Hello,

I am currently in my 21st year teaching Social Studies at Byram Hills High School. I am also the director of our school's Speech and Debate Team

Speech and debate is a game of verbal air hockey! I value points which benefit humanity not individuals or entities or things. Play by the rules have respect and sportsmanship and we all benefit.

I am a former high school and collegiate debater. I am an attorney and an assistant debate coach at Shawnee Mission North.

Since I flow on paper, you may want to slow down. Please be clear while speaking. If I stop flowing, you are not being clear enough. I do not want to be on your e-mail chain. I am holding you accountable for the articulation of all arguments. I am not simply going to follow along on a laptop while you arguably read the entirety of the cards.

I am open to all forms of argumentation EXCEPT critical arguments. If you make a critical argument, your team will lose.

Please don't try to shake my hand.

Please be nice to each other.

Sincerely,

The grumpy old man who wants you off of his lawn

he/they

please include me on any email chains: trq.ebdavidson@gmail.com

Graduated from the University of Texas at Dallas and currently enrolled at Texas Tech University Master's program

Competed in and judged most debate events including LD and Policy but I have the most experience in Congress and Public Forum

Speed is not a problem for me however make sure you are still speaking clearly. I will not flow anything that is not verbally understood

All arguments must have a foundation of a claim, warrant, and impact otherwise you are free to structure your argument in anyway you feel is most appropriate

Debate is supposed to be fun and informative so everyone should aim to have a great time and be respectful. Morally/ethically inappropriate arguments will earn you the lowest speaker points possible.

For virtual tournaments please mute yourself when it is not your turn to speak

Speech/Debate Experience - Director of Debate at Liberty Sr. HS in Liberty, MO. Debated policy debate in high school and have been coaching now for 6 years. I can follow above average speed (it's your responsibility to signpost/be clear) but I acknowledge this is a communication activity and see more value in quality of argumentation as opposed to quantity of arguments. I will be flowing but don’t expect me to do the work for you in extensions or weighing. Your speeches are the priority when determining what to evaluate.

In order to weigh something on the flow, you need to include warrants with your claims. You can tell me to vote on something but if I don't have a clear (and well extended) reason to accompany it, I will look elsewhere for a claim that does have a warrant included. A complete argument should include claim, warrant, impact. Extend warrants with authors - sure, they dropped Smith '22, but why does Smith '22 matter to the round? is a question you should be answering on every extension. Each side should identify and impact calculate the offense in the round as early as they are able. Do not expect me to do the work for you or to be as well versed on the topic as you, it is better to assume I do not know a term than to jump straight in and leave the judge behind.

I typically lean more towards traditional debate in that it presents topic specific education and clash. However, kritikal arguments are fine so long as the thesis of the argument is clear and the clash is evident. Case debate is my preferred style of argumentation and if the K can provide a good link story into the affirmative world. Alternatives of do nothing in general are boring. That's not to say that they can't win a round (Solvency takeouts alone function in a similar manner) but I always wonder how much more creative the alt debate could be beyond "stay in the squo".

Prep Time: If someone is not speaking, someone is running prep time. Per the event rules there are speeches, cross-ex and prep. Especially now that high school prep is 8 minutes instead of the original 5... please don't attempt to steal prep. It is your responsibility to exchange evidence efficiently (if online, establish an email chain before the round if you think you'll need it). I will not stop prep if you "say stop prep, I want to request evidence from my opponent's". Take care of that during cross-ex or email speeches before you speak. There are time constraints in debate for a reason, abide by them, don't try to bend around them.

Parent judge - very lay judge. do not go fast and make sure you read at a pace that is appropriate for online debate.

for speech:

for debate: I do not know the topic well, so overviews and over explaining everything would be great.

No k's, or any crazy Cp's

no sexist, homophobic or racist things are tolerated.

Parent judge - very lay judge. do not go fast and make sure you read at a pace that is appropriate for online debate.

for speech:

for debate: I do not know the topic well, so overviews and over explaining everything would be great.

No k's, or any crazy Cp's

no sexist, homophobic or racist things are tolerated.

I am a lay parent judge. I value the following:

- Understanding of the core issue;

- relevancy of evidences and sources; common sense arguements

- overall delivery/presentation, including your manners to your opponents;

I am a lay judge and will not listen to spreading in debate events.

During IEs such as Prose/Poetry drama and entertainment is important. Speak with personality and gusto. Make me believe in what you are saying.

In extemp be clear and show me that you understand the topic

For OO teach me something new or show me a new side of something familiar.

For all events be respectful to your competitors and have fun!

Preferred pronouns are he/him

Email address: dustinharris1357@gmail.com

I am a speech/debate coach. Though I did not participate in the activity myself, I have five years of experience coaching and judging at all levels of competition.

I can follow you at whatever speed you wish to debate, as long as you don't sacrifice clarity for speed.

