I'm a traditional judge with over 30 years of coaching all events. I am currently teaching a new Debate course at Center Academy for Success.

Hey, I am Derek. I debated policy for four years at Truman High School in Missouri and formerly debated at Missouri State University.

Here are my random thoughts on debate

I am willing and ready to hear most arguments as long as they are not denigrating or discriminatory. These are prohibited!

Most of my debate career was spent going for policy arguments but the later end of my college career has been spent reading critical arguments. That being said I am experienced with hearing both and think there are educational benefits to both.

You should feel comfortable reading whatever argument gives you the best chance to win or the most personal satisfaction (the thing we forget most about debate is that it is supposed to be fun!). Although I may not be familiar with every acronym in your policy aff or buzz word in your kritik, I mostly base my decisions on the flow and how well things are explained. So please do a great job of explaining and contextualizing and you will like the outcome!

My decisions will revolve around the question of which team forwards a better version or understanding of the world. I am primarily tech over truth unless it is egregious (in most of these instances the argument is not worthy of response anyways).

Specific thoughts

Policy Affs: I like both large, heart of the topic affs, and smaller, left leaning affs. Internal links being specific as possible is good.

K Affs: Explain what it is about the topic you are critiquing and why that critique is good. Also heavily lean into the thesis level understanding of the kritik rather than smaller specific parts which is what I feel drives a good kritikal affirmative.

DAs: The more specific the better. Topic DAs are great too but contextualize it to the aff you are debating. I will be able to tell if you are reading the same generic link block you read your last four neg rounds. Impact calculus is where I will draw my conclusions if the link or uniqueness debates are a wash so turns case args are valued highly.

CPs: I am a fan of a great DA CP combo! Please have solvency advocate unless there is some specific reason you do not need one. Just win that it is theoretically justified, it solves the part of the aff it has to solve to win the debate, and a risk of a net benefit. If you solve all of the aff you do not need to go to case in the 2NR. Affs must win at least a solvency deficit that has an impact and some form of offense is great too! Your best bet is to minimize the risk of the net benefit and win a deficit (carded ones are great)

Ks: I love a great one off debate but a kritik also read with other off is cool too. The more you dive into the aff and their cards to prove your links, the better. Winning that your impact and impact framing outweighs is crucial. Above all else, give me judge instructions heavily. Tell me how to base my decision and how it should be different from how I normally frame decisions (this applies to all types of debates but specifically this style). You do not need to win an alternative but you should probably tell me if you are kicking it, if I should, under what conditions I should, etc.

T: You are probably more educated on how to win these debates than I am if you are going for it in the 2NR. I usually think teams that win these debates have long lists of cases that would be topical under the affirmative's interpretation that are not allowed under yours. This is good. You must win an impact above all else. Why is it important if a team is not reading a topical aff and how does it undermine your competitive incentive to debate.

FW: If you are going for FW you have to win the impact level more than anything else. Do not waste time reading definitions that get you no offense. You should also probably go to case to minimize impact turns that will most likely be there. To beat FW, make sure you have a solid counter-interp that is able to minimize all the limits and ground offense (or turn them) from FW teams. Win a large impact turn that outweighs the impacts of FW. Both teams should be telling me why their arg comes before their opponents (like "Theory before content" or "content informs theory")

Theory: Condo is usually good! I do not like contradicting condo positions but as long as they are multiple cohesive worlds I do not see a problem. PICs and PIKs are good so long as they are getting rid of a part of the affirmative. For whatever theory you are going for please have an interp!

Please be nice to everyone and have fun! I think I wasted away a lot of my debate career stressing and putting too much pressure on myself. Don't make the same mistake!

I wish to be viewing docs while I am judging so please add me to whatever evidence sharing mechanism you use! My email is derekallgood7@gmail.com

Good Debate!

Experience: 4 years high school LD, ~2 years college policy at K-State. Current head coach at Pattonville High School.

Please add me to the email chain: paul.ambrose98@gmail.com

Overall, I'm alright with whatever, as long as you explain it well. I personally gravitate toward Ks and case turns, but if you're more a Politics DA + States CP kind of debater, go for it. My feedback may be more specific for kritikal arguments and K answers though.

I can understand speed relatively well, but I'd recommend slowing down for analytics, especially interps and standards in theory debates.

Affirmatives

Cool with policy or kritikal affirmatives. For policy teams, I find having small number of advantages with strong, specific internal links more compelling than throwing out 6 extinction impacts and going for the one that's dropped. Not a huge fan of lengthy pre-empt contentions, but a few strategic framing arguments can be very persuasive.

For K affs, I think you should have some connection to the topic and should probably have a stable advocacy statement. Specific, contextual explanation of the aff methodology is very important for me, especially when evaluating permutations and any presumption arguments.

DAs

Use them. More specific links are always better, but generic can work if you explain it well. Apart from links, I think impact calc is the most important part of disad debates and often gets undercovered (which is a shame).

CPs

Creative CPs are enjoyable, even when they border on cheating. I'm personally cool with states, consult, process cps, etc., but the neg doesn't get a free pass if there's a theory debate. PICs are rad, but word PICs are not rad (unless the word is in the plan text, which justifies it more IMO). Overall, the problem with most CPs isn't that they're cheating, it's that they're bad.

Ks

Love them. I'm personally most familiar with cap, set col, and anti-blackness, but don't assume I'll automatically know what you're talking about. The most important tips I can give are to contextualize your links to the aff (pulling lines from the 1AC is appreciated!) and to give a detailed explanation of what the alternative does. In general, I think the aff gets a permutation and gets to weigh the plan, but I can be persuaded otherwise, especially on the latter.

FW

I think framework is very strategic against kritikal affs, and all K affs should be prepared to have a FW debate. I tend to lean aff (like 55-45), but FW is definitely winnable. I'm more persuaded by substantive impacts and clash than I am by procedural fairness, but feel free to include fairness if you're gonna justify it.

I have five years of debate experience as a competitor.

I competed in both public forum and Lincoln Douglas.

I will not dock you speaker points or vote you down for spreading; however, if you are spreading I will not read along with your cards or case as you read them. If I did not hear it or could not understand it, it will not be on my flow.

I am open to all values, frameworks, and arguments.

I tend to prioritize value debates and judge based on who carried their value best throughout the round.

Updated: November 2023

Former 4 year debater at Olathe South High School (Graduated 2020; US-Sino Relations, Education, Immigration, Arms Sales)'

Current Asst. Coach @ Olathe South

4 years of policy and 3 years of LD

tylerboutte4@gmail.com

TLDR: You do you, I'm just here to evaluate your perspective of the topic. I have my own preferences but ultimately if you provide a warranted model of debate I'll vote for you. Feel free to add me to the email chain and ask any questions for clarification.

Judge Philosophy: Policymaker. Debate rounds are won with offense vs. defense. Do with that what you will.

*Online Debate*: I participated in the online format at Nationals and didnt have any issues other than the other team having bad internet. If you're gonna go fast make sure, your doc says everything you say just in case someone's internet decides to cut out.

Tech>Truth

Speed: Go as fast as you want just slow down for tags, authors, and theory. Speed rounds are fun. If you can do it well, please do.

Topicality: Over time I've come to care about this type of debate less and less. I find the threshold for me to vote neg on T to be pretty high, but if that's what you're gonna go for do it. Please do not just read a T block and precede to reread that block throughtout every speech for the entire round. Keys to this debate are explaining to me why the aff's model of debate as a whole is bad, not just this round specifically. Aff arguments about reasonabililty are pretty persuasive for me especially when the rebutalls come down to what is "fair." Recently teams have been opting to debate t on the surface level. That's 1) really boring and painful for everyone involved and 2) not helping win rounds. Good work on the standards and voters level of this flow looks like debating about the impacts of the aff's relationship to the resolution.

DA: Obviously the more specific your link, the more likely I am to weigh the DA but generic links work too if you make them. I feel that lately debaters have been treating these types of debates as separate piece from the case flow. Both teams should articulate how/why the DA interacts with the case. This includes impact calc which is severely under utilized. I'm most likely to vote on this flow if its connected to the aff case instead of being a floating argument for me to evaluate. Aff teams should also be looking to turn disads into advantages for the case instead of only playing defense.

(2023: I'm not a huge fan of most DA's on this topic. Generic links and impact scenarios are not very persuasive unless you do the work to make it make sense. The more specific/realistic the better.)

FW/K: I have the most experience with critiques of security, set-col, militarism, and afropess but I'm willing to listen to anything and have probably read/looked into other popular critiques. These debates I find to be the most fun as a debater/judge but that also means they're the most frustrating. To me it seems that too many debaters are scared of actually debating the critiques they're running and instead default to framework debates. While I have no problem with these debates either, they tend to get incredibly sloppy and thus difficult to evaluate. In terms of how I evaluate the K itself, in levels of importance I think Link>impact>alt. Quite honestly, I dont care about the alt as much as I do how the critique itself impacts the aff. If you want to go for the alt, GREAT, but I'd prefer if you spend most if not all of the 2NR/2AR on powerful rhetoric about how me voting for you is going to reshape the world. Good k teams are giving great analytical arguments about the k's relationship to the aff instead of reading tons of cards of obscure theory.

Counterplans/Case: This may be the most underutilized aspect of debate now. Cases should be built with offense and defense embedded as part of the aff strategy. The neg should actually interact with the aff case and produce turns or deficits to the aff impacts. All CPs are fine, Ill let the debaters sort out what is and isnt fair. I do find that my threshold for condo is extremely high, I believe that debate is ultimately a game and the neg has every right to take advantage in this game and run as many off-case positions as they want. That doesnt mean I wont vote on condo though, the aff just needs to have an argument explaining why this model of the game is bad for debate as a whole.

Experience things:

Graduated from College Debate. 4 years NDT, 4 years NFA-LD, 4 years HS, coach HS CX too

He/Him

yes email chain, sirsam640@gmail.com

Please read an overview. Please. It will only help you and your speaks.

Speed is fine - please be clear

Tech over Truth always - the debaters make the argument, not what my preconceived notions of what is truthful/real arguments are.

1. I was frequently in policy v K rounds on both sides. At the 2022 NDT 8/8 rounds were K rounds for me, and 2023 2/8 were K rounds. I read a K aff with my partner one year, then an extinction aff the next year. I went for FW/cap the other half of the time. I am a clash judge and vote for K affs as much as I vote for FW versus them.

2. k affs justify why your model of debate is good impact turns to T are fine

3. 2nrs need a TVA (unless the aff just shouldn't exist under your model which is rare but can happen)

4. condo is good but fine voting that its bad

5. judge kick is probably bad, but if neg says its good and aff doesn't reply I'll judge kick

6. I went for impact turn 2NRs/1ARs a significant portion of my rounds

7. win that your reps are good affs

8. I think perms are a little bit underrated - they probably overcome the link and shield any residual risk.

9. Judging more and more I realize how awesome impact calc is in 2NR/2AR - I definitely think about debate in offense/defense paradigm and often vote for whoever's impact is bigger and accesses the other teams

Theory

CPs need a net benefit in order to win. The role of the neg is to disprove the aff, not just provide another alternative that also fixes the aff. "Solving better" isn't a net benefit. I have voted aff on CP solves 100% of the aff but 0% of net benefit.

PICs are good vs K affs. Pretty strong neg lean on this. It rewards good research.

Don't read death good in front of me.

T

I have come around a lot on T. I think that affs get away with too much in terms of being resolution-adjacent.

