Hello!

My name is Ava Autrey (they/them!) and I am a freshman at William Jewell College. I have done just about every event in the book. I am a 2x National Qualifier in HI and a national finalist in Poetry.

I also am a parli debater, but have had experience in all forms. i don’t know this years topic, 

I am a Junior Policy Debater at Kickapoo High School. I have been doing debate, specifically policy debate, since the first semester of my freshman year. Obviously, policy debate is my favorite, but it's also fun to judge other debates and learn more about their current topics.

I will be flowing the round and will see if any argument gets untouched or dropped in the round, although it is good for you to bring that up as well.

Policy: I am most knowledgeable in policy and can follow it very easily. I do not like the round if there are not any big clashes in the round. If you don't answer a single thing on the opponent's side I will not be voting for you. Impact debates are probably my favorite if you can accurately explain them and give your links. Make sure you fully explain your plan and what are you solving for or else I will be just as confused as your opponents. Don't talk about bathtubs.

PF/LD: With these two types of debate I know basically nothing about them. I know the premise of them and how they work but that is about it. My vote in the round will go to who had the best arguments and who explained them better to a lay judge so I can actually understand it.

Hello All:

My email is kimsburton@gmail.com.

Although I competed in debate tournaments in high school, that was several decades ago. I don't have any experience with virtual debates, so please be patient with me. I'm an attorney that works in the energy policy sector. I've worked as a trial attorney and as an administrative judge, so my preference is that you don't prioritize speed over quality arguments.

Good Luck!

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.

Quick Summary - I am a former high school debater, I am a flow judge but will change to however you debate. DISCLOSE AND DO NOT PARAPHRASE! Have fun and be nice. I will be voting in a vacuum of the debate without any bias.

Background - Hi, I'm Blake Dodd I am currently a Freshman at the University of Kansas. I am a former Champ Public Forum debater, I have competed in PF my entire debate career but know how to evaluate other forms of debate as well. I always will be flowing and evaluating your arguments. My pronouns are he/him/his.

Style - I am much more of a flow judge then a lay judge. Do what you want though, I'll accommodate to your style of debate. Slow down during tags, If I don't flow it you didn't say it. Any discriminating slur used will tank your speaker points and most likely the loss. Most importantly, remember it is a debate round, learn lots, and have fun. I know the pain of a judge not evaluating or just not listening. So with that said I will be flowing everything you say. Tech>Truth, you must explain why arguments matter or do not matter. I will not make arguments for you. Otherwise I am a pretty chill debater and judge. Be nice to your opponents. If you want to spread ask your opponents and check with me before you do. If you are going to spread I expect a speech doc with what your are reading. I strongly believe in disclosure, please disclose before round on the PF/Policy debate wiki (if you have more questions about disclosure please email me or ask before the round), if your opponents ask for your case or any evidence give it to them. I am strongly against paraphrasing, I highly recommend to not do it in front of me. There is no grace period beyond 3 seconds, once your speech time is up stop reading.

Specifics - "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 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.

Pronouns - If you have different pronouns or would like to be addressed in a different way please let me know and I would be happy to change my language. Please always use your opponents preferred pronouns or your speaker points will drop very quickly.

Theory/Progressive Arguments - I am perfectly fine if you want to read any progressive arguments in front of me such as disclosure theory or paraphrase theory. Other progressive arguments just check with me before you read it. More than likely it will be fine.

Contact - Email: blakedodd04@gmail.com

This is my email address so that evidence can be shared in-round if needed- fosterm22@smithville.k12.mo.us

National Qualifier in IX

In the past, I seem to have had a small commitment issue with picking a type of debate, so I have done all the main types (LD, CX, PF).

Some general things

1. I don't like rudeness and tend to look more favorably upon those who are respectful to their opponents, the general rules of debate, etc.

2. Don't lie about evidence or what your opponents have said throughout the round- I will know. Honestly, lying could lose the round for you.

3. I don't care how fast you talk as long as I can understand you.

I am a mix between a flow and a lay judge, I'll be flowing the round (obviously), but I'll also take emotional appeals/arguments into account. Obviously, evidence will always take precedence over pure assertions. Weighing is also a big deal for me, as is topicality (Once again obviously this might not apply to every resolution/type of debate, so take this with a grain of salt).