I will be taking notes throughout the round, focusing on key arguments in the case. I am willing to vote on topicality, to vote for counterplans, and to vote for a K, but at the end of the day, my decision will come down to who argues their side most effectively. A well-argued stock issues case will win my ballot over a poorly-articulated theory argument every time (and vice versa).

Competed:

2011-15 – Lawrence Free State, KS, Policy (Space, Transportation, Latin America, Oceans)

2015-17 – JCCC, KS, NDT/CEDA (Military Presence, Climate Change); NFA-LD (Bioprospecting, Southern Command)

2017-20 – Missouri State University, MO, NDT/CEDA (Healthcare, Exec Authority, Space); NFA-LD (Policing, Cybersecurity)

Coached:

2016-17 – Lawrence High School, KS, (China Engagement)

2017-19 – Olathe West High School, KS, (Education, Immigration)

2019-22– Truman High School, MO, (Arm Sales, CJR, Water)

2020-Present– Missouri State University, MO, (MDT Withdrawal, Anti-Trust, Rights/Duties, Nukes); NFA-LD (Climate, Endless Wars)

2022-23- Truman State University, MO, NFA-LD (Elections)

2022-Present - The Pembroke Hill School, MO, (NATO, Economic Inequality).

Always add:

phopsdebate@gmail.com

Also add IF AND ONLY IF at a NDT/CEDA TOURNAMENT: debatedocs@googlegroups.com

If I walk out of the room (or go off-camera), please send the email and I will return very quickly.

Email chains are STRONGLY preferred. Email chains should be labeled correctly.

*Name of Tournament * *Division* *Round #* *Aff Team* vs *Neg Team*

tl;dr:

You do you; I'll flow whatever happens. I tend to like policy arguments more than Kritical arguments. I cannot type fast and flow on paper as a result. Please give me pen time on T, Theory, and long o/v's etc. Do not be a jerk. Debaters work hard, and I try to work as hard as I can while judging. Debaters should debate slower than they typically do.

Evidence Quality X Quantity > Quality > Quantity. Argument Tech + Truth > Tech > Truth. Quals > No Quals.

I try to generate a list of my random thoughts and issues I saw with each speech in the debate. It is not meant to be rude. It is just how I think through comments. If I have not said anything about something it likely means I thought it was good.

Speaker Points:

If you can prove to me you have updated your wiki for the round I am judging before I submit the ballot I will give you the highest speaker points allowed by the tournament. An updated wiki means: 1. A complete round report. 2. Cites for all 1NC off case positions/ the 1AC, and 3. uploaded open source all of the documents you read in the debate inclusive of analytics. If I become aware that you later delete, modify, or otherwise disclose less information after I have submitted my ballot, any future debate in which I judge you will result in the lowest possible speaker points at the tournament.

Online debates:

In "fast" online debates, I found it exceptionally hard to flow those with poor internet connections or bad mics. I also found it a little harder even with ideal mic and internet setups. I think it's reasonable for debates in which a debater(s) is having these issues for everyone in the debate to debate at an appropriate speed for everyone to engage.

Clarity is more important in a digital format than ever before. I feel like it would behoove everyone to be 10% slower than usual. Make sure you have a differentiation between your tag voice and your card body voice.

It would be super cool if everyone put their remaining prep in the chat.

I am super pro the Cams on Mics muted approach in debates. Obvious exceptions for poor internet quality.

People should get in the groove of always sending marked docs post speeches and sending a doc of all relevant cards after the debate.

Disads:

I enjoy politics debates. Reasons why the Disad outweighs and turns the aff, are cool. People should use the squo solves the aff trick with election DA's more.

Counter Plans:

I generally think negatives can and should get to do more. CP's test the intrinsic-ness of the advantages to the plan text. Affirmatives should get better at writing and figuring out plan key warrants. Bad CP's lose because they are bad. It seems legit that 2NC's get UQ and adv cp's to answer 2AC thumpers and add-ons. People should do this more.

Judge kicking the cp seems intuitive to me. Infinite condo seems good, real-world, etc. Non-Condo theory arguments are almost always a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I still expect that the 2AC makes theory arguments and that the neg answers them sufficiently. I think in an evenly matched and debated debate most CP theory arguments go neg.

I am often not a very good judge for CP's that require you to read the definition of "Should" when answering the permutation. Even more so for CP's that compete using internal net benefits. I understand how others think about these arguments, but I am often unimpressed with the quality of the evidence and cards read. Re: CIL CP - come on now.

Kritiks on the Negative:

I like policy debate personally, but that should 0% stop you from doing your thing. I think I like K debates much better than my brain will let me type here. Often, I end up telling teams they should have gone for the K or voted for it. I think this is typically because of affirmative teams’ inability to effectively answer critical arguments

Links of omission are not links. Rejecting the aff is not an alternative, that is what I do when I agree to endorse the alternative. Explain to me what happens to change the world when I endorse your alternative. The aff should probably be allowed to weigh the aff against the K. I think arguments centered on procedural fairness and iterative testing of ideas are compelling. Clash debates with solid defense to the affirmative are significantly more fun to adjudicate than framework debates. Floating pics are probably bad. I think life has value and preserving more of it is probably good.