Competing interps > reasonability (as law school goes on, I am reverting back to reasonability. This is probably 55/45%ish)

Ground is probably the biggest impact in T debates IMO, I think specific links to affs is the largest internal link to good debates.

I think that community norms is very unpersuasive to me. I do not really care what the rest of the community thinks about T, I'm judging the round, not the community lol

PTIAV is silly but gotta have a decent answer to it.

Affs need to just have a large defense of "no ground loss" and "aff flex/innovation outweighs"

Likely the best way to win T in front of me regardless of side is to just impact out whatever you think is your strongest standard, and make it outweigh your opponents. I spend less time thinking about the specific definition of words and more time about what the models of debate look like (though if debaters tell me to evaluate interps in a specific way I will definitely spend time on it).

PF specific

You do you and I will evaluate to the best of my ability! Any questions feel free to ask pre-round!

You don't need to ask for x amount of prep, just take "running prep" unless you specifically want me to stop you when that time ends.

Last speech should start out with "you should vote aff in order to prevent structural violence which comes first in the round" or something like that. Write my ballot for me.

I find it very hard to vote on something that I don't understand, so while impacts matter a lot I need to understand the story of how we reach the impact

I have no background in debate, but am a practicing lawyer and routinely argue before judges, juries, and arbitration panels. I am prepared for a rigorous debate, and prefer logical over emotional appeals.

I primarily did Lincoln Douglas debate in High School, including qualifying for Nationals. I am currently a lawyer. I will flow the debate, and consider it important for debaters to address and carry their arguments to the end of the debate. I also expect arguments to be logical, and supported by evidence or support.

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.

I have experience in judging for 4 years.

I value the following: depth in understanding of the core issue, relevancy of evidence and sources, overall delivery/presentation - including your manners to your opponents, please don't spread, and keep track of both your and your opponent's time.

Focus on quality of arguments and clash. Formulate accurate analyses of evidence: what does it mean for the resolution?

Civility and poise under all circumstances is appreciated.

Please give voters. Tell me why you have won.

Stanford 24' is my first tournament on the HS topic

I debated at Missouri State for three years and had moderate success. I am now out of the debate community but judge every so often.

Email: engelbyclayton@gmail.com

TL;DR

I slightly prefer policy arguments more than critical ones. I want to refrain from intervening in the debate as much as possible. Extinction is probably bad. I think debate is good and has had a positive impact on my life. Both teams worked hard and deserve to be respected.

My beliefs

-Aff needs a clear internal link to the impact. Teams often focus too much time on impacts and not enough on the link story, this is where you should start.

-I like impact turns that don't deviate from norms of morality.

-Condo is good.

-Fairness is not an impact within itself but could be an internal link to something.

-Kritiks are interesting. Explain your stuff.

-Weighing impacts, evidence comparison, strategic decisions, and judge instruction can go a long way.

To those running the tournament: My preferred styles to judge are Congressional, IPDA, and I'm happy to judge forensics/speech. Putting me in policy is a bad idea and I don't like policy at all. In terms of Individual Events, I do best with Humorous, Duo, and Dramatic Interpretation, and worst with Poetry.

To competitors: Racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, ableism, and hate speech of any kind will earn an immediate loss of my ballot. The most important thing to me in a round is that you respect not only me, but your opponent, other judges, spectators, and anyone else. Please don't spread. If I wanted to try to make sense of spreading, I'd do policy. I don't do policy, so I don't want to hear spreading. Please just have mercy and talk at a decent pace. I have no preference in how you present your argument, just do it well.

I have judged a handful of tournaments since leaving full-time coaching in 2015. I was able to maintain the same flowing abilities and understanding of arguments. If there are new styles of arguments, acronyms, etc., you may need to clarify those. Aside from that, the below remains the same.

- I am a flow critic who evaluates the round through net benefits unless told otherwise. If a distinction does exist between pre/post fiat, you should tell me how to weigh all the arguments. I generally do not find arguments that seek to prevent the negative team from competing compelling (i.e. "you can't run DAs, etc). I am fine with discoursive impacts, but make sure all can access the round. You don't get to win simply because you are aff. I also do not like facr/value debate and have a low threshhold for voting on "Fact/Value bad" arguments.
- I am frustrated by the trend of parli to reward unclear, blippy debates that lack substance. I give preference to warranted arguments and clash as compared to a dropped blip that was not developed. An argument is not one line!
The above is especially true concerning impacts; a quick blip on “Resource wars = extinction” does not mean anything nor will I just assume the number of people who die as a result of your impacts; YOU MUST DO THE WORK!
- I can flow a pretty fast pace, but there is such a thing as too fast and really such a thing as unclear. If I do not flow your arguments due to excess speed/lack of clarity, your fault, not mine.
- I will give you a few seconds to get a drink and order, but I am frustrated with stealing prep. I may begin time if I think you are taking too long (you will know I am irritated when I ask you for the order).
- You cannot perm a DA….period!
- I believe that you should take a question if your opponent wants one concerning a new advocacy (plan, CP, alt text, and if perm is more than “Do Both”).
- Slow down and read your plan texts/interps/counter-interps twice unless you plan on giving me a copy
- If you say “x argument is for cheaters,” you will probably lose my ballot. There is a difference between claiming an argument is bad/should not be ran and making an attack against a team. If a team has cheated, that is to be determined by the tournament, not in round.
- I do not understand rudeness. Being rude does not help your arguments and only gets me irritated. Sarcasm and
banter are fine, but there are limits.

Section 2: Specific Inquiries
How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical
arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions.
The aff/neg can run critical arguments; make sure you have a framework and alternative and be clear as to how I evaluate critical arguments with non-critical arguments. Also, dropping authors’ names and using big words does not mean the K is good;
make sure you know what you are talking about or there is a good chance, I won’t. The alt should be ran prior to protected time or allow time for questions.
- I do not vote on Speed Ks (Update: There is a potential I could find this argument compelling, if framed correctly, when it becomes apparent that the sole purpose of using speed in a round is to exclude another team....but this is a stretch in most instances).
- I will let teams debate out the legitimacy of contradictions.
Performance based arguments…
I will not exclude any arguments. Just make sure you have a clear framework to evaluate the argument and have an alternative
Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing
interpretations?
I require you to win the argument and have a voter….
I do not require a counter interpretation; I just highly doubt you will win T without one
Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual
competition ok? functional competition?
The opp should identify the status and if not, should allow the gov to ask what it is (without counting it as a question). The CP should also be ran prior to protected time or allow time for questions about the CP.
I will let the debaters debate out CP theory for PICS, perms, etc.
In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will
use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede costbenefit
analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?
I default to the weighing mechanism established (so if you say net ben and I am not told when to evaluate T, I will evaluate it as a decision of cost/benefit instead of as an a-priori issue). In a round with T and Ks, teams would be wise to debate out which one comes first.
How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are
diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts
(i.e. "one million deaths")?
I love the buzz terms “time frame,” “magnitude,” and “probability.” Debaters should use these.
One million deaths will always come before an unwarranted dehum claim. Debaters should also tell me which impact standard takes priority.
I also do not consider internal links, impacts. Telling me “the economy goes down” does not mean anything. Also how do I evaluate quality of life?

Speech/Debate Experience - Current assistant coach in KC, MO. I have been the assistant coach for almost two years, but my speciality is English; therefore, I can not follow speed well. Speaking should be clear and understandable along with eye contact and good posture.

My universal paradigm request in debate is to include evidence with your claims. You can tell me to vote on something but if you don't evidence from reliable sources to back it up, I will dismiss it. I will look elsewhere for a claim that does have evidence included. 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. You have done the research, I have not. Make sure that I am up to speed on all the technical terms needed to understand your argument.

Prep Time: If someone is not speaking, someone is running prep time. 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."

I mainly look for you demonstrate your understanding of the topic by making clear attacks and building your case back up after being attacked. In the end, I will be looking at the attacks and evaluating who made the stronger attacks. Generally, the more convincing arguments are supported by evidence and are clear in how they relate to your opponents arguments.

*Plz pardon the typos I can't spell/ Grammar

HISTORY

I debated for 2.5 years in High School doing policy debate in Southwest Missouri- mostly a lay district. I currently debate for Missouri State University in NDT primarily. Not to flex but I got 2nd in extempt debate at NSDA that one time

Conflicts: Greenwood Lab School

General Stuff

Feel free to ask questions after the round I should have to defend my decision as much if not more then you defend your arguments.

My utopian form of debate is lay debate (that does not mean slow) with politics and K's with no alt lol

Be nice but dont be too nice

Please know who the secretary of defense is @EC

"Cold Conceded" is a real term

CX is my favorite part of debate plz use it and plz make a fool of ur opponent

Extinction is maybe possible????

+.2 speaker point if u want to make fun of Rupaul fracking applicable to the debate, -.2 if it seems forced and I don't laugh :(

DAs

Specific links r cool.

Like PTX alot.

Turns Case args are hot and underused imo PLEASE MAKE THEM

CPs

Perms are underutilized imo

Default to Condo good all the time

PICS are good

Agency CPs are good if u have a good solvency advocate

Consult CPs r Bad

I do not like judge kick: If the NEG looses a perm and that shields the link somehow or the CP links to the NB and it makes its way into the 2NR u should be scared

Speaking of which CP links to the NB is fun arg u should make

Ks

Ill be honest I am probably not the judge you want- I have limited experience on K literature so if you do get me as a judge it will help both of us if you describe early what your K is criticising as well as what the alt does. I am rather inclined to weigh the AFF, but that DOES NOT MEAN EXTINCTION OUTWEIGHS. I generally believe that the AFF should choose what they want to talk about and, controversial opinion, prefer K affs over generic Ks on the NEG. I think K AFFs that are in the direction of the topic are super cool 2.

Specific links here 2 plz

I love watching K rounds but doesnt mean I am ur ideal judge fs

Ks I know a little bit about: Puar and Virillio that's it, that's the list

T

Im VERY AFF biased with T so make sure u r winning it before u make it the 2nr. Default to AFF is topical on reaonability but wont vote for it if the NEG wins reasonability is bad or the AFF shouldnt be reasonable/ your offense outweighs. In round abuse is good but not necessary. I think complaining about how you couldn't read your favorite DA or CP against this one aff is not persuasive to me.

AFF/Case

I debated soft left senior year on the arms topic and loves it.

Specific case card> Impact D any day of the week

Should be able to defend every word in your plan text

I cant think of a single round I have watched where I even considered a presumption ballot

For K affs plz be very explicit in either the 1ac or very latest cx what the u advocate for.

idk what else to put here just know your AFF and what it does/ Advocates for.

My name is Michael Guerra-York, my previous experience consists of 3 years of LD debate and informative speaking. I prefer traditional debate rounds. Do not spread or you will lose. I will flow the round and take my notes after the round. I judge primarily overall presentation and whoever convinces me of their side better. Argumentation is the biggest factor in this. Further, any disrespect will not be tolerated and will result in a loss. Overall, have fun. 

Mika Hartter (She/Her) mikadebate@gmail.com

Debate Experience---

2016-2020 at Eisenhower High School (KS). Local and Natcir.

2020-2022 at Missouri State University (MO). NDT-CEDA.

I debated the following topics: China engagement, Education, Immigration, Arms sales, Alliance commitments, and Antitrust.