Below are my paradigms sorted by event.

Best of luck!

General:

• Spreading is okay as long as your opponents and I can understand you.

• If possible, I’d like a copy of your case(s), but it is not required by any means. This will just be for my own reference to follow along in the round, and I will return it/delete it at the end of the round if requested (this will not impact my decision at all. If you are unable to provide a copy, that is perfectly fine!).

• For debate, please state an outline before your speech, so that I can know how many pages I need for flow.

• I will keep time, as should the competitors. I can give time signals if requested.

Policy:

Anything not listed here is pretty much free game. Do as you please, but back it up with evidence and be respectful.

• I'm okay with Kritiks, but make the connection to the resolution extremely clear using evidence. If it is not clear, or if the connection is weak, I will disregard it.

Example: Using this year's resolution, "The United States federal government should substantially increase its protection of water resources in the United States,” you can run a feminism Kritik, but if you have no cards with information on how feminism impacts water resources in the US, I will disregard it. The evidence needs to directly establish a correlation. Implications make a weak case. It needs to be clearly stated.

• No game theory. I won’t dock points for it, but it won't be considered in my deciding the ballot.

• I will hear out Topicality, but again, it needs to be boldly stated, with your points crystal clear. You need to provide evidence. I will not weigh topicality heavier than other voters, nor will it be the sole reason for a vote.

• Disadvantages hold the same weight as Advantages in regards to voters.

Public Forum:

Anything not listed here is pretty much free game. Do as you please, but back it up with evidence and be respectful.

• I prefer arguments over style. I do not mind the way you debate the topic, but I will weigh the arguments made more than style in my vote.

• Any argument that you would like considered as a voter needs to be extended to the rebuttal/ summary speech(es).

• I will vote on arguments raised in crossfire only if they are extended to the rebuttal/summary speech(es).

• I weigh analytics and evidence equally, but you cannot have one without the other. If you have analytics, but weak evidence, I will not vote on it, vice versa.

Lincoln- Douglas:

Anything not listed here is pretty much free game. Do as you please, but back it up with evidence and be respectful.

• You can read Kritiks, or Counterplans, but make sure you stick to the general structure of LD otherwise.

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.

be swag.

policy is not swag.

K’s in LD=not swag

progressive stuff be careful, or no swag.

Following flow, determines swag.

Ik LD and PF, not Policy.

the quicker you speak the less I write down

i don’t know policy lingo

SO basically keep it traditional, and you'll achieve swag.

Carson Kennedy

Kickapoo High School

Missouri State University

He/Him/His

Email: Kickapookm@gmail.com

TLDR

My philosophical rules change a lot, while my debate views are more static. I view debate as a competitive activity that happens to be educational. Absent problematic action, I will prioritize the competitive aspect of debate over educational benefits. However, these are not mutually exclusive, but can compete occasionally. In other words... tech > truth.

1 - Policy v Policy

2 - Policy v K [my favorite debates]

3 - K v K

Specifics

This is all of my personal beliefs but by no means does it dictate a majority of my decision. But playing into my strengths may assist with speaker points, and understanding of arguments  both philosophically and functionally.

Topicality

T V Policy---I think these debates are all to common and ruin the substantive engagement in debate. In my opinion, The negative needs to win the affirmatives version of the topic is untenable in the context of research required to adequately engage substantively. While affirmatives will need to frame the debate to cater towards that opinion. The impact level debating in these contestations is usually lackluster and copy and pasted. Please, contextualize your arguments for what the affirmative does to make limits increase and ground decrease. Predictability is probably more important than debatability but no strong feelings about this. Fairness is an impact, but a better internal link. I'm guessing I err affirmative in these debates.

K v FW---I love these debates because I think there is lots of impact work being done, but I think they lack internal link work. I need a fortified defense of either's model of debate, what the opposing side justifies, and how that interacts with the stability of the topic. I understand these are mostly analytical but please do not fly through your 15 DA's to FW. I'm guessing I err negative in these debates.

