blow up into impacts in the block. I like impact extension/blow-up in the block. I am not a fan of brand-new, full, offensive positions in the 2NC.

Critical arguments- I don't mind a critical debate, but I think that needs to be more than "Aff links, so they lose". Critiques need to have a real, evidenced, articulated justification for my vote- either a clear alternative or some other reason that the argument is enough to win the debate. I am willing to entertain both real-world and policy-level impacts of the criticism. It is really important that you give me the framing for these arguments, and, specifically explain why the argument warrants my ballot. I am not well-read in very much of the critical literature, so it will be important for you to explain things pretty clearly. As with other arguments, I'm pretty willing to listen to turns on these arguments.

In terms of critical affs, I believe that aff should have a plan text, and that plan text should be topical. It's a big hurdle for the affirmative if they don't start there. That being said, I am perfectly ok with critical advantage stories. Again- framing matters.

Counterplans-I'm fine with a CP. I'm not a big fan of the theory that often gets run against a CP. I just don't find it very persuasive.

T- I will vote on T, and I don't think 2NR has to go all in in the 2NR to win it. I believe topicality is, first and foremost, an argument about fairness, and I think that it's an important mechanism for narrowing the topic. Again, I'm a truth-over-tech person, so I'm not very likely to vote on T simply because someone dropped the 4th answer to some specific standard. I'm not a fan of "resolved" or ":" T.

Narratives/Performance/etc- I'm not a huge fan, but I will absolutely listen and do my best to evaluate the debate. I specifically do not like any argument that attacks anyone in the room in a personal way. I would refer you to my notes about professionalism. As for the arguments themselves, I am not sure I am your best judge for evaluating this style of debate, but that might be because I have seen very few well handled debates in this style.

I've evolved as a judge which has unfortunately been interpreted as I'm inconsistent or unpredictable. As an assistant coach I understand that creates frustration, which I want to avoid, so if there is anything below that is not 100% clear, please ask me prior to the round. I would much rather have a brief discussion and give you some sense of understanding my thought process than you walk away from the round thinking you don't know what you could have done to win my ballot. I assure you, there have been people who have asked and learned how I evaluate, and those individuals found me to be consistent even if it wasn't always in their favor (though it often was).

Let's start with the foundation. Once upon a time I would give myself the label of "games player" because I appreciated good strategy. I still evaluate if I think a team is being strategic or clever, but I am strongly TRUTH OVER TECH. If you tell me that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and your opposition does not respond, that DOES NOT mean I accept something that is not true. I think it is especially critical in an environment of "fake news" or "relative facts" that we champion the truth above spin. So you will find that if your argument is only theoretically plausible, it is going to be much less persuasive than if you stick to simple truths.

This leads me to two conclusions you should be able to draw about how I evaluate a round. 1st, magnitude does NOT overwhelm probability. In fact magnitude rarely plays any part in my decision. I have listened to the same authors for 25+ years predict the next war will be over water or food or that we're all going to starve or that terrorists are moments away from having nuclear weapons. Empirically all of these authors are wrong. The have no credibility with me. Which means I give zero weight to an impact that I have zero probability of believing it will happen. You hear judges say all the time that they are tired of nuke war impacts. You want to know why? Because I have lived my entire life with the doomsday clock at least 7 minutes to midnight. The "experts" have cried wolf for far to long to be believed. The only chance you have to win on magnitude is if you extend very detailed warrants about why this time is different and the facts your author has looked at to draw the conclusions. If you don't know what facts the author looked at, don't bother.

2nd, links and link stories matter much more than uniqueness. I believe students like to debate uniqueness because it is easy. It is eacy to try to find evidence about the current state of the world. What is hard is predicting the consequences of taking any action. This is why solvency and link turns on case are extremely effective as well as indicting internal links on a D.A. to make it go away. I will assign 0% solvency or 0% risk of a link so defense can make an entire flow seemingly go away. This is especially apparent on politics scenarios! Pundits who try to predict elections or votes on legislation are less accurate than the weatherman! I will not assume that just because the Affirmative plan is topical that it will lead to any consequence other than the ones that are by fiat. I have listened to debaters who were incredibly informed on specific congressional leaders and how certain pieces of legislation are being used as a political football, and those debaters were persuasive. If you just aren't that debater, there is no shame in that, but you will find your politics scenario just isn't persuasive.

Let's shift gears and talk a little about topicality. Here is my single belief: the affirmative team must affirm the resolution. When I write affirmative on the ballot that means the affirmative team has successfully convinced me the resolution is true. The affirmative plan is an example of the possible reasons the resolution is true. The affirmative doesn't have to prove all instances of the resolution are true, but at least the affirmative plan should be adopted and if the affirmative plan is an example what could be under the resolution, then the resolution is true. This view of the resolution is nearly non-negotiable (we'll talk about K's in a minute). This means the affirmative plan is a proof of the resolution or it isn't. Period. I don't evaluate if it is fair because that is subjective. There will be an interpretation that I either believe or don't believe, it is always all or nothing. When it comes to competing interpretations, I will walk into the round with an interpretation in my mind (no one is a blank slate) and that will be my default. I can be persuaded that there is a different interpretation, but the reason must be more compelling than an appeal to emotion and warranted in facts. I will admit, topicality is the one place that I will suspend the truth until it is argued. There are countless rounds in which the foundation of an affirmative plan hasn't been established, it isn't prima facia topical, and I don't get to pull the trigger because the negative is silent. That frustrates me because I don't get to vote on what I see is the truth. That doesn't mean run topicality no matter what, because you hurt your credibility by running the wrong violation or running it to run it. It's not a strategic time suck. Both the affirmative and negative need to ask themselves if they would vote on if the affirmative is topical and make their best case. It probably goes without saying, but I believe the plan text must be topical, not the solvency of the plan. I believe the plan text must be sufficient to justify the resolution. If you need to do something in addition to the resolution to show the plan should be adopted, then you have shown the resolution should not be affirmed because it is insufficient.