Political Compass---

Team should adapt------------------------------X-Judge should adapt

Anti-consequentialism------------------------------X-Consequentialism

Reasonability------------------------------X-Competing interpretations

Disclosure----X---------------------------Non- or false- disclosure

Death good bad------------------------------X-Read what you can win

Important Stuff---

There's no such thing as tabula rasa, because all judges have certain biases; that being said, I try to remove my opinions from debates as much as possible. I will always judge the round in the way I'm told to by the debaters in the round.

I tend to evaluate debates from an offense-defense perspective. Every argument needs a claim, warrant, and impact. Incomplete arguments do not survive germane contest. I am willing to vote on zero risk, but this generally only happens due to missing internal links or expired uniqueness.

Please read whatever you find fun and interesting to read: really obscure k's, theory, death good, spark, first strike, etc. I would rather watch good debating on an argument I don't like than bad debating on an argument I do (that's not to say I don't like any of the above).

It will be harder to convince me to abandon consequentialist ethics than perhaps anything else. To me, consequentialism is as fundamental as "cogito, ergo sum." That being said, I'm no util hack. There are many kinds of consequentialism, deontology, and more nuanced frameworks. I like my moral frameworks as clear as I like my topicality interpretations—this applies whether your ethic is: as simple as "privilege probability," or as complex as "risk is probability times magnitude;" or as nuanced as "a is a variable of moral calculus but b is not, because c," as self-serving as "x is immoral and should come first because y," or as devious as "we are only responsible for intrinsic consequences." Both teams will be far happier with framework decisions when they invest the time to make complete arguments including impact comparison.

Addressing emails and disclosure last, please make the email chain subject line reasonable and distinguishable. Something like "[Tournament name] Round [n] - AFF [team code] NEG [team code]" (e.g., "CEDA Round 1 - AFF Liberty CR NEG Missouri State HW") would be fine. Try to have the 1AC sent no later than 5 minutes before the rounds posted start time, so we can actually start at that point. Lastly, I have a very strong preference for prompt and thorough disclosure. Debates are better when both teams are well-prepared. While I'm not going to excessively interfere for it—i.e., I won't vote on it if the 2NR doesn't go for and win it—my floor for winning "disclosure good" is far lower than my barrier to deontology is high. If your schtick is non- or false- disclosure, you should not pref me.

K---

Please don't read an overview so long I need a new page or even better just don't have an overview.

I'm ideologically apathetic about t usfg. Go for it if you must, but I'd prefer to see clash rather than an allusion to hypothetical clash. Speaking of which: stop saying "clash" in the 1NC without justifying why policy-focused debates are good. What kind of education does the aff prohibit and why is that education worth preserving in debate? Fairness is an impact, but a weak one absent explanation thereof. For the affirmative: I prefer smaller numbers of DA's which are explained in depth to a superfluous amount of indistinguishable ones. "I am sometimes frustrated by uniqueness arguments about kind used to elide obvious differences in scale ... that debate is unfair now ... does not mean that there is no impact to additional unfairness" - David Sposito.

I enjoy DAs and impact turns against planless affs, but I'd appreciate solidification of the link. A consistent and intuitive no link argument beats sloppy neg characterization. The best way to guarantee these links is probably by getting CX commitments, but even without such I'm willing to hear various justifications for the turn; though, if the aff is only defending "thinking in x way is good," you should probably go for topicality instead.

For k v. policy framework, I think the aff could generally benefit from more creativity and the neg from using the word "epistemology" less. I think both teams should try to structure their offense like they would on other theory/framework pages; e.g. frontload each da, each should have an impact and turns args, and you should probably have at least two (though that's more advice than a requirement). For the aff, make sure you're arguing for more than "weighing the aff," or I could end up doing that by favoring the neg's interpretation of what that means. Perhaps the debate should be "about the desirability of the plan" or something idk. For the neg, you probably hear this a lot, but please make sure I understand what debates look like under your framework. I'm a philosophy student, so I know what epistemology is and I don't need to hear it 15 times a speech. What I don't know is 1. what the resolution and fiat are and why they matter, 2. what the plan is and how it should be read, 3. the scope of my decision-making capability in terms of the influence it has on the world, debaters, the community, and debate as a whole, and 4. how I should evaluate impacts. Not every framework spin needs to have explicit answers to all of those questions, but without an answer to at least one I'll probably default to weighing the implementation of the plan via fiat.

Ask any questions necessary about specific literature, but I'm generally knowledgeable enough on common k's like cap, security, afropess, and setcol, as well as Agamben, Foucault, Baudrillard, Deleuze, and Nietzsche. In any case, you should not assume I nor your opponents instantly recognize highly academic terms or understand non-obvious examples. In general, I'm looking for the explanation of your thesis-level claims to include: claims about the world, exemplifying if not deductive proof of your claims, a connection between those examples and the 1AC/resolution, and an impact. If you must put those in an overview because of the sophistication of your particular K, fine, but keep it concise.

Theory---

Any and all theory can be a reason to reject the team. Any other take is cringe.

"We meet" is binary and flow winning if won. That said, I'm not one who believes an interpretation being arbitrary necessarily excludes it from consideration: two condo and twelve condo are meaningfully different in their effects and neither have any basis in the resolution.

In terms of my thoughts on specific theory arguments: PICs and process counterplans are generally valid, but delay, consult, and other plan-contingent counterplans are generally not. Condo is almost always good, but object and attitudinal fiat are almost always bad. I won't judge kick your CP unless you tell me I can and I expect to be told so before the 2NR. I think fiat and intrinsicness debates on politics are interesting and winnable.

Regarding the states counterplan, I have a strong negative reaction to uniform 50-state fiat, but I'm not going to reject it on face.

Topicality---

Topicality shells are a no risk argument for the negative. "We meet" is binary and flow winning if won. T debates are my favorite debates.

I'd really prefer to judge via competing interpretations; this is downstream of my feelings about consequentialism, but I also have no idea how to judge the "reasonability" of an interp, or how to compare different interpretations' "reasonableness."

I'd appreciate more impact comparison in these debates, particularly with precision and education. Regarding precision as an internal link to predictability, I feel it is far, far weaker than many suggest. Why should I sacrifice a good topic to some particular interpretation of a word chosen by the high school topic committee? "Interpretations that are the best for mutual debatability become predictable because they're good," - David Sposito. Precision for precision's sake is less than incoherent: debate rounds do not take place in a courtroom nor a legislative subcommittee, as such I only care about the precision of an interpretation insofar as it begets good outcomes. Education is far more complicated than "more ideas = better" or "deeper ideas = better." If you're going for an education impact, I expect you to analyze what kinds of education in debate are worth preserving (analytical skills, topic knowledge, advocacy skills, etc.) and what are the internal links to those are (pre-round research, third-level clash, etc.).

In general I prefer smaller topics with narrow, defined areas for innovation. A lot of resolution texts would not pass a Writing I standard for clarity, which will shape the way research is done about the topic. Thus, I want to hear more than "other words check" or "functional limits check" - a warrant would be nice.

Speaker Points---

Things that gain them: clarity, ethos, early argument development, "biting the bullet," and general niceness.

Things that lose them: unclarity, evading clash, long overviews, and being mean.

Pet peeves: calling me judge, perm walls, not being able to answer basic cx questions without your partner, and taking over your partners cx when they're doing fine.

I am a head coach for Speech & Debate.

I prefer traditional-style Lincoln-Douglas Debate, with a focus on Value Clash.

Evidence should be read throughout the debate.

I keep a good FLOW during the round.

I prefer debaters speak at a conversational rate.

I encourage you to give VOTERS. Tell me why you have won the round.

I really do not tolerate disrespect in the round. Being rude will lose you the ballot.

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).

Traditional style LD, be respectful in the round. If you speak clearly and are not harassing to your opponent, you will be successful.

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 judge very highly based on speaking. Debate is not just the art of "being right". It is the art of convincing someone, namely me, that you are right. If you have a great flow and argumentation, but speak incredibly fast with no emotional or weighted impacts spoken in a dispassionate tone, ill be more likley to vote for your opponant who spoke better. That is not to say I dont flow, but I do not vote exclusively off of it. It is a balance. You must have good argumentation spoken well. Obviously if you demolish the flow and it is not close I will vote soly based on that. Outside that scenario, however, I vote very highly on speaking. Do not spread or I WILL vote you down.

In congressional debate specifically, I HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY discourage one sided debate. If you give the second or third speech on a POL in a row (or motion to open debate on a POL specifically just to give a speech and its the only speech on that side) i will vote you down 

Former Puff competitor, looks for strong evidence and clear speaking. Why should I care and why does your argument weigh stronger than your opponents. Why is your position the best outcome for the most people? No spreading and be polite to competitors.

For Policy, my paradigm is a combination of Gaming Model and Legal Model. I also have sympathies for the Legislative Model.

For LD and other non-Policy debate, I consider the classical model of persuasion (ethos, pathos, logos).

I'm predisposed against counterplans, so the NEG had better convince me it's the right argument for the *specific* AFF case. Otherwise, I'm judging two AFF's, which is not what secondary ed debate is about.

Do not exhibit racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist/discriminatory attitudes or behavior. You will be immediately dropped.

Be aggressive but do not be rude. If you are a toxic debater you will be dropped.

If you start lagging during your speaking time, I will try my best to judge you based on your performance given when your internet connection was stable.

Congress:

I value content over performance. Clearly structure your arguments so that they are understandable. Provide strong links and warrants to back up your contentions. Expand your impacts. I really do value the technicality of a bill, such as the bureaucracy behind it and the constitutionality of it. I try to be a blank-slate judge, but if you state something completely incorrect or extremely misleading, I will mark you down. If you are not the first speaker of the round, you should mention or respond to the other debaters in the round. Answer your questions clearly and ask good ones. Refrain from asking yes or no questions. Cut your competitors off if they are dodging the question. I really appreciate good cross-ex.

For performance, speak at a normal speed. Make your pronunciation and enunciation as clear and accurate as possible. Your body language should aid your performance, not distract from it. Be passionate. Try using different tones to create a better performance instead of just altering between aggressive and informative. I do value content over performance, but Congress still leans pretty heavily on the latter. If you present amazing arguments but stumble every two words and sound exactly like the rest of the chamber, I am not gonna give you a high rank.

A PO should be fast, fair, and efficient. You should make procedures understandable and maintain control of the chamber. If a debate becomes very repetitive, try to move the chamber onto the next piece of legislation. Make sure to know the procedures. If I notice that you continuously give speeches and questions to the competitors from your school, I will drop you.

Policy, LD, Public Forum, Parli:

Run whatever arguments you want. Theory, K, or anything that makes a compelling case for your side. I do not care about what kind of arguments you are running, because I judge based on flow. Provide solid warrants, tight links, and strong impacts and you will win. If you spread, you have to be extremely good at it. I expect clear enunciation and good fluency, or else just go at the normal talking pace, cause if I do not catch what you say, it will not be on my flow.

Speech:

Performances should match what is expected from the event. Be passionate about the issues you are talking about OO, and make me laugh if you are in DI. But in general, make sure you are varying between tones; do not just stay at one for 10 minutes, it will get boring and the lines you need to highlight will be lost. In your speech is argumentative/informative, then the content will be just as important. Make compelling arguments, use respectable sources and link them together well, and sprinkle in good rhetoric.

PS:

Just a pet peeve of mine, but if you are debating foreign policy, for the love of god do not cite examples from other regions as evidence that something will succeed/fail in this particular area. Respect the massive geopolitical and economic differences between each country and region, even if they are close together. Do not point to Libya and tell me a similar program is gonna succeed in West Africa, no no no, just no.