Kritical Affirmatives vs Framework:

I think the affirmative should be in the direction of the resolution. Reading fw, cap, and the ballot pik against these affs is a good place to be as a policy team. I think topic literacy is important. I think there are more often than not ways to read a topical USfg action and read similar offensive positions. I am increasingly convinced that debate is a game that ultimately inoculates advocacy skills for post-debate use. I generally think that having a procedurally fair and somewhat bounded discussion about a pre-announced, and democratically selected topic helps facilitate that discussion.

Case Debates:

Debates in which the negative engages all parts of the affirmative are significantly more fun to judge than those that do not.

Affirmatives with "soft-left" advantages are often poorly written. You have the worst of both worlds of K and Policy debate. Your policy action means your aff is almost certainly solvable by an advantage CP. Your kritical offense still has to contend with the extinction o/w debate without the benefit of framework arguments. It is even harder to explain when the aff has one "policy" extinction advantage and one "kritical" advantage. Which one of these framing arguments comes first? I have no idea. I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why these types of affirmative should exist. Negative teams that exploit these problems will be rewarded.

Topicality/procedurals:

Short blippy procedurals are almost always only a reason to reject the arg and not the team. T (along with all procedurals) is never an RVI.

I am super uninterested in making objective assessments about events that took place outside of/before the debate round that I was not present for. I am not qualified nor empowered to adjudicate debates concerning the moral behavior of debaters beyond the scope of the debate.

Things that are bad, but people continually do:

Have "framing" debates that consist of reading Util good/bad, Prob 1st/not 1st etc. Back and forth at each other and never making arguments about why one position is better than another. I feel like I am often forced to intervene in these debates, and I do not want to do that.

Saying something sexist/homophobic/racist/ableist/transphobic - it will probably make you lose the debate at the worst or tank your speaks at the least.

Steal prep.

Send docs without the analytics you already typed. This does not actually help you. I sometimes like to read along. Some non-neurotypical individuals benefit dramatically by this practice. It wastes your prep, no matter how cool the macro you have programmed is.

Use the wiki for your benefit and not post your own stuff.

Refusing to disclose.

Reading the 1AC off paper when computers are accessible to you. Please just send the doc in the chain.

Doing/saying mean things to your partner or your opponents.

Unnecessarily cursing to be cool.

Some random thoughts I had at the end of my first year judging NDT/CEDA:
1. I love debate. I think it is the best thing that has happened to a lot of people. I spend a lot of my time trying to figure out how to get more people to do it. People should be nicer to others.
2. I was worse at debate than I thought I was. I should have spent WAY more time thinking about impact calc and engaging the other teams’ arguments.
3. I have REALLY bad handwriting and was never clear enough when speaking. People should slow down and be clearer. (Part of this might be because of online debate.)

4. Most debates I’ve judged are really hard to decide. I go to decision time often. I’m trying my best to decide debates in the finite time I have. The number of times Adrienne Brovero has come to my Zoom room is too many. I’m sorry.
5. I type a lot of random thoughts I had during debates and after. I really try to make a clear distinction between the RFD and the advice parts of the post-round. It bothered me a lot when I was a debater that people didn’t do this.

6. I thought this before, but it has become clearer to me that it is not what you do, it is what you justify. Debaters really should be able to say nearly anything they’d like in a debate. It is the opposing team’s job to say you’re wrong. My preferences are above, and I do my best to ignore them. Although I do think it is impossible for that to truly occur.

Disclosure thoughts:

I took this from Chris Roberds who said it much more elegantly than myself.

I have a VERY low threshold on this argument. Having schools disclose their arguments pre-round is important if the activity is going to grow/sustain itself. Having coached almost exclusively at small, underfunded, or new schools, I can say that disclosure (specifically disclosure on the wiki if you are a paperless debater) is a game changer. It allows small schools to compete and makes the activity more inclusive. There are a few specific ways that this influences how ballots will be given from me:

1) I will err negative on the impact level of "disclosure theory" arguments in the debate. If you're reading an aff that was broken at a previous tournament, on a previous day, or by another debater on your team, and it is not on the wiki (assuming you have access to a laptop and the tournament provides wifi), you will likely lose if this theory is read. There are two ways for the aff to "we meet" this in the 2ac - either disclose on the wiki ahead of time or post the full copy of the 1ac in the wiki as a part of your speech. Obviously, some grace will be extended when wifi isn't available or due to other extenuating circumstances. However, arguments like "it's just too much work," "I don't like disclosure," etc. won't get you a ballot.