Theory

Probably my favorite part of debate. I went for condo bad at least 10 times my senior year and never lost. I think dispo is good but I don't necessarily think condo is bad. Honestly no bias on a truth level, but in debate condo is atrocious. If the block drops dispo solves just make it the 2AR and you'll most likely win unless you make a worse technical error. A lot of stuff is reject the argument for me unless given a persuasive reason not to, hidden ASPEC shells will drop speaks by 1 minimum. I do believe performative contradictions are probably bad and have gone for this argument a decent amount, but if responded to would most likely err neg. Overall I'm slightly neg leaning except on condo potentially slightly aff leaning.

CP

Counterplans are very enjoyable to judge when done correctly. The influx of process cp's has been bad for debate in my opinion, but what are you going to do with terrible resolutions. Advantage CP's are greatly under utilized and are highly effective for dealing with affirmative with silly impact scenarios. If you read a counterplan that you know is probably bad for debate please preempt the intuitive theory arguments (new 2NC Cp, read 2NC Cp good).

DA

I love them. Politics is probably my favorite singular argument. I think winners win is more true than political capital, although most stories are fairly contrived and rely on spin more than quality. I enjoy these especially when the politics story is different than what the "DA of the week" is. Other disads are also enjoyable especially when involving phrases such as "case turns the DA", "DA outweighs".

K

I enjoy these debates when executed properly. Some of my most educational rounds were K v K debates. I would say my highest understanding of literature is in Settler Colonialism and Cap. However, I do enjoy reading authors such as Bifo and other PoMo peoples, even if the concept is still out of my grasp. That being said, I'm open to learning through excellent link and theory of power explanation. I don't think K's need alts and can be debated as a DA.

AFF

I would love to watch a soft left affirmative with a well structured framing contention that makes its way into the 2AR. These affirmatives are most persuasive to me because of the Intrinsicness of the advantages. These also tend to have good built in deficits making them very strategic. Especially because debaters have no idea how to answer framing pages properly. However, I will enjoy your BS extinction scenarios just as much as I understand the strategic purpose towards these affirmatives. Kritikal affirmatives are very interesting. I enjoy these debates but I'm most likely a lackluster judge for complex high theory arguments. If you are not related to the topic by any stretch of the imagination then I will feel great sympathy for framework based argumentation.

Email: maggie.kester04@gmail.com for any evidence sharing or communication purposes

-3rd year Speech and Debate student at Kickapoo High School in Springfield, MO

I'm not picky, and I'm generally okay with whatever flow a debate develops, but I do have preferences for how a debate should run and general procedures:

-I'm not at all a fan of spreading. If you're going to make an argument, it should be clear and spoken at an understandable pace. I don't think there's a point in having a debate if it's incomprehensible.

-Evidence is important, but I'm also not a fan of reading card after card back to back with little/no elaboration. Your arguments should be derived from evidence but you should still be participating as a debater and not a narrator.

-Debate, especially with community judges who may not have much information about the topic, should deal with realistic and relevant arguments. Whatever you say in a round could sway a judge in the real world, lay or flow. I still enjoy complex and hard hitting points, but please don't make outlandish arguments when you have a very real effect on everyone in the room.

-I prefer few well spoken and strong points to several weaker, fast paced points. If you have multiple strong arguments to bring up that's good, just be careful about pacing yourself with time so that they don't blur together or get weakened by time constraints. Quality over quantity.

-For time I'm fine with a 15 second grace, but do not go over that.

-I love debate wholeheartedly, and I want to see a respectful round. I know debate can naturally get quite fierce, but unnecessary rudeness or disrespect does not need to interfere.

-If there are tech issues and I can't hear or see, I'll tell you in the chat, I think it's easier if competitors do the same.

-If it's possible I prefer cameras on, but I understand it can complicate the smoothness of rounds and I won't count it against you if they're off. I ask you try them on first, but it's not a make or break.

-I'll get into rounds ASAP and I ask you don't keep a round waiting. A few minutes won't ruin things but rounds shouldn't get backlogged. Too long is a no-show and forfeit.

I'll make sure to give good insight on ballots, but that's all I have! Have a fantastic weekend and good luck :)

She/they

kimmerle.debate@gmail.com

About me: Currently debating for Missouri State University in NDT/CEDA & coaching at Greenwood Labs and Liberty North High School. I'm an NFHS topic author for HS policy debate which gives me an interesting insight into debates. My views about what debate looks like/should be are constantly evolving to keep up with my experiences and community 'norms.'