Jan 2024 Update:

Extend your arguments. Extend your arguments. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS! (THIS IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT FOR ME THAN WHAT TYPE OF ARGUMENT YOU READ) Some of the debates I've watched this year have me so frustrated cuz you'll just be absolutely crushing in parts of the debate but just not extend other parts needed to make it relevant. For example, I've seen so many teams going for framework this year where the last rebuttals are 5 minutes of standards and voters and just no extension of an interp that resolves them. Or 2ARs that do so much impact calc and impact-turns-the-DA stuff that they never explain how their aff resolves these impacts so I'm left intervening and extending key warrants for you that OR intervening and voting on a presumption argument that the other team doesn't necessarily make. So err on the side of over extending arguments and take advantage of my high threshold and call out other teams bad argument extension to make me feel less interventionist pulling the trigger on it. What does this mean? Arguments extended should have a claim and a warrant that supports that claim. If your argument extension is just name dropping a lot of authors sited in previous speeches, you're gonna have a bad time during my RFD. The key parts of the "story" of the argument need to be explicitly extended in each speech. For example, if you're going for T in the 2NR then the interp, violation, the standard you're going for, and why it's a voter should be present in every neg speech. Whatever advantage the 2AR is going for should include each part of of the 'story' of aff advantage (uniqueness, solvency, internal link, impact) and I should be able to follow that back on my flow from the 1AR and 2AC. If the 2AR is only impact outweighs and doesn't say anything about how the aff solves it, I'm partial to voting neg on a presumption ballot

Ways to get good speaks in front of me:
-Extend your arguments adequately lol - and callout other teams for insufficient extensions
-Framing the round correctly (identifying the most relevant nexus point of the debate, explain why you're winning it, explain why it wins you the round)
-Doc is sent by the time prep ends
-One partner doesn't dominate every CX
-Send pre-written analytics in your doc
-At least pretend to be having fun lol
-Clash! Your blocks are fine but debates are SOOO much more enjoyable to watch when you get off your blocks and contextualize links/args to the round
-Flow. If you respond to args that were in a doc but weren't actually read, it will hurt your speaks
-Utilize powerful CX moments later in the debate
-If you have a performative component to your kritital argument, explain it's function and utilize it as offense. So many times I see some really cool poetry or something in 1ACs but never get told why poetry is cool and it feels like the aff forgets about it after the 2AC. If it's just in the 1AC to look cool, you were probably better off reading ev or making arguments. If it's there for more than that, USE IT!

WaRu Update 2023: I think debaters think I can flow better than I can. Slowing down on pivotal moments of the debate to really crystalize will make you more consistently happy with my RFDs. If you're going top speed for all of the final rebuttals and don't frame my ballot well, things get messy and my RFDs get worse than I'd like.

Krousekevin1@gmail.com

Background:

I participated in debate for 4 years in High School (policy and LD for Olathe East) and 3 years in College Parli (NPDA/NPTE circuit). This is my 6th year assisting Olathe East debate. I've done very little research on this topic (emerging tech) so please don't assume I know your acronyms or the inner workings of core topic args.

I have no preference on email chain or speechdrop, but it does irritate me when debaters wait until the round is supposed to be started before trying to figure this stuff out.

Speed:

I can keep up for the most part. Some teams in the national circuit are too fast for me but doesn't happen often. If you think you're one of those teams, go like an 8/10. Slow down for interps and nuanced theory blocks. 10 off rounds are not fun to watch but you do you.

Argument preferences:

In high school, I preferred traditional policy debate. In college I read mostly Ks. I studied philosophy but don't assume I know everything about your author or their argument. Something that annoys me in these debates is when teams so caught up in buzzwords that they forget to extend warrants. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. Not just author names, but extend the actual argument. Often teams get so caught up in line by line or responding to the other team that they don't extend their aff or interp or something else necessary for you to win. This will make me sad and you disappointed in the RFD.

I'd rather you debate arguments you enjoy and are comfortable with as opposed to adapting to my preferences. A good debate on my least favorite argument is far more preferable than a bad debate on my favorite argument. I'm open to however you'd like to debate, but you must tell me how to evaluate the round and justify it. Justify your methodology and isolate your offense.

I don't judge kick CPs or Alts, the 2NR should either kick it or go for it. I'm probably not understanding something, but I don't know what "judge kick is the logical extension of condo" means. Condo means you can either go for the advocacy in the 2nr or not. Condo does not mean that the judge will make argumentative selection on your behalf, like judge kicking entails.

K affs- I don't think an affirmative needs to defend the resolution if they can justify their advocacy/methodology appropriately. However I think being in the direction of the resolution makes the debate considerably easier for you. I wish more negs would engage with the substance of the aff or innovated beyond the basic cap/fw/presumption 1nc but I've vote for this plenty too. I have recently been convinced that fairness can be impacted out well, but most time this isn't done so it usually functions as an internal link to education.

I'm of the opinion that one good card can be more effective if utilized and analyzed well than 10 bad/mediocre cards that are just read. At the same time, I think a mediocre card utilized strategically can be more useful than a good card under-analyzed.

Any other questions, feel free to ask before the round.

LD Paradigm:

I've coached progressive and traditional LD teams and am happy to judge either. You do you. I don't think these debates need a value/criterion, but the debates I watch that do have them usually don't utilize them well. I'm of the opinion that High School LD time structure is busted. The 1AR is simply not enough time. The NFA-LD circuit in college fixed this with an extra 2 minutes in the 1AR but I haven't judged a ton on this circuit so how that implicates when arguments get deployed or interacts with nuanced theory arguments isn't something I've spent much time thinking about. To make up for this bad time structure in High School LD, smart affs should have prempts in their 1AC to try and avoid reading new cards in the 1AR. Smart negs will diversify neg offense to be able to collapse and exploit 1AR mistakes. Pretty much everything applies from my policy paradigm but Imma say it in bold again because most people ignore it anyways: EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. Not just author names, but extend the actual claim and warrant. Often teams get so caught up in line by line or responding to the other team that they don't extend their aff or interp or something else necessary for you to win. This will make me sad and you disappointed in the RFD.

POLICY DEBATE JUDGING PHILOSOPHY

1. My Judging Paradigm

1. I am a Flow Judge: Stock Issues are Very Important
1. Topicality is a VOTING ISSUE
1. If a teams battle over counter definitions, the team with the best definition (i.e. strongest justification/source for its proposed definition) will win the argument. If the team proposing a definition drops a definition or its justification for the definition, and the opposing team counters, the opposing team will win the argument.
2. BUT NOTE: “fairness” is generally NOT a strong argument on Topicality — no whining -- just argue topicality!
2. Debate theory Arguments are acceptable but MUST be supported
1. “Education” arguments are superior to whining about fairness.
2. Arguments over the propriety of a case can win a round if done well.
3. Counterplans are acceptable, but the Negative should still address the Affirmative case. Permutations are weak. Lack of mutual exclusivity is valid.
4. Well Done Critiques (Kritiks) have won my ballots
5. Generic disadvantages are acceptable if properly linked to the specific plan
1. Brink/threshold arguments are acceptable but can be overcome by valid counters
6. Superior evidence can win the round
1. More recent or more reliable or better sourced evidence can prevail over weaker or older evidence.
2. Teams should not repeatedly read the same evidence UNLESS the other team has challenged a specific piece of evidence. Repeating challenged evidence is acceptable to prove the validity or strength of the challenged evidence.
2. I base my decisions on Substance over Style
1. Presentation skills are Important, but dropped arguments matter
2. Superior presentation skills will lead to higher speaker rankings but dropped or ignored arguments may result in victory for the opposing team. Low-point wins happen.
3. I care about Cross-Examination — It Matters How You Ask and Answer Questions
1. Cross-Examination questions and answers may make a difference in a close round
1. Effective cross examination can tip the scales in favor of a team.
2. Effective answers during cross examination can tip the scales as well.
2. OPEN cross-examination is an abhorrent abomination and should not exist!
1. Each speaker should be able to answer questions without help.
2. Each speaker should be able to ask questions without help.
4. I Appreciate Well-Executed Humor. Debate should be FUN!
5. Being Rude is Unacceptable! Debaters have lost rounds by being rude.
6. Experience with Policy Debate
7. A. High School Policy Debater for Four Years 1. National Qualifier Senior Year 2. State Qualifier Senior Year B. College Debater Freshman Year C. High School Policy Debate Judge Last Six Years

Hi all, I’m a retired debater: I competed for Southlake Carroll in Congress & graduated in 2017. I’m now an undergrad @ Harvard doing a double Philosophy & Mathematics concentration, a secondary/minor in Economics, and a Mandarin language citation.

CONGRESSIONAL JUDGING

In terms of judging, I hold a lot of classic experienced Congress judge values. We typically look for debaters who can show excellence in multiple competencies (argument organization, clarity, impact calculation, refutation, insightful questions, ect.) Any skill you would need as a Congressional debater…try to show off as many of those as possible. It's probably best that you give a mix of early & late-round speeches to show some variety. I tend to rank decent POs highly enough to break, but not highly enough to podium in final rounds (you'd have to do a phenomenal job as PO and frankly in 8 years of debate I've maybe encountered 2 phenomenal PO performances).

Have a few personal caveats:

- Interaction: Personally, interaction is a crucial metric for my judging — I don’t want to hear you read a speech word-for-word that you wrote last night. Show that you’ve been paying attention to what other people are saying by refuting them, building off their impacts, otherwise incorporating arguments already on the table. Just interact with your peers, please.

- Please debate the LEGISLATION, not the CONCEPT of the legislation.

- Reasonable Impacts: Pet peeve of mine is when debaters have perfectly good, important arguments, but they feel the need to enormously exaggerate the impact. You don’t need an existential, do-or-die impact for the argument to matter. Use reasonable impacts so that I can take what you’re saying seriously.

- Unique/Detailed Arguments: I look highly upon arguments that I haven't heard before or that contain interesting implementation details. It shows that you researched this bill specifically and didn't just dust off an old speech to reuse.

Brenden Lucas

He/Him

Senior @ MoState

Yes email chain: brendentlucas@gmail.com

This is by no means comprehensive, it's just a few highlights to look at when the pairings get blasted.

I did 4 years of CX at Raymore-Peculiar High School, and now do NDT-CEDA at Missouri State

2X NDT Qualifier

My preference is fast, technical policy throwdowns. But, don't let that sway you from doing what you prefer. Do you and I'll adjudicate it.

If you need to use the restroom or step out of the room you don't have to ask.

Disclaimer for HS Topic: I'm not as active in high school coaching as I was last season, I don't really research or think about the topic all that much so watch your use of jargon.

CPs & DAs

I'm a big fan of CP disad debate, most of my HS 2NRs were CP disad.

The way I evaluate a disad doesn't deviate from the norm. Have all four parts and do impact weighing.

Turns case args are very nice

I'm down with most counter plans, especially agent and process. However, "cheating" counterplans like delay will not jive with me so keep that in mind.

I default to judge kick

T

Competiting interps is better than reasonability

Plan text in a vacuum is cool for me

Theory

Deep in my heart, I think condo is good. But, I'm open for a good condo debate. Tbh I prefer affs that limit the neg to 1 or none as opposed to like 1 and dispo or infinite dispo.

Most theory args are reasons to reject the argument, not the team.