2) The neg still needs to engage in the rest of the debate. Read other off-case positions and use their "no link" argument as a reason that disclosure is important. Read case cards and when they say they don't apply or they aren't specific enough, use that as a reason for me to see in-round problems. This is not a "cheap shot" win. You are not going to "out-tech" your opponent on disclosure theory. To me, this is a question of truth. Along that line, I probably won't vote on this argument in novice, especially if the aff is reading something that a varsity debater also reads.

3) If you realize your opponent's aff is not on the wiki, you should make every possible attempt before the round to ask them about the aff, see if they will put it on the wiki, etc. Emailing them so you have timestamped evidence of this is a good choice. I understand that, sometimes, one teammate puts all the cases for a squad on the wiki and they may have just put it under a different name. To me, that's a sufficient example of transparency (at least the first time it happens). If the aff says it's a new aff, that means (to me) that the plan text and/ or advantages are different enough that a previous strategy cut against the aff would be irrelevant. This would mean that if you completely change the agent of the plan text or have them do a different action it is new; adding a word like "substantially" or "enforcement through normal means" is not. Likewise, adding a new "econ collapse causes war" card is not different enough; changing from a Russia advantage to a China, kritikal, climate change, etc. type of advantage is. Even if it is new, if you are still reading some of the same solvency cards, I think it is better to disclose your previous versions of the aff at a minimum.

4) At tournaments that don't have wifi, this should be handled by the affirmative handing over a copy of their plan text and relevant 1AC advantages etc. before the round. If thats a local tournament, that means as soon as you get to the room and find your opponent.

5) If you or your opponent honestly comes from a circuit that does not use the wiki (e.g. some UDLs, some local circuits, etc.), I will likely give some leeway. However, a great use of post-round time while I am making a decision is to talk to the opponent about how to upload on the wiki. If the argument is in the round due to a lack of disclosure and the teams make honest efforts to get things on the wiki while I'm finishing up my decision, I'm likely to bump speaks for all 4 speakers by .2 or .5 depending on how the tournament speaks go.

6) There are obviously different "levels" of disclosure that can occur. Many of them are described above as exceptions to a rule. Zero disclosure is always a low-threshold argument for me in nearly every case other than the exceptions above.

That said, I am also willing to vote on "insufficient disclosure" in a few circumstances.

A. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy your wiki should look like this or something very close to it. Full disclosure of information and availability of arguments means everyone is tested at the highest level. Arguments about why the other team does not sufficiently disclose will be welcomed. Your wiki should also look like this if making this argument.

B. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy. Debaters should go to the room immediately after pairings are released to disclose what the aff will be. With obvious exceptions for a short time to consult coaches or if tech problems prevent it. Nothing is worse than being in a high-stress/high-level round and the other team waiting until right before the debate to come to disclose. This is not a cool move. If you are unable to come to the room, you should be checking the wiki for your opponent's email and sending them a message to disclose the aff/past 2NR's or sending your coach/a different debater to do so on your behalf.

C. When an affirmative team discloses what the aff is, they get a few minutes to change minor details (tagline changes, impact card swaps, maybe even an impact scenario). This is double true if there is a judge change. This amount of time varies by how much prep the tournament actually gives. With only 10 minutes between pairings and start time, the aff probably only get 30 seconds to say "ope, actually...." This probably expands to a few minutes when given 30 minutes of prep. Teams certainly shouldn't be given the opportunity to make drastic changes to the aff plan text, advantages etc. a long while after disclosing.

I debated policy for three years in high school. I am a policymaker and expect you to weigh the round. Tell me why you win and/or outweigh the other team. I believe topicality is important and, if blatantly nontopical, I will vote for it. I have debated in fast rounds and judged fast rounds but I PREFER a more slow to moderate speed round. Case debate is important and more clash/turns the better. Kritiks and CPs are fine but convince me why you win it. Have not judged a lot of Ks so please be very concise in explaining it to me. Be clear on your sign posting. I love and will listen to your CX - I don’t mind open CX. I value your arguments equally with your passion and speaking skills. Your final rebuttal should tell me why you win! Reading a bunch of pre-written arguments or analytics doesn’t do much for me. You can impress me if you do line by line. cmhund@hotmail.com

Experience: placed top 32 in policy debate at NCFL nationals, was Kansas 4-speaker state debate champion, was Kansas 2 speaker debate state champion class 4A

I was an assistant forensics coach for 10+ years in Kansas at Blue Valley Southwest. Placed top three in sweeps in class 5A twice.

Judging I look for: speech suitability to the speaker, performance technique, creativity, understanding of the material.

- Current Forensics Coach at Pembroke Hill, 7 years of coaching experience and 7 years of competitive experience between NSDA and Collegiate Speech and Debate

- Flay-lay judge. Lightly flow to follow the debate and issues.

- Moderate-low speed preference.

- Voters in final speeches are appreciated.

- Policy- will vote strongly on issues of topicality and relevance to the debate.

I'm a lay judge.