I said I'd talk about K's, so lets get it over with. For years I said I didn't like them or worst wouldn't even listen to them. I'm much more open minded now, but here is the truth. You have 26 minutes to convince me of some philosophical position that I might not agree with. That is ridiculously hard when I've studied most of these positions for entire semesters, or life long, and have true biases. Flat out, I believe in Capitalism. I've studied Marx, and I happily participate in a Capitalist society. I have voted on Cap Bad because the round called for it, but my default is Cap Good. I could go through several popular K's, but you get the point. You will either 1. have to get lucky and preach to the choir on something I already believe or 2. knock me off my preconceived notion about the world. That's either luck or quite difficult. And I will caveat all of this with one big factor. If you are making a social criticism, you better walk the walk. You cannot be a hypocrite. If you performatively contradict your position, your link to the K will be far stronger than anything you say for your opponents because you should have known better. For example if you say animal suffering is always immoral and you are wearing leather shoes, you better be able to prove the cow died of natural causes! I LOVE to vote against the team who presents a K and link back into it. Speaking of K links, I will not assume the K links, you need to have a story (see my take on D.A.'s). And your alt must actually solve (see my take on solvency).

From K's to their cousins the CP. I am old and still believe that a counterplan must be an opportunity cost to the affirmative plan. We can't do the CP and the Aff (mutually exclusive) and the CP is better than the Aff (competitive) so we should do the CP instead of the affirmative. Futhermore the CP must be non-topical or else the affirmative gets to simply say the counterplan is one more example of why the resolution is true. See, the affirmative could present 2 or more plans to prove the resolution is a good idea. They don't do that because it puts them more at risk because they must advocate for everything they present, but they can just freely have the CP if the CP is topical. This is a strong belief of mine so theory to tell me otherwise is not persuasive. This isn't to say PIC's are off limits, it just means the PIC must be extra topical (see my take on why extra T doesn't justify the resolution). There are plenty of strategic CP's that work with this paradigm, but ultimately it needs to be an opportunity cost to the affirmative. CP's can be permed, thus they are not mutually exclusive and therefor not an opportunity cost to the affirmative plan. A CP can link to a D.A. so it isn't competitive. I appreciate counterplans and their usage, but they need to be that opportunity cost to the resolution.

The rest of theory type stuff is a coin flip and situational. I've voted on condo good and bad. I'm willing to pull the trigger on something, but you need to explain it and warrant it. I don't fill in the gaps for blips.

To be clear, I don't fill in anything. Just saying a couple of key words like "perm do both" or "pull the impacts" may not be sufficient. If I understood what you said earlier, perhaps, but I'm not going to insert what I think you mean by shouting out debate jargon. This leads to the overused question of speed. This is a verbal activity. I almost never read cards because I want to evaluate what I heard. If I hear the warrants in a card, great. If I'm not able to process the warrants then all you've done is make a claim in your tag. Speed is very rarely the issue, it is a matter of clarity. And it is unusually pretty obvious if I've given up on flowing. The only time I usually ask for evidence is when I personally am questioning myself on what I heard and I think it is my fault I'm unsure. As far as I'm concerned the authors are there to lend credibility, you are making the arguments, so I'm not going to evaluate what your author said, I'm going to evaluate what you said. If you author lacks credibility, you might as well just say things in your own words. Which honestly is often not a bad thing. I think debaters are way too dependent on quoting an author and treating it like a fact. If your author makes a claim but doesn't warrant it, just because they are an author doesn't make it true. This is more common in K debates where quoting a philosopher is treated like an absolute truth, but it can happen anywhere in the debate. Again, I want the truth over tech, so facts with logical analysis will outweigh a card in most situations.

Finally, I am human. I am biased. I have emotions. Why is this relevant? Because my bias and my emotions can make somethings seem more persuasive than others. Your credibility matters. If you destroy your credibility, you might say you won on the flow, but I'm not believing you so what is on the flow carries no weight. Treating your opponents poorly lowers your credibility. "Put away your impact defense, my card beats them all" is insulting because it shows that you care more about what your opponents think about how cool you are than persuading me that your argument is actually sound. Tag team cross ex tells me through your actions that "I don't trust my partner. My partner is stupid so I'll speak out of turn. What I have to say is more important." That is pretty damning to your partners credibility and frankly makes you a jerk. Prompting arguments says the same thing. Prompting "slower" shows you are trying to assist with something they might not realize in the moment but giving an argument and having them parrot it word for word so it "counts" is about the worst ways to attempt to persuade me. If you cause logistical issues such as being late to the round because what your assistant coach had to say was more important than my time, or stealing prep time while you fiddle with your computer, or take significant time to pass evidence, all of these things I notice and leaves an impression on me. You might be shocked by this, but humans like to reward people they like and punish those they don't like. That isn't to say I'll immediately vote against you because you rearranged the entire room so you could plug in your laptop, but it makes your job harder if I'm rooting against you. Just don't give me a reason to want to vote against you and we'll be fine.

Oh, and I don't shake hands. I'm not as adverse as Howie Mandel, but I prefer not to physically touch strangers. I just don't see any reason to do it. I know you respect me as a human and I respect you as a human without our hands touching.

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.