K's

I think the topic is generally good and that debates about the topic are also good.

I'm not opposed to K debates, but my limited lit knowledge and liking for framework could make it an uphill battle for you.

I have voted for K affs before, FW is not an auto dub, debate well and you shall be rewarded.

Fairness on framework is a good impact imo.

TVAs are legit

"You link you lose" is nonsense. Teams can win by bitting the link and winning independent offense on the alt, so keep that in mind.

Other

If you read death good, I'm auto-voting against you and giving you the lowest speaks possible.

LD & PFD

I don't have a lot of detailed thoughts for these types of debates. I think they are valuable for students but my judging is policy-focused; so just do what you do best and I will judge accordingly.

Speaking rate should be normal. Focus on quality of arguments and clash. Formulate accurate analyses of evidence: what does it mean for the resolution? Civility and poise under all circumstances is appreciated.

Traditional style LD. Not big on flowing.

Assistant coach for 5 years.

Taken from Tyler Gamble's paradigm, but holds mostly true for me:
I will vote on anything that is justified as a ballot winning position.
My flow is poor. The faster you go the more arguments I will miss. I am truth over tech.
I subconsciously presume towards unique arguments/funny like-able people. This doesn't mean you will win, but if the round becomes unadjudicatable more often that not I'll decide your way.
I don't believe in speaker points.
If you are directly oppressive, I reserve the right to not vote for you.
Please keep me entertained...
Please make jokes. I find terrible dad humor jokes that fall flat to be the funniest.

Taken from Ellen Ivens-Duran's paradigm:
Here are the things that matter:
I did not debate as a student.
I have judged and coached PF and LD for (5) years.
I don’t lean towards any style of debate, just convince me why I should vote for you and you can win.
...

ABOUT ME -

I have been judging in Speech Events (HI, DI, DUO, EXT, OO), Debate Events (LD, PF, Policy) and Congressional Debate since 2018.

I enjoy judging Congressional Debates where I can see many debaters debate on numerous topics in the student chamber.

I favor to give points and rank high upon following skills even though congressional leaders need to be successful in passing legislation.

- Assertiveness – Standing up for one’s beliefs and being able to confidently take charge of difficult situations, making tough decisions despite opposition. In a politically charged environment where everyone is vying for their opinion to be heard, being assertive is key.

- Building Alliances – Earning trust and respect from others and taking the time to build effective working relationships with individuals.

- Commitment - Passionately and enthusiastically demonstrating a dedication to the causes and beliefs you espouse.

- Conflict Resolution - Effectively resolving misunderstandings, disagreements, and disputes with other individuals. Directly addressing issues with others in a non-threatening manner. Being willing to compromise in order to maintain effective working relationships.

- Influence - Using a variety of persuasion tactics, interpersonal skills, and communication and presentation strategies to convince others to make decisions that are mutually beneficial to all parties involved.

- Presentation Skills - Using effective verbal and nonverbal communication skills to clearly deliver information to a variety of audiences. Being confident and comfortable when speaking in front of groups. Making presentations that are clear, engaging and impactful.

JUDGING HISTORY-

- Barkley Forum for High Schools 1/29 - 1/31/2021

- Sunvite 2021

- Cavalier Invitational at Durham Academy 1/16 - 1/18/2021

- Florida Sunshine District Tournament 12/5

- FGCCFL December Tournament

- Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/21 - 11/23/2020

- FGCCFL November Tournament

- Florida Blue Key 2020 10/30 -11/1 Congress Debate

- Duke Invitational 2020 9/19 -9/20 Congressional Debate

- National Speech and Debate Season Opener Hosted by UK 2020 9/12 -9/14 Congressional Debate

- FGCCFL Grand Finals 2020 2/28 -2/29 Congress Debate

- FGCCFL February All Events 2020 2/8 IE & Congress Debate

- FGCCFL January All Events 2020 1/18 -1/18 IE & Congress Debate

- Florida Sunshine District Tournament 2019 12/14 -3/28 Congress Debate

- The Sunvitational 2020 1/10 -1/12 Congress Debate

- FGCCFL December All Events 2019 12/7 IE & Congress Debate

- Barkley Forum for High Schools 2020 1/24 -1/26

- Congressional Debate FGCCFL September All Events 2019 9/28 -9/28 IE & Congress Debate

- Florida Blue Key 2019 11/1 -11/3 Congress Debate

- Yale Invitational 2019 9/13 -9/15 Speech

- FGCCFL Grand Finals 2019 2/22 -2/23 Lincoln-Douglas

- Barkley Forum for High Schools 2019 1/25 -1/27

- Congressional Debate Florida Sunshine District Tournament 2018 12/8 -3/9

- Congressional Debate FGCCFL November All Events 2018 11/17 -11/17 IE and Congress Debate

- FGCCFL October All Events 2018 10/13 -10/13 Lincoln-Douglas

- FGCCFL September All Events 2018 9/22 -9/22 Public Forum Yale Invitational 2018 9/14 -9/16 Varsity Public Forum

BACKGROUND

Undergraduate:

- MBBS, University of Medicine, Yangon, Myanmar.

Post graduate:

- MPH, London School of Hyigene and Tropical Medicine, University London, UK

- MSc. Computer Science, Western Illinois University

- Post Doc Medical Informatics Fellowship, Health Science Technology, Harvard-MIT

*This will likely be somewhat confusing, please make an attempt to read it and I am more than willing to clarify before the round, but will not repeat it verbatim*

Background: Competed in PF, CD, and IX for Wauseon (OH), also debated in college for Heidelberg University. In addition, I competed at the 2018 Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl National Championships. I coached at Wauseon (OH). I am a Ph.D. candidate in applied economics at Western Michigan University. I have judged more extensively than my Tabroom indicates, as I judge every weekend, Ohio just does not use Tabroom. Primarily judge/parli Congress as such you will find my Congress paradigm much longer. Served as the Parliamentarian for the final round of Congress at the 2020 and 2021 OSDA State Tournaments, as well as the semifinal of the 2021 NCFL tournament .

Conflicts: Wauseon (OH)

FAQs

1. What should I call you?

You can refer to me by name. I also use he/him pronouns. Preferably don’t call me “judge”, that’s a bit strange.

2. Are there arguments you won’t vote off of?

If something is clearly false or abusive, I probably won’t vote for it. If you’re being blatantly offensive, I might drop you.

meme cases, do NOT run a meme case.

3. Should I shake your hand?

Please do not do that.

4. Do you disclose?

I will follow the rules of the specific tournament in regards to disclosure and oral feedback. But generally, if the tournament allows I prefer to disclose.

5. In Congress (and other debates) should I wait for a sign of readiness from you?

No, you may assume that I am always ready

Anything else?

Be respectful of your opponent. Ask for their pronouns and use them correctly. Don’t do things that will clearly and unnecessarily make the round unfair to your opponent (ie., don’t spread or run tricks against a novice or something like that. You won't auto lose me but I will be annoyed!) Have fun with it, it is supposed to be fun.

Feel free to ask me questions about anything on here or anything not on here.

General Debate Info

Speed:

I find myself very comfortable with any level of speed presented by debaters. However, do not use speed to be abusive to your opponents.

Argument Styles:

Link your arguments to the resolution. Do not leave me wondering what your case has to do with the resolution, and why you’re reading it. If you are reading something off case make me at least acutely aware as to how it links to the resolution.

Tableau Rasa:

The short answer, yes. If you say something inaccurate I will note it on the ballot, but will not consider it in my decision unless your opponent mentions it. Refer also to FAQ 2.

Evidence:

Yes, you should cite evidence to support your claims. Claims supported by evidence, empirics, and philosophy, along with developed warrants, links, and impacts will go a long way to winning my ballot.

CX:

Run as inventive of a case as you can properly defend in the round, maintaining proper respect for the activity and your opponents.

Give an off-time road map and signpost clearly in all speeches.

LD:

You should have a balance of hard evidence and philosophy within your case.

I will listen to and tolerate most any argument you run in front of me.

A Value and Value criterion are integral.

If you are going to use an uncommon philosopher/ school of philosophy make sure you flesh out the details of it, and do not simply name drop a philosopher.

PF:

Err on the side of more traditional arguments, stick to the resolution. I prefer to not judge a round of Policy with the time constraints of PF.

I like Grand Cross, I know some do not, but I believe it serves a purpose.

I do not enjoy being an interventionist judge in PF or LD.

Congress:

Modeling proper decorum is incredibly important, respect your opponents and the event if you fail to maintain proper decorum during the round you will fail to be high on my ballot. Included in having proper decorum is an understanding of the rules outlined in Parliamentary Procedure.

I tend to rank presiding officers quite well, it can even serve as a tie-breaker between two competitors when I conduct my pref ranking of the chamber. If you preside over an effective chamber it will boost your rank, if not it will drop you pretty far, as an ineffective presiding officer can quickly derail a chamber.

This is a debate event before anything. That means you should be adapting to the round as it goes. The sponsor and the first negative speaker should set up the round for strong debate. The sponsor should state the problem, how this bill fixes the problem, give one or two impacts from solving it, and if you're a superstar give me a framework. As the round moves on from these first two speeches, I should see an increasing amount of refutations and original views on the legislation. As we move into the last 1/3rd of the debate cycle there should be an increasing amount of extensions countering the other arguments of the other side of the debate while still maintaining an original point of view and analysis. When arguments for both sides are exhausted or when the debate becomes stale, I should see the crystallization of the debate, and speeches that refute the whole of the opposition not just individual speakers bringing the debate to an effective conclusion.

Effective cross-examination involves attacking your opponent’s arguments and exposing the flaws therein. Do not waste time by asking favorable questions of your opponent, use the time to ask them questions which clash and help to hash out the debate. Ask questions in a succinct manner, there is no reason your question should take half of the questioning block to ask. The same applies to long-winded answers, do not waste the questioning period. Defense in cross x is more straightforward because all I want to see is that you can defend your argument to the point where it is still standing strong after cross x. I prefer calmer cross x over yelling, remember that decorum is integral to successful Congressional debate.

I rank based on the totality of your participation in the chamber this includes decorum, questions, answers, speeches, and general participation(voting, making/seconding motions, etc.). Basically, participate and move the debate further and you will likely end up high on my pref ballot.

you tried

to call the

question

but you

said

"i motion"

not "i move"

-Rupi Kaur

I am a flow judge and enjoy an organized argument and overall strategy.

I tend to be policy-heavy but will entertain any arguments, including and especially debate theory arguments. I will vote on what the what the debaters tell me to vote on, and yes, that sometimes means stock issues *cringe*.

Don't be two male-identifying people running a feminism critique - you cannot do this without being horribly patronizing and I'm not sitting through it.

I (almost) never ask for cards at the end of the round. I will not make arguments FOR you to decide a debate. Read me the card. Tell me what it means and make your argument. If you think it's power-tagged or cut duplicitously, make that argument in your speeches.

I do not flow cross.

Conflicts: Greenwood Lab, Kickapoo HS, Poly Prep Country Day School

Greenwood Lab (China, Education, Immigration, Arms Sales)

Minnesota NDT (Alliances, Antitrust, Legal Personhood, Nukes)

3x NDT Qualifier

Octas of CEDA '24

Add me to the email chain: ask for it pre-round.