Acting- I want the piece to be entertaining and to be able to hold my attention. Please, don't be boring

Debate- I don't know much about the topic. I would like overviews about the topic and I want you to slow down on tags and important information like Impacts and Time-frame and stuff like that. I want to be able to understand what you say. I won't vote for you If I don't understand what you're saying.

Debate: It's been over a decade since I participated in debate and I moved to an area that functionally doesn't have debate so I haven't been able to judge until things moved more virtually. I'm capable but honestly rusty.

Speech/IEs: Both presentation and content are very important to me. There should be a decent balance of both. If there are characters, they should be clearly defined. If it's extemporaneous or a program, it needs to have a cohesive story/argument.

I have been teaching Theatre/ Speech and Debate for 34 years, and participated in High School. I am an IE Coach primarily. Although I have coached and judged debate rounds for LD, PF, and most recently Congress and CX.

Articulation is key for me. I need to understand you, the use of the voice and body is also pretty important. The emotional connection to the character needs to be very clear, and there should be motivational beats that I discover in your performance.

Simply put, I am looking for the total package for performers, someone who can immerse themselves in a character but also show me differentiation between characters.

Tabula Rasa

Updated 4/11/24 for the Chance National Qualifier - GOOD LUCK TO ALL competitors

I admire and appreciate your skill, ability and preparation. As Adam Smith articulated in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, I work from the assumption that you are all praiseworthy. And, like Aristotle, I view our time together in this activity as a journey toward the good.*

Summary LD Expectations

1. Do not spread. Let me repeat do not spread. I know it's in your DNA but do not spread. I always vote for the debater who speaks slower. Always.
2. I am a traditional values judge as this is the foundation for this event. Therefore invest your time and energy on your value. Clarity and defining this value will go a long way to earning my ballot. Investing time in side by side comparison to your opponent's value with a clear and simple explanation for why I should prefer your value will go a long long way to earning my ballot.
3. This is not policy debate therefore there is no requirement for a plan or for implementation. Invest your limited time in value analysis, resolutional analysis and rebuttal, not on implementation.
4. Traditional debate therefore no progressive debate, critique, or counter plans.
5. I reject on their face all extinction impacts.
6. I value analysis and warranting over evidence. The best way to lose my ballot is to read a list of cards, indicate your opponent has no cards and unleash some debate math - ie "Judge my view of resolution will reduce recidivism by 150.3% resulting in a reduction of poverty world wide of 173,345,321 and leading to growth in Georgia of 13.49% which will increase the standard of living in Athens by 22.32% and reduce polarization by 74.55% which will ensure that representative democracy will . . . . blah, blah, blah. BTW, when I am exposed to debater math you should know what I hear is blah, blah, blah. So . . . invest your time in simple, clear (hopefully logical) warranting - no need for cards or debater math. You know, I know, your parents know that statistics/empirics prove nothing. PS, if Nobel winning social scientists have the humility to acknowledge that is is virtually impossible to determine causality, you should too, so avoid the correlation/causality offense or defense.
7. In your last 3 minutes of speaking you should collapse to your most important or valid argument, provide me with voters, and weigh the round
8. Quality over quantity, less is more, therefore those debaters who collapse to a single argument and weigh this argument earn my ballot. In fact, those rare (delightful) debaters who provide a logical narrative based upon a clear value and throughout the round, focus on a single, clear, simple argument make for a breath of fresh air, meaningful 45 minutes of debate and a lasting learning experience. These types of rounds are as rare as a lunar eclipse and I value and treasure these rounds and debater(s) - less than a dozen over my years of adjudication.
9. Simple is preferred to the complex. I am a lay judge and while I have over 20 years experience and have judged over 160 rounds of LD in both face-to-face and online environments I find that the simplest argument tends to earn my ballot over many arguments that are complex.
10. A negative debater who collapses to the Aff framework and definitions and then clearly explains a rationale for why negating the resolution achieves that value is from my point employing a very sound strategy when arguing before a community judge and overcomes the initial time disadvantage, The AFF debater who uses the 3rd AFF to only review the SINGLE most important argument, weigh clearly and simply and end with valid votes makes the most efficient and strategic use of speaking last.
11. Remember to clearly define all relevant terms in the resolution. The March/April 2025 topic has often hinged on definitions. Where there's a difference in approach on a term you'll need to clearly warrant for me why I should prefer your definition. PLEASE not cards or debater math.

Don't worry *(be happy) as I will cut and paste this paradigm into my ballot. But alas, that is after the fact. Oy.

I am appreciative and grateful to have this opportunity. IE and speech I do have comments for you after my "sharing" with debaters. Skip to the end.

You are the teacher, I am the student. As my teacher, you will want to know my learning style.

I am curious and interested in your voice and what you have to say. I am a life long learner and as a student I make every effort to thoughtfully consider your teaching. so . . .