About me as a judge: I'm pretty open to any argument or style. I'll go off of my flow when making my decision focusing on impacts and clash. The best way to win my ballot is to "write it for me." Show me through evidence why your [case/impacts/alt/etc] are more important and then tell me how you better resolve [insert issue here]. This can vary based on each round or position so I will try to address these below.

DA: Yes. A good disad with a CP is probably my current go-to when I'm negative. Read your best link cards in the constructive(s), the more specific the better.

CP/PICs: Yes. As I said above, love a CP/DA combo. Make sure you outline how it solves the aff and doesn't link into your other offense. I think the neg can get away with 2 CPs before conditionality becomes a major voting issue (remember: you should always condense down for the 2NR!!).

K: Sure. I'm comfortable with K arguments but I might not be super familiar with the literature. I do think you need an alt with your K because I need to understand what happens if/when I vote for it. If you have a performative component to your argument, explain its function and utilize it as offense throughout the debate -- you read it for a reason, tell me about that reason!

Theory: Maybe?? I'm going to assess topicality separately (below) since I weigh it differently. As I have progressed in my career, my opinion on theory has changed significantly. I find myself voting less and less on funding, enforcement, over-specification, or whatever else you can come up with. I just feel like it's incorrectly used to try and win my ballot in a 'slimy' way. I'd rather you run it as a solvency analytic without the interp, violation, standards, etc.

With all of that said, I understand that many participants view theory as a key part of debate so I will continue to weigh it the same as other arguments.

Topicality: Yes. Against policy aff, I think T is a viable option. The neg should define words in the resolution in the 1NC, and then put any [TVAs/ExtraT/FXT/impact] framing issues in the 2NC/1NR block. The 2NR should specifically go between explaining the disadvantages to the aff interp and line by lining the 1AR responses.

background

kickapoo '21

e-mail chain - grmaggard216@gmail.com

first things first

- PLEASE be clear. I'll reward clear speakers with high points. I have APD and its hard for me to keep up sometimes.

- I'll be sure to be engaged & listen to analytics not on the doc

- I'm pretty much willing to listen to any args other than "racism good", "debate bad", or any argument that promotes sedition.

- I will start the debate assuming that the squo is the best option, but that'll change based on the debate

- if you argue disclosure well I am willing to vote on it.

speaker ratings

- it'll be pretty hard to go below a 26.5, just sound clear & don't be rude

- racist/sexist/anti lgbtq remarks will immediately hand you the L and very very bad speaker points

-if you are rude to your opponent that will affect your speaks. don't be a meanie.

general stuff

- I like impact comparison. this includes args like timeframe, probability, & magnitude. why should I prefer avoiding your impacts over the other team's?

- line by line is important. even if arguments aren't fully explained or seem incomprehensible, you have to put those words next to that argument. dropping a floating PIK in the 1AR and 2AR that is never fully explained by neg wins them the debate because the aff has definitionally even less explanation

topicality

- i think t debate in ld is generally pointless. you can pretty much go anywhere you want with a philosophy/ value debate.

-puf and policy t is chill

framework & V/VC

- I read very heavily on most major philosophers. if you try to misconstrue a philosophers theory or your v and vc doesn't make sense I will know and I will vote on it.

-love love love when a debater knows how to balance framework and case ev, but if you feel like you're falling behind on one opt to make your framework stronger and argue it- that will be to your benefit when it comes to my vote.

-I expect there to be value clash. debates without clash are boring and I don't want to judge them.

- framework teams that actually argue will do far better than framework teams that complain

counterplans

- counterplans are good if they're competitive

- FRAME THE DEBATE. this is really important. tell me why the net benefit outweighs the risk of a solvency deficit. if the aff doesn't read theory, you're pretty lucky

- you can definitely read theory in front of me. if the aff goes for theory in the 2AR, the neg is in trouble. that being said, that shouldn't dissuade you from going for good solvency deficits. I won't kick the CP unless you tell me to

if u read to the end of this: thanks :)

For 3 years, I have been debating and prefer PF, I believe it doesn't matter whether I flow or not a good debater should be able to win either way. As long as they have been addressed and debated well, I enjoy cases with unique contentions and subpoints.