TL;DR: I care a great deal about debate and I will put all of my effort in adjudicating the next two hours. It frustrates me when I see paradigms that say "[x] is prohibited," but I feel the need to clarify some biases that might impact my judging. I generally am more persuaded by arguments that say AFFs should have plans, that the AFF will be weighed against the Kritik, and that the practice of conditionality is usually good. That said, I have voted for all types of arguments and am always amazed at the ways in which y'all continue to instruct and educate me as a judge.

My caveat to "nothing being prohibited" is that I will never vote on an argument based on something that happened out of round. I have no context, it feels too much like policing, and it is a shameful use of my ballot. Introducing arguments like this will be met with a 25, introducing arguments like this that pertain to an individual not present in the round (other debater on their team / coach) will be met with a 20. We will never be able to fully remedy issues in a debate round that is filtered through competitive incentives. Trying to rectify these issues out of round, where discussions are more than 9 or 6 minutes of screaming into laptop and the responsible admin and coaches on your team are present, seems like the best way to go. However if something happens in round, you can call them out or stake the debate on it. Also, if you use suicide as a form of "rhetorical advancement," read Pinker or Death Good, strike me. Goodness gracious!

If you ask for a 30 you will receive a 25.

I flow on paper.

Blake '23 PF Update: Evidence exchanges in this format are hoogely boogely to me. You should send a speech doc containing all the evidence you read prior to the speech, and it should be sent to both me and your opponents. I want your opponents to have the evidence so they can look at it rather than asking for individual cards. If you don't do this you get a 25.

---

Policy things:

Conditionality is generally good. I will judge kick unless told otherwise (starting in the 2AR is too late). This is usually the only argument that rises to the level of rejecting the team aside from an ethics violation.

T: Counter-interps > reasonability. I have yet to hear a debater persuade me to care about grammar as a standard. Having evidence with the intent to define and exclude is ideal. I am not great for T versus Policy AFFs unless the AFF is an egregious subset of a subset or some other nonsense that everyone should wag their finger at.

CPs: I lean NEG 51/49 on competition; but, "should" as meaning "immediate" has always seemed a bit silly to me. If your CP requires a robust theoretical defense for its legitimacy (Process CPs / PICs) and you win that defense, then more power to you. The same also applies to the theoretical defense of intrinsic permutations.

Bring back the lost art of case debate! Presumption pushes in the 2NR are underutilized; conversely, sometimes there is a huge risk of the AFF versus a small DA.

I am partial to AFFs that defend topical action the resolution dictates and read a plan. I have yet to be convinced that framework is violent and I find myself nodding along to a 2NR going for fairness. Clever TVAs are usually potent. I will be frank: if you have the shoddy luck of having me in the back while reading a planless AFF, the way to my ballot is going for an impact turn.

Ks? I am most familiar with Nietzsche, Psychoanalysis, Critical Disability Studies, and Berlant. Floating PIKs seem suspect and the 2AC should make a theory argument. I think link arguments have gotten increasingly interesting and should be answered more even when teams go for impact turns to the alt. I am inclined to weigh the AFF.

I very much care about the research aspect of debate, although debates will not be decided just on cards. At that point, why don't we exclusively send speech docs rather than speak? Yes, card doc.

I flow CX. There's a reason why it exists.

Ethics violations stop the round and will be decided based on tournament rules. If the accusing team is correct, they will receive a 29 / 29.1 W and the accused will receive a 25 / 25.1 L. If the accusing team is incorrect, those points and the win will be reversed. I think maybe our lives would be a bit easier if you give the team a courtesy email when you find a miscut / improperly cited card during pre-tournament prep while writing your Case NEGS / 2AC blocks instead of dropping an accusation mid-round.

Claws out, however you wish to debate.

I have a soft spot for local lay debate. I come from lay debate and I will defend lay debate until the day that I die. Only in this instance am I sympathetic to AFFs that indict the practice of conditionality, although my threshold for voting AFF versus a 1NC with 1 CP versus 2 is incredibly high. For Minnesota debaters: DCH has been one of the largest influences on the way that I think about debate. Take that as you will. Show me your flows and I'll give you +.1 speaks (if they're good flows).

---

"And he to me, as one experienced:

'Here all suspicions must be abandoned,

all cowardice must here be extinct.

We to the place have come, where I have told thee/

Thou shalt behold the people dolorous

Who have foregone the good of intellect.'"

Hello debaters,

I approach debate with a focus on substance and argumentation, emphasizing the importance of clear communication and effective case development. Here are key aspects of my judging philosophy:

1. Flow-Centric Evaluation:

   • I prioritize the flow as the primary tool for decision-making.
   • Debaters should clearly articulate and extend arguments throughout the round.
   • I appreciate organization and signposting to enhance the flow.

2. Impacts Matter:

   • I give weight to well-developed impacts that are linked to the resolution.
   • Impact calculus is crucial. Clearly explain why your impacts outweigh those presented by your opponent.

3. Technical Proficiency:

   • I value technical proficiency in debate. Solid understanding of debate theory and effective cross-examination will be rewarded.
   • However, I do not automatically vote on theory. Make sure to connect theoretical arguments to tangible impacts on the round.

4. Clarity and Signposting:

   • Clear, concise, and organized speeches are key. Clarity in communication helps me understand your arguments better.
   • Signpost consistently to help me follow your line of argumentation.

5. Adaptability:

   • I appreciate debaters who can adapt their strategy based on the flow of the round.
   • Flexibility in argumentation and the ability to adjust to your opponent's arguments will be recognized.

6. Framework and Weighing:

   • Framework is essential for framing the round, but it should be applied in a way that enhances substantive clash.
   • Effective weighing of impacts is crucial. Explain why your impacts are more significant in the context of the round.

7. Disinclination towards Theory Arguments:

   • I am not a fan of theory arguments. While I expect debaters to engage in substantive clash, relying heavily on theory arguments may not be as persuasive to me.

8. Respect and Sportsmanship:

   • Maintain a respectful and professional demeanor throughout the round.
   • I don't tolerate any form of discrimination or offensive language. Such behavior will have a negative impact on your speaker points.

9. Evidence Quality:

   • Quality over quantity. Well-analyzed and relevant evidence will carry more weight than a flood of less meaningful sources.
   • Reference your evidence appropriately and be prepared to defend its relevance.

Remember, this paradigm is a guide, and I am open to various debating styles and arguments. Adapt your approach to these guidelines, and feel free to ask for clarification on any specific preferences before the round begins.

PARADIGM IS FOR POLICY DEBATE

I competed in NFA-LD for two years in college (2017-2019). I competed in high school PFD and congress for four years (2013-2017) and high school LD for two years. I’m currently in law school. I flow every round carefully, but keep in mind that I haven’t debated in almost half a decade. I’ll vote on literally anything if you prove your case, but here are some things I might do differently from other judges:

1 I don’t believe sending your speech through Speechdrop is an adequate substitute for good speaking. I can keep up with a fast pace, but I refuse to flow anything unintelligible. How fast is too fast? If it’s faster than a typical podcast on 1.5x speed, you’re pushing it. This includes evidence.

2. In the spirit of #1, I generally don’t read speeches or evidence. There are two exceptions. First, if there’s a material dispute about what evidence says, I’ll read the evidence in question. Second, if I feel that you’re misconstruing your cards based on my understanding (or lack thereof) of your argument, I’ll take a look myself. In the spirit of nonintervention, I try to avoid using this second exception. If you read your evidence too fast (see #1), I’ll treat it as if you had no evidence at all.

3. If you lie about what your evidence says, and I find out, I will drop you. If both sides do it, I’ll bottom both sides’ speaker points.

4. If you run a K, assume I haven’t read the literature. Explain it. I won’t let you confuse your way to a win.

5. I have a low threshold for topicality.

If you have follow up questions, you can reach me at mradosevic816@gmail.com

I am a lay judge who will look to weigh the evidence in voting issues at the end of the round. I can handle moderate speeds if you speak clearly and fluently.

BACKGROUND:

Please include the following emails in email chains: ccroberds@spsmail.org and khsemailchain@gmail.com - sometimes my spsmail account is really slow in receiving emails. I honestly prefer speechdrop, but email is ok if that's your norm or what your coach prefers. My least favorite option is the file share.

I am the debate coach at Kickapoo High School in Missouri. I have been involved in policy debate since 1994 as a student and/ or coach. The 2022-23 topic marks my 27th. I have coached in very critical circuits (one round with a plan read by any team in an entire year), very community judge oriented circuits (that don't allow CPs or Ks), TOC qualifying circuit, ELL circuits, and combinations of all circuits. If you have questions, please email ccroberds@spsmail.org

Update - 1/20 - a note about prepping your speech before you speak

My expectation is that you send out a doc BEFORE you speak that includes the evidence AND analytics that you intend to read in the speech if they are typed up. They should also be in the order that you are going to speak them. It is an accessibility issue. If you type them up in the round, that's one thing - but if they are your blocks (or your team blocks) they should be sent. This includes AT A MINIMUM the text of perms, the texts of counterplans, the text of interpretations of why you reject a team, etc. Also, if you choose to just randomly jump around in a document please know that it will dramatically impact your speaks. Nobody is as good at flowing in online debates as we are in person, having the doc and reading it in order helps improve the activity.

Important norms to keep tournaments running on time

Please show up to the room to establish email chains/ speechdrop, disclose the 1ac/ past 2nrs, do tech checks, etc. AS SOON AS POSSIBLE after pairings have been released (read at least 20 minutes prior assuming pairings come out 30 minutes prior to round). The 1ac should start when the pairing says unless there is a tournament related reason. Once you get to the room and do tech check, feel free to use the rest of the time to prep, etc. If it's an in person tournament, please show up when the pairings get released, set up an email chain or speechdrop, disclose the 1ac/ past 2nrs, and then go prep - just come back to the room before the round is supposed to start. If you can't get to the room for some reason, it is your responsibility to email me and the other team to let us know.

Please know that if you don't do this, it will negatively effect your speaker points by .5. Choosing to show up late makes tournaments run behind and gives unfair advantages to teams with multiple coaches (I have to be here to judge and coach my team - if you choose to be late, I assume it's because you're getting extra coaching which gives you an unfair advantage over teams whose coaches are judging).

Cliff's Notes Version (things to do in the 10 minutes before the round):

- As long as we are online, please make sure you are adding intentional breaks between arguments. These can be verbal or non-verbal but they are necessary to make sure flowing is happening from the oral arguments instead of just from the speech doc. As an example, clearly say the word "next" or "and" after each card/ subpoint/ etc. or slow down for the tags to where there is a noticeable difference between the card or warrants and the next tag. This is one of those things that the technology just isn't as good as being face-to-face, but it may make debate better down the line.

- Disclose on the wiki pre-round unless you are breaking a new case. I can be persuaded, relatively easily, that this is a voting issue (this is not about small details in the case, but overall picture). Once a case is broken, please put it up as soon as possible. If you read it at last tournament and haven't found time to put it up, that's a problem. Also, at a minimum, the negative should be posting their main off case positions. Before the round, the aff and neg should both know what the opponent is reading as a case and what positions they have gone for at the end of debates on the negative. Having coached at a small and economically disprivileged school most of my life, the arguments against disclosure literally make no sense to me.

- I like politics a lot more than Ks - My perfect generic 2NR is politics and an agent CP. The best way to win a K in front of me is to argue that it turns case and makes case impossible to solve.
- I don't like cheap shots - I think plan flaws are a reason to ask questions in the CX or pre-round. Make debate better.
- K Framework - I prefer to do policy making. However, you need to answer the project if they run it.
- Cheating CPs - I don't like backfile check type CPs (veto cheato) or "I wrote this for fun" CPs (consult Harry Potter/ Jesus). I do like topic agent CPs (like have China do the plan, have the private sector do the plan).