1. I take notes (flow) in order to understand. So, a metric for debaters - think of me on the couch with one of your grandparents, Joe Biden and Morgan Freeman. We are all very interested in what you have to say and we are all taking notes. So, be certain your pace allows us to take notes (flow) with comprehension. If you are doubtful about the pace you are using, YOU ARE SPEAKING TOO FAST and should slow down. Thank you very much.
2. As your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I sit on the couch we are striving to learn new material from you. You know far more than we do, you are very familiar with how to convey this information and we all think much slower than you so - KEEP IT SIMPLE. I would advise checking all debate jargon at the bus, before you enter the building.
3. Less is more. So, if you have 2 to 5 high level arguments and feel compelled to advance them, go for it. But as the round comes to an end, focus on ONE and make certain you explain it so that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I can understand. I was fortunate earlier this year at the 2024 ARIZONA STATE TOURNAMENT to judge an out round of LD on a panel with a young, policy TECH judge and another parent. In a 2-1 decision, I was soooooooooooooooo pleased that, in post round disclosure and RFD this young, policy TECH judge recommended that the two excellent debaters collapse to the ONE argument that they considered most important (ie the argument they were winning). I was overjoyed as I have always indicated one simply and well explained argument will always capture my ballot over the old laundry list. In other words DO NOT RUN THE FLOW in 3rd AFF speech merely explain the ONE argument and weigh the voters. One other outstanding piece of feedback from this young, policy, TECH judge was to look at the judges - he, like I, react to your argumentation - nodding and smiling when we understanding and are convinced and frowning or shaking no when we are not. I noticed he did this in the round and, for those of you who have argued before me before, you know that I light up when you have me and if become despondent when you don't. Useful in round feedback from the judge is GOOD. I know you all have strategy based upon some interpretation of game theory when arguing before a panel. Remember you will most likely have 1, 2 or even 3 parent, lay judges on the panel. WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND DEBATE THEORY, CANNOT PROCESS ARGUMENTS DELIVERED AT A RAPID PACE AND NEED SIMPLE, SIMPLE SLOWLY PRESENTED SIDE BY SIDE ANALYSIS.

Anything else?

1. I see LD as an exploration of value, that is values debate, therefore I am most interested in learning your take on the value your have selected in evaluating the resolution. I am not interested implementation, rather the key is how the value you employ affirms or negates the resolution AND why that value is superior to the one selected by your opponent. It is ok, very ok, to concede value. It goes without saying, but I will anyway, that you should understand your value and provide a simple clear definition. Soooooooooo there is Justice, Social Justice, Restorative Justice, Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice, Retributive Justice, Environmental (???) Justice, Economic Justice, Global . . . . well you get the point. Which one are you arguing for? If you don't specify then your opponent may, to your disadvantage, If you opponent doesn't then . . . . well the nightmare of all LDers, your parent, lay judge (ME) will. I don't think you want that. But, for those who read this paradigm, you would not be surprised to find that I am deeply influenced by the value analysis of Aristotle and Adam Smith sooooooooo if you have not read Nicomachean Ethic and/or The Theory of Moral Sentiments you will want to clarify you value as these are the defaults I will use if you don't clearly, slowly and simply explicate yours.
2. I am skeptical of Rawls based upon my reading of A Theory of Justice. But, by sharing this prior with you I want you to know as a student I am very interested in learning. So, if based upon your reading of Rawls you provide a rationale for my acceptance, you have it. Of course, the prereq for success here might well be your actual reading of Rawls, although the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes a start on introducing this theory to the lay reader.
3. I am very skeptical of Utilitarianism and its various expressions, particularly the rote and familiar rationale that is read on the top of cases that use it. I am very easily persuaded to reject based upon the comparison of impact on the minority.
4. I reject all extinction impacts
5. I reject all progressive debate
6. I reject kritik
7. If you are compelled to provide a counter plan or alternative as NEG, you need to provide clarity as to the link to the resolution and to utilize analysis and material that the AFF would be expected to aware of. (I understand the grammar policy have now OKed ending a sentence with a preposition.
8. CX is important for the ethos of the debaters, clarification, and laying the ground for rebuttal.
9. In round tone - I appreciate all debaters, particularly those who are having fun, display good humor and take a collaborative rather than adversarial approach. I know you are all very serious about this activity (which I appreciate) and you need to be yourself. That said, when considering your approach, particularly in CX you might try a thought experiment or fantasy - you are arguing before the Supreme Court. What tone and approach would you take if you were trying to engage either Elena Kagan or Neil Gorsuch, remember of course that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I are also up there on the bench.

Congress

1. Congressional debater - elite debaters come prepared to argue both sides of all bills, never read a speech, anticipate rebuttal in CX, know the burdens in speaking first, mid and last in the course of legislative debate and accordingly speak at all three points in the Congressional session and are ready, willing and able to PO. I begin each session with the PO ranked first and the bar to surpass an elite PO is Jordanesque or Tarasui esque or Clark esque. So, PO, I praise those who PO and condemn elite debaters who don't.
2. I commend to you Aristotle - On Rhetoric - specifically his treatment of ethos"the way we become responsible citizens who can understand each other and share ideas is through rhetoric"
3. Excellent overview of Congress expectations.

4. PO resources - all potential PO candidates are encouraged to review:

   https://www.uiltexas.org/files/academics/Witt_An_Act_of_Congress_PO.pdf

   http://www.bobcatdebate.com/uploads/5/5/6/6/55667975/presiding_officer_guide.pdf

5. Members of our community who have taught me a great deal:

Yibo Chen

Frederick Changho (I take the approach Truth >Tech)

Zoe Soderquist

Christopher Klugman

Non debaters

IE - I tend to be much more impressed by the performance that reaches deep within to find some sort of reality or authenticity and I tend to be less impressed by the well developed techniques that excellent actors employ.

Extemp - I value analysis within the context of a cohesive narrative over quantity of evidence cited.

Orators - your call to action need be substantial, significant, clearly defined and either achievable, or contextualized in such a manner that the attempt has significant value.

And don't worry, my previous paradigm, saved for posterity due to the scope of Google - here

*Taking this approach, Aristotle proposes that the highest good for humans iseudaimonia, a Greek word often translated as "flourishing" or sometimes "happiness". Aristotle argues that eudaimoniais a way of taking action (energeia) that is appropriate to the human "soul" (psuchē) at its most "excellent" orvirtuous (aretē). Eudaimoniais the most "complete" aim that people can have, because they choose it for its own sake. An excellent human is one who is good at living life, who does so well and beautifully (kalos). Aristotle says such a person would also be a serious (spoudaios) human being. He also asserts that virtue for a human must involvereason in thought and speech (logos), as this is a task (ergon) of human living.

Hey! My name is Jyothika Rajagopalan and I competed for all four years of my high school career at local, state, and qualified for nationals. I am well experienced in the speech/interpretation events, however, I do know the basics of debate events. I have very high knowledge in Informative and Oratory, but also participated in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglass, Dramatic Interpretation, and various others. My paradigms are as follows:

Speech: As for extemporaneous speaking, I side by information and analysis over presentation. As for other Interpretation and speaking events, it is all about presentation and attitude.

Debate: I can flow, but not too fast, so I would appreciate if there isn't too much spreading involved. I will time, but I would expect debaters to time as well, be responsible. No arguments while a debater is talking, there will be consequences. I will flow what is during speeches and not during crossfire. However, I would like you to extend your arguments from crossfires, if you want to. I want the crossfires to be respectful, so do not be rude to your opponents, or that will affect your speaker points. If I seem confused regarding the layout, K, theory, etc, just ask and explain it to me beforehand, and all is good.

Hi there,

I am very familiar with this policy topic, therefore I will be able to follow along just fine and already understand the background of the topic.

If there is an email chain please include me in it:

iskate1516@gmail.com

Speed

(Virtual) - I am okay with some speed, but due to the nature of video chatting the audio is horrible. I'd rather have quality over quantity.

- If I can't understand you due to your speed, I won't stop you. I just won't flow it. Meaning at the end of the round if it's not on my flow then I'm not going to consider it.

- Do not feel the need to spread or talk faster if you are not comfortable with it.

Stock Issues

- I'm not a fan of when people run inherency as an argument unless there is a major dispute

- In solvency, if you have a weak solvency argument I will most likely give that to the neg, but only if they catch it

- Solvency turns are a thing and they're fun if ran correctly.

- Make sure you have a strong link card, have noticed with this topic, the link cards are weak

DA's

- Turns are fun for impacts, but you can't us say that you're turning it. Read me a card, and give me and under view of why that's possible.

- I don't like extinction arguments for impact, if you're going to run that then you need a strong internal link

- DA's are important in my voting decision

- Long link chains are weaker DA'S

- At the end of the round you should be going for the DA that you believe has the most value to the round, do not run the entire neg case.

Topicality

- I do not like T on substantial

- T is fun, but don't run it if you don't plan on going for that in the neg rebuttal

- If you don't bring it up in all of your speech, then I will flow it as a dropped

- T isn't a voter for me, in most cases

- There is on T that I will 95% of the time vote on, but not a lot of people run it. Or if they do run it, it is not used in the correct context.

CP's

- A lot of people don't have all the components for a CP which discourages me from voting on the CP the aff also has to catch the improper set up. The aff has to bring that up though.

- CP must solve better, give me your interpretation of why you solve better

- I like cp's but it must be ran correctly

Abusive arg

- I don't like abusive arguments, they're very whiny.

- They're a time waster, spend your time on better args

- You don't need to bring it to my attention that they brought up a new arg in the rebuttals. I flow speeches. I will write on their ballot that I didn't flow that argument.