- Link vs Uniqueness - Uniqueness determines the direction of the link - if it is not gonna pass now, there is no way the link can make it pass less.

- Cross-ex is always open unless another judge objects.
- Be Nice and FLOW!

High School Policy Specifics:

- I know that the last couple of topics don't have core stable offense for the neg. This definitely makes the neg more intuitively persuasive to me on questions of topicality and on the threshold that I need for the negative to win some kind of a link. I don't like CPs that aren't tied to topic specific literature. This includes, but is not limited to, contrived fiat tricks designed to garner net-benefits. This includes NGA, ConCon, etc. It doesn't mean I won't vote for it, it just means my threshold for aff theory, etc. is really low. If you are choosing between a CP that I have listed above and a disad with a less than ideal link (not no link, just less than ideal), it would be more persuasive to me to read the disad.

Here is a crystalized version of this stolen from Will Katz but it explains what I think about contrived CPs - "I am over contrived process cp's. If you don't have aff/topic specific evidence for your cp, I probably won't care if the aff's perm is intrinsic. If you don't have evidence about the plan, why does the aff's perm only have to be about the plan?"

I am a high school coach who tends to be at TOC tournaments about 3/4 of the time and local tournaments (with community judges) the other 1/4. However, I do cut a lot of cards, coach at camps, and think about the topic a lot which means that I have a pretty good grip on the topic. This means I may not know the intricacies of how your particular argument may functions in the high school environment you are competing in right now.

High School LD Specifics:

My default is that I don't need a value and value crit. in order to vote for you. However, I can be persuaded that it is needed. If the affirmative reads a particular interpretation of the topic (i.e. they read a plan) then, absent theory arguments about why that's bad, that becomes the focus of the debate. If the affirmative does not read a plan then the negative can still read disadvantages and PICs against the entirety of the topic. I don't terribly love NRs and 2ARs that end with a series of voting issues. Most of the time you are better off using that time to explain why the impacts to your case outweigh your opponent's case as opposed to describing them as voting issues. If you are going to make an argument in the NC that there is a different framework for the debate than what the affirmative explains in the AC, you need to make sure you fully develop that position. Framework functions very differently in LD compared to policy so make sure your blocks are written out for that reason.

I'm not a big fan of a big theory pre-empt at the end of the 1ac. I think the aff case is the time when you should be making most of your offensive arguments and most of the time theory is set up to be defensive. This is particularly silly to me when the aff has more time in rebuttals than the neg does anyway.

NFA LD Specifics:

I am relatively new to this format of debate but I like it a lot. I think debate should be viewed through a policy framework in this style of debate, but I can be persuaded out of this belief. However, if your main strategy is to say that the rules of NFA are problematic or that you shouldn't have to weigh the case and the DA, then I think you fighting an uphill battle.

Also, given the limited number of speeches, I tend to err on the side of starting aff framework as early as possible (probably the AC). This is mostly to protect the aff since if it's not brought up until the 2ac/ 1ar it is possible for the NR to straight turn it and leave the 2ar in an unwinnable position.

In Depth Stuff:

GENERAL-
I tend to prefer policy oriented discussions over kritikal debates but I will be happy to evaluate whatever you want to run. My favorite debates come down to a clash between specific arguments on the flow of the advantages and disadvantages. On theory you should number or slow down your tags so that I get the clash. I can flow your speed if it is clear, but if you want me to get the 19 reasons why conditionality is a bad practice you should slow down to a speed I can flow the blips. That said, I tend to prefer fast debate to slow debates that ultimately don't point to the resolution of the topic.
Read warrants in your evidence. Full sentences are how people speak. They have things like nouns, verbs, and prepositions. Please make sure that your evidence would make sense if you were reading it slowly.
If the round is close, I tend to read a decent amount of evidence after the round if there is a reason to do so. If you want me to call for a specific card please remind me in the 2nr/ 2ar.
Also please give reasons why your offense turns their offense besides "war causes x."

SPECIFICS-

Disclosure theory note:

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, new, or international 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 three 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 or on a previous day and 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. 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 before the round.

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.

Topicality- I believe the affirmative should affirm the topic and the negative should negate the plan. It is fairly difficult to convince me that this is not the appropriate paradigm for the affirmative to operate under. The best way to think about topicality in front of me is to think about it as drawing lines or a fence. What does debate look like for a season when the negative wins the topicality argument vs. what does it look like when the affirmative wins. Affirmatives that push the bounds of the topic tend to be run more as the season progresses so the negative should be thinking through what the affirmative justifies if their interpretation because the standard for the community. This also means that there is no real need to prove real or potential *problems in the debate.

If the affirmative wants to win reasonability then they should be articulating how I determine what is reasonable. Is it that they meet at least one of the standards of the neg's T shell? Is it that there is a qualified source with an intent to define that thinks they are reasonable? Is it that there is a key part of the topic literature that won't get talked about for the season unless they are a topical affirmative?

If you want me to vote on Topicality the 2nr (or NR in LD) should be that. Spending less than the entire 2nr on a theoretical issue and expecting me to vote on it is absurd. I would only vote neg in that world if the affirmative is also badly handling it.

Counterplans- I love counterplans. I typically believe the negative should be able to have conditional, non-contradicting advocacies but I can be persuaded as to why this is bad. Typically this will need to be proven through some type of specific in round problem besides time skew. I think that the permutations should be more than "perm: do both, perm: do the plan, perm: do the CP."

Kritiks- I am not as deep on some of this literature as you are. You should take the time in CX or a block overview to explain the story of the K. Performance style debate is interesting to me but you will have to explain your framework from the beginning. I probably tend to be more easily swayed by the framework arguments about clash compared to exclusion. I will tend to default to preferring traditional types of debate.

Politics- I like good politics debates better than probably any other argument. I like interesting stories about specific senators, specific demographics for elections d/as, etc. With this being said, I would rather see a fully developed debate about the issue. I tend to evaluate this debate as a debate about uniqueness. Teams that do the work tend to get rewarded.

My perfect debate- Without a doubt the perfect round is a 2nr that goes for a pic (or advantage cp with case neg) and a politics d/a as a net benefit.

*Questions of "abuse" - This is a soapbox issue for me. In a world of significant actual abuse (domestic abuse, child abuse, elder abuse, bullying, etc.), the use of the word to describe something as trivial as reading a topical counterplan, going over cross-x time by 3 seconds, or even not disclosing seems incredibly problematic. There are alternative words like problematic, anti-educational, etc. that can adequately describe what you perceive to be the issue with the argument. Part of this frustration is also due to the number of times I have heard debaters frustrate community judges by saying they were abused when the other team read an argument they didn't like. Please don't use this phrase. You can help make debate better.

Paperless and speaker point stuff-
I used to debate in a world where most people had their evidence on paper and the one thing that I believe has been lost through that is that people tend to look more at the speech doc than listening to the debate. I love paperless debate, just make sure that you are focusing on the speech itself and not relying exclusively on the document that the other team has sent you. Flowing well will often result in improved speaker points.

If you are using an online format to share evidence (e.g. speechdrop or an email chain), please include me in the loop. If you are using a flashdrive, I don't need to see it.

I don't expect teams to have analytics on the speech document (but if you are asked by your opponent for equity or accessibility reasons to have them there, please do so). I do expect teams to have every card, in order, on the speech document. If you need to add an additional card (because you've been doing speed drills), that's fine - just do it at the end of the speech.

If you let me know that your wiki is up to date including this round (both aff and neg) and send me the link, I'll also bump speaker points by .2.

Masks stuff for in person (last updated 4/7/23)

COVID and other diseases are still real. If I'm feeling at all under the weather, I will wear a mask. I ask you to do the same. All other things being equal, you are free to debate with or without a mask. However, if you are asked to wear a mask by an opponent or judge who is also wearing a mask, and you choose not to, it is an auto-loss with the lowest speaker points that I am allowed to give. This is a safety issue.

Along those lines, with the experiences that many have gone through in the last year, please don't make arguments like "death good," "disease good," etc. While there may be cards on those things, they very violent for many people right now. Please help make debate a safe space for people who are coming out of a very difficult time.

Hello! I'm Henry, a freshman in college. I did debate for 8 years. 5 of those years were PF. I enjoy fun debate rounds, and I don't think I'm a very picky judge. That being said, here are some things you should keep in mind:

Be respectful.

I don't flow the authors of cards, so if you refer to a card solely by it's author without any reminder of what it says, there's a good chance I won't know what you're talking about.

I won't vote on any argument that's not mentioned in Final Focus. That doesn't mean I will vote on every argument mentioned in Final Focus. If your opponent rebuts one of your arguments, and you don't address that rebuttal, I won't count your argument even if you mention it in Final Focus (in other words, no flowing through ink).

On the other hand, if you make 6 rebuttals to one argument, and your opponent responds to the first 5, it is probably healthy to remind me about the sixth response that didn't get responded to and to assume I don't remember it perfectly (you don't have to restate the whole rebuttal. just give me a reminder).

I listen to crossfire but I don't flow it. So if you want something from cross to get on my flow, you had better bring it up later.

If I don't understand an argument or rebuttal, I won't consider it. Don't worry too much about this though--I'm not stupid.

Please please please please please signpost. I honestly don't even care if you roadmap or not as long as you signpost really clearly.

I have a bit of background on this topic, but not a whole ton.

I consider content when awarding speaker points (you have to sound like you're saying smart and convincing things and actually say smart and convincing things).

Please feel free to ask any questions! I'm happy to answer them.

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.

I would like to be on the email chain if there is one carleigh.l.west@gmail.com

I have my masters in communication studies and bachelor’s in political science from West Virginia University. While at WVU, I competed for their policy team for about two years, and I have a year of competing in parliamentary and IPDA debate while at Shepherd University. I am currently a research and evaluation coordinator for a non-profit

I will listen to just about any argument but I enjoy debates with a clear framework to weigh the round. I think debate is an educational activity and creates a lot of great opportunities for learning, so my openness to many arguments really stems from wanting to sus out the ideas that debaters want to bring to the table. Most importantly, though, have fun! Get into it! I appreciate humor in a round as well!

General (And also some framework stuff):

• I love educational impacts, we are doing an educational activity, so we see grounded impacts when we can impact education. That doesn't mean I won't vote on non-educational impacts, just that I have a fondness for education.
• Have fun with this! You're likely up early on a Saturday to be here! Have fun!

AFF/Case: Please be clear about your impacts and your framing. As I had mentioned, I will vote on just about anything, but being clear about where your impacts lie and how I should be viewing the round is really important and will make it easier for me to vote for you. Also love a good case turn or impact turn.

T: I mean, I’ll vote on it, I just might be sad. If you’re going to read T, please just make it clear and uphold your standards. Please be clear about where the violation is and why the limits are necessary.

Theory: like T. My threshold for dropping the debater is going to be pretty high.

CP: Pretty much weighing like how I would weigh the plan.

K: I love a good K. A kritik done well can really lead to great discussions in round. I do think you need to have a good link story to the AFF and a clear alternative. I’ll vote on generic Ks since I think generic Ks help for getting folks into critical literature if it’s done well and is weighed well against the aff. I may know the literature, I may not. Regardless, you should be able to give a good, simple explanation of your K.

Perms: Whether it is a CP or a K if you are going for the perm, please explain how it functions. What does doing both look like? Sequencing can be super important!