- I was once a novice debater too, and novice 2A's are very notorious for bringing up new args in the 2AR

Other policy related notes

- K's do not belong on the novice circuit especially in Missouri

- Impact calc should be ran

- If there are tech issues on my end I will stop you and pause the time, as it is fair to judge everyone the same - if the other team can't hear you I would like for them to say something

- Don't steal prep, I time everyone and everything.

- I read evidence , if your card says something completely different than what the other wrote, that will be on the ballot

- Dates are relevant but at the same time it's not the biggest thing in the world to me. However if your entire case is from '14 then I'll probably mention it. But don't spend your time arguing dates.

- The purpose of cx if for clash and clarification - if you run vagueness on their plan or whatever it may be - I will probably not swing that argument your way.

PuF and LD

- I am more familiar with LD than PuF

- In LD hold up your criterion and value

- At the end of the round I don't want to have to go back and go through all my flow to see which side should win it should be obvious by the last 2 speeches

PLEASE READ THIS

If you're being rude in any shape way or form, you will get last in the round. In cx I'm okay with interrupting but don't be rude. Don't say anything offensive. If I feel that you're being sexist, racist, or disrespectful, I will write it on your ballot for your coach to see.

I look for solid arguments, but weigh heavily on common sense and speaking skills as well. If you leave a good contention unblocked, it will count against you. I can handle moderate speeds if you speak clearly and fluently. I try to vote on the flow, but if it's a mess or I can't understand you, I can't do that.

Be polite. If it is a close round, you will make my decision easy by being disrespectful to your opponents. If the disrespectful behavior is egregious, I may vote you down regardless of your arguments. This activity is about civil discourse, not insults.

A preponderance of evidence does not win debates.

Speaking at a strategically increased rate of speed is counter to the spirit of an intellectual and equitable debate.

All three part of the rhetorical triangle should be used in near equal measure: logos, ethos, and pathos.

My email: ers6535@truman.edu

About me: I did LD all 4 years of high school, briefly did policy, and debated in PF a handful of times. I was primarily an interper and value effective communication over tech. I currently compete for the Truman State speech team and I occasionally do parliamentary debate.

General Preferences:

Speed: I'm begrudgingly OK with speed, but would much prefer a slower round. Both sides MUST agree to speed. I'll accept you spreading cards BUT slow down on tags and analytics. You can give me args at a quick clip but signposting is HUGE for me. Don't expect me to flow your arg if you don't signpost it and don't spread unless I have the doc.

CX: I won't flow cx unless it is brought up in a speech

Ethics: Don't be a jerk! Don't speak over your opponent! I did a speech about sexism in the debate community and I will hold y'all to decent standards

LD Preferences:

Framework: I am a sucker for a phil aff, but make sure you explain it well. Don't expect me to understand obscure philosophical references if you don't explain them. I'm looking for a value and criterion that actually connect with your contentions

Off-Case: I'm fine with off-case positions like DAs, but make sure you identify them as such. I would prefer to vote on case/framework, but I'll vote on a DA if necessary. Don't read a CP. Please.

Theory: Don't be abusive/include spikes in your case/new args in your rebuttal. I'll vote on theory if I have to but would prefer we not go there

Policy Preferences:

Ks: I don't love Ks, but I will vote on them and I recognize their importance and value. Don't read Kritikal affirmatives, soft-left/phil advs are fine. Give me a strong alt and aff-specific links on the neg

T/Theory: If you're running T make sure it's justifiable. There are some theory args I may not automatically understand, so explain them! Don't just say "condo bad" and expect me to know what you mean by that :). Interp, Violation, Standards and voters on theory sheets. Again, I'll vote on theory, but not my favorite. Don't run it unless it's important

I haven't judged this topic at all so don't assume I know the basic arguments. I award high speaks to debaters who prioritize effective communication and argumentation rather than who can spread their opponent out of the round by throwing things at the wall. (I get the need to spread in constructives, but give me a solid rebuttal. frame the round, don't make me do work for you, I'm a lazy judge and I don't like to intervene!)

Debate:

- I would like to see:

- Money saved

- lives saved

- Great enunciation of words, and powerful young speakers

- Not a huge fan of spreading

- I love seeing new ideas

- Love seeing on case attacks as well

IE Forensics:

- I'm looking for the following

- Your own interpretation of the literature

-Good Memorization

- Understanding of the character

- Understanding of the entire literally selection

- Good characterization

- Projection

I love judging speech! I have judged over 30 speech and debate tournaments (over 100 rounds) since September, 2019, and have experience judging every single speech event, and a little bit of LD as well.

I have also had the great pleasure of being a judge at TOC, NSDA, NIETOC, NCFL as well!

I'm definitely not a strict judge, and try to make the round atmosphere as comfortable as possible. In addition, I sincerely try my best to rank all of the students in a fair and unbiased way, as well as give them feedback that they can improve from, but I am also always open to questions if you want to learn more about how to improve your speech!

Outside of being a speech and debate judge, I have a PhD in Environmental Engineering. I try my best to protect environment.

Pronouns: she/her

-Oct.  2022