DA: DAs are cool with me. Give me a good story of how the DA happens, do your impact calc and I’ll vote on it

I am currently an assistant coach at Lansing. 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: jeriwillard@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.

LD:

1. Speed: I don't like speed in Policy and I certainly don't like it in LD... I will be flowing the round (not following a file share), so if I can't keep up then you are risking a pathway to my ballot.
2. Values/VC's: I am a firm believer that this is a Value debate, and that your Value is the heartbeat of your case in the round. So, without a Value premise still standing at the end of the round it is difficult for me to vote your way.
3. Impact Calculus: A KeyVo for me in every round will be who has reiterated the greater impacts in the round. Show me clearly how your side has the greater impact on the things that matter in life and you'll be set up well for my ballot.
4. Neg Arguments:While I DO believe you can offer alternatives to the Aff stance to make your arguments, I am NOT a proponent of CP's in LD. Having said that, I do NOT consider it a CP if you simply say, "Look at what X country did and it worked well for them" when opposing the Aff stance.
5. K's: While I'd probably prefer we didn't run K's in LD, please see point 3 under my CX Paradigm for my stance on K's.

CX:

While I am an experienced Coach, there are a handful of preferences you need to know about me for CX in particular:

1. Terminal Impacts: NOT a fan... If you choose to run them, it will be in your best interest to link them to something tangible either past or present. If they are based on the future, you better have some serious links that PROVE that they WILL be happening in the immediate future. Basing terminals straight on hypotheticals are generally no bueno for me...
2. Speed: Also not a fan... If you choose to spread, you are risking my ballot. I will not be reading your case through a file share, I will be flowing, so if I can't keep up then you are risking a pathway to my ballot. However, if I am the only one on the panel that doesn't like spreading, RIP me and I'll do my best...
3. K's: Not against voting for them, BUT you better explain them as if you are speaking to a toddler so I can follow it. They also better be impactful.
4. CP's: I will definitely vote for these if you can prove your new proposal outweighs the proposed. I believe that in Policy these are one of the only ways you can gain good Offense as the Neg, so definitely will vote for them if they solve better.
5. Topicality: I will vote on T, especially if the Aff Plan is wacky and untopical. If it's clearly topical, Neg may want to go for something else.
6. Stock Issues: These are the key voting issues in my mind for every Policy Round.
7. Neg Arguments: If you decide to go for multiple arguments throughout the round, I would very much prefer that you DO NOT drop all but 1 and go for only it in the 2NR. This feels like a huge waste of time throughout the entire round. Link the whole round together and tell me how you've won and how the proposed plan fails to meet the standards of a plan worth implementing.
8. Aff Teams: Successfully support your plan throughout the round. Tell me how this plan is the best idea for the USFG. Win the Stock Issues. Make your Advantages outweigh.

brianwinckler@bolivarschools.org

About Me

she/they

Broken Arrow HS ‘19 (LD 4 years)

Mo State '23 (NDT/CEDA + NFA LD 3 years)

GTA @ Wichita State

Conflicts: Broken Arrow, Tulsa Union, Pembroke Hill, Maize South, Missouri State

yes email chain: lilwood010@gmail.com

Overview

These are just my random thoughts about debate collected into one place. If you do what you do well, you will be fine. I am down for almost anything.

Policy first, NFA LD next, then HS LD at the bottom -- if there is no specific section for either LD format assume it’s the same as policy or ask me questions pre round! :)

yes open cx - yes you can sit during cx - yes flex prep

!!:) please send out analytics :)!!

Please provide trigger warnings if there is graphic descriptions of violence against fem ppl included in your arguments

K Affs/Ks

I prefer K affs that are related to the topic OR the debate space. I enjoy watching performance K affs that incorporate parts of the topic.

I believe fairness (procedurally or structurally) is not an impact. I believe it is an internal link.

I love a good TVA - but I would prefer it be creative to the aff and carded to demonstrate that it could solve the aff's offense.

I believe perf con is bad.

I'm starting to believe I prefer movements / material alternatives over reject / thought project alternatives. I find myself easily persuaded by arguments that alternatives lack the means to resolve the links and impacts. I like when alternatives are specific in what they accomplish in the block.

I LOVE perm debates. I am a sucker for creative perms that are specific to the alternative. If you execute this strategy correctly, you will be rewarded.

CP

I think condo is good to an extent. The extent is up for debate.

I default to judge kick.

T

I LOVE T!

In round abuse should be present, but I also believe that setting a precedent for the community might be more important.

I think grounds and limits are both good arguments, but I find I am more persuaded by limits. Going for either is fine.

Misc.

I LOVE ptx.

Impact turn debates are super fun.

NFA LD

NFA LD has some norms that are different than policy so I will try to establish my thoughts on some of those in here.

yes spreading - yes disclose - yes email chain - (sigh) yes speech drop

Disclosure

Will vote on disclosure theory IF it's egregious. I think empty wikis are probably bad after attending 2 tournaments. I think if every aff they've ever read is uploaded, even if not every round is, zeroes the impact. I think not disclosing an aff 15 minutes prior to the round is probably bad if no wiki entries or multiple affs on the wiki. TLDR: nondisclosure has to actually inhibit your pre round prep.

Theory/Procedurals

I think mandating an inherency contention is silly, UQ from the advantages can answer this.

Solvency advocate theory is cowardice. If the aff doesn't have a solvency advocate, then... you should... be able to beat it...

Will vote on speed bad due to accessibility concerns.

For condo, my thoughts differ from policy and HS LD. With a 6 minute 1ar, that allows the affirmative more time to answer NC arguments. Therefore, unlike in HS LD, 2 CPs are probably my max. However, if the 2 CPs are polar opposite worlds (ex - US should engage in bilat relations with China vs US should first strike China) I would be willing to err affirmative. Kicking planks is probably bad. Judge kick is probably bad. Basically, make sure your CPs aren't abusive, and I'm good.

Other Thoughts

Stop being scared to put offense across the pages in the 1ar.

Bad DAs can be beat with analytics and impact D.

Update your ptx UQ cards.

Call out people's crappy case cards.

Cut better case cards.

I hate underviews.

HS LD

I prefer 1/2 off in depth debates to shallow 3/4 off debates in LD - I find that by the end of the round if there is more than 2 off I am left doing a lot of work for teams simply because there was not enough time to cover every necessary component in an argument.

T

RVIs aren’t real and I will never vote on them unless there is literally 0 (and I mean 0, not a single word said) arguments on it. even then, I will be extremely sad. please don't go for it.

CP

1 CP is fine - 2 is too many (hint hint: i am very aff leaning on condo)

Theory

Theory in LD is wild to me. I am not the best judge for silly theory tricks. The theory I am most willing to vote on is condo and perf con. Second most willing is any other policy theory arg. If you're wondering about a specific theory arg feel free to ask me pre round.

Lawrence Free State ‘19

University of Iowa ‘23

TL:DR--you do you, just tell me what to care about and why

You can refer to me w any pronouns

Largest influence is Sean Kennedy if you care about that

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

Please trigger warn and don't be condescending to your opponents

- Flex 2N--went about 50/50 for critical and policy based arguments (familiar with all the basic k stuff, settler colonialism, queer pessimism/futurity arguments, assemblage identity stuff, afro-pessimism, haptic touch, necropolitics, and virilio). I enjoy all kinds of arguments delivered in all styles and will listen to anything. I also rlly like hearing things I haven't heard before!

- Evidence quality > quantity. Please do evidence comparison. Coherent highlighting is good.

A handful of argument specific thoughts and subtle biases I have--

T/FW/Theory

- FW debates--why does your offense matter more than theirs? tell me :)) I see too many of these debates that lack impact comparison. I tend to view fairness as an internal link to better research/argument refinement rather than its own impact, but that shifts based on the debate/explanation of the terminal impact.

- Like FW, T debates need, and often lack, comparison between impacts or top level framing arguments. Do limits outweigh precision? Do limits turn ground? Is aff or neg flexibility more important given the research burdens on this topic? Idk unless you tell me.

- I default to competing interps--theory debates need a clear interpretation, not just "x thing is bad" or "x thing is good." Reasonability is usually deployed as defense to limits arguments, not a model for how I should evaluate the round

- Condo can be a winning 2AR--I default to viewing it through an offense-defense lens like everything else--it is possible to win that even one conditional advocacy is a reason to reject the team--I'll vote on it. When evaluating other theory arguments I will lean heavily toward rejecting the argument not the team (exception is disclosure/mis-disclosure).

Policy Stuff

- I often find that the difference in comparative risk of internal link chains between an advantage and a dissad is larger/more important than the difference in the size of the terminal impact (unless its an existential dissad versus a structural violence advantage). This is because most impacts people read are very large and universally bad, but I often find one internal link chain may carry significantly more risk of happening than the other due to evidence quality, defensive arguments, etc. 

- Turns case arguments tend to be more persuasive the earlier in the internal link chain they are triggered--"link alone turns the aff" is much better than "nuke war causes aff impact to happen for obvious reason." Turns case args are more effective when paired with a timeframe distinction (dissad makes aff impact inevitable before aff can access it).

- I default to thinking judge kick is fine unless the aff tells me I shouldn't. Those arguments should start before the 2AR

- Not a fan of new 2NC counterplans/amended counterplan texts/new planks. I kind of think this is cheating and lazy. The 1AR is hard enough and the negative team should have some obligation to stick to the strategy they laid out in the 1NC to avoid shallow debates. 

K debates

- I am unlikely to adopt totalizing frames for framework--"only plan focus matters" or "no evaluating the aff" will probably not be persuasive unless one team is v far ahead

- HOWEVER, with Ks which dispute the reading/performance of the aff it does not make sense to try to weigh those discursive ramifications against some hypothetical government policy. The aff probably has to first justify why the introduction of the 1AC was good. Winning that I shouldn't care about what you said/did in the 1AC will be an uphill battle for me. In a discursive activity I think it makes sense to care about what people say.

- The more specific the links are to the aff's mechanism or performance, the more compelling they are against the permutation. The links should function as specific reasons why inclusion of the aff in the world of the alternative is bad or impossible, which in my view requires some dispute with the aff in particular rather than the state in general. 

- In KvK rounds, link/impact framing often ends up centering my decision. I think affs should probably get a permutation, but I need a concrete idea of what the aff is/does in order to understand how it is not mutually exclusive with the negative's strategy.

- I also think presumption is viable against many planless affs. The question of "what do you do though?" is kind of a cliche at this point, but something that matters a lot for the round. I prefer affs to have a method or advocacy that I can explain in a substantive way in the RFD, especially if the debate comes down to a permutation or link question. If your aff does nothing, I would suggest that you pretend like it does something.

Some aesthetic preferences

- Don't do long overviews--I prefer overviews to consist of impact framing and turns case arguments, everything else can happen during line by line.

- Read re-highlightings, don't just insert them 

- Less reliance on blocks usually means higher speaks

- Counterplans with lit not grounded in the topic area are :((

- Like p much everyone else, I prefer fewer, more well developed arguments than the 11-off-cannon-of-garbage. I also enjoy strategies being effectively tailored to the aff you're debating--1NCs that are designed with 1) arguments specific to the aff and 2) particular block strategies based on arguments you pigeon hole the 2AC into making will be rewarded with higher speaks. I like that a lot more than reading the same 3 process counterplans and 4 dissads in every round and then going for whatever they undercover.