Shelbee Reeves

She/Her

THS Speech & Debate President

Add me to the email chain: shelbee_reeves23@isdschools.org

UK TOC and Nationally-Qualified Congressional Debater (HoA District Champion, finaled at Catholic + others)

Current: LD, CX, and USX

Pretty experienced in PF too

Policy

I tend to view arguments through a realistic lens. I'm not a fan of judge intervention and I'll do my best not to allow my perspectives to influence my judging, but I will say that if it isn't at least somewhat imaginable in the world, I am probably not going to vote for it.

- Spreading is fine, but please put me on the email chain. That's not to say that you should be completely unintelligible every time you stand up to speak.

- Links are so important. If it doesn't link or the link is weak, you're skating on thin ice. Probably my biggest voting issue.

- Impacts are all up to you. I'm interested in hearing about the big impacts like extinction and space war...if you can link to it. If not, I probably won't vote for you.

- Solvency is huge. If you can't show solvency, that's an automatic L. This is a voting issue.

- Topicality is only as good as the argument you're making. However, if you drop T, that is very bad (kind of a given)

- CPs, PICs, and all those wonderful things: I am cool with any as long as you truly solve better than the Aff. If your CP is essentially the same thing as the Aff but with one minor difference, I'm probably just going to vote Aff. Once again, solvency really matters. Show me not only that you can solve, but that you solve uniquely better than the Affirmative.

- Ks. The K is only as good as it is competitive. If you expect me to vote on it, I expect you to defend it heavily throughout the round, especially if the alt involves my ballot. That being said, I am not likely to vote on anything having to do with identity politics. I have watched too many rounds in which debaters were forced to deny their own identities in order to be competitive, and that defeats the entire purpose of the K. Do you, but know that I am not likely to vote for it if you (a) deny someone else's hardship or existence or (b) don't have any idea what your literature means or what the alt does.

- Disclosure. Do it. If they ask, tell them. If you refuse to disclose just to be shady and I know about it, yikes. I will say that disclosure theory often comes off whiny to me ... do with that what you will

LD

- I prefer traditional LD to progressive. Slow down and explain why I should vote on your framework. Analysis is so much more important than evidence. Don't throw a bunch of cards at me and expect me to vote on it. Tell me WHY. Give me some good voters at the end of the debate.

- Be unique. Generic arguments are no fun and it's hard for me to see why I should consider them in specific cases.

- Framework. Don’t run some bs philosophy you pulled out of a hat in order to confuse your opponent. If the philosophy is ridiculous, I will use your opponent's framework in making my decision. Explain how your framework outweighs in the context of the resolution so that I know what I'm voting on.

- Not big on disclosure in LD. Put me on the email chain if there is one but I'm not expecting it.

- Ks. See my thoughts above.

Puf

Most of the same themes apply as above: make sure you link to your impacts, show me why your world is preferable, tell me why I should care, and be a kind human.

Congress

- In the wise words of every judge's Congress paradigm I've ever had, advance the debate. Please don't make me listen to the same points over and over.

- Really listening for warrants. Make them strong.

- Presiding Officers - if you do a good job, you will be in my top three. Thank you for sacrificing your opportunity to debate. I think people forget that the activity can't happen without a competent PO and you deserve recognition for stepping up. (coming from someone who lost one too many opportunities for stepping up as PO)

Anything + Everything

• Don't waste either of our time going for an abusive argument. If it's not against the rules, it's fair game. These arguments are whiny and have nothing to do with the debate.
• Card clipping is a huge no. I will point it out, I will dock your speaks, and I will vote you down 95% of the time. It's grimy. Get good.
• You don't need to bring it to my attention that there are no new args in rebuttals. I am flowing, I am a debater, I am aware of the rules.
• Assume I'm ready so that we don't have to do the awkward "judges ready" song and dance every time you speak.
• If you act like a jerk, I will copy and paste a bunch of sportsmanship theory on your ballot. It costs zero dollars to be polite, just saying.

Most importantly, make it a good experience for yourself and your opponent(s). This is a great activity and I hope you enjoy it as much as I do :) <3

Hi there,

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

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

iskate1516@gmail.com

Speed

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

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

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

Stock Issues

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

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

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

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

DA's

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

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

- DA's are important in my voting decision

- Long link chains are weaker DA'S

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

Topicality

- I do not like T on substantial

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

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

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

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

CP's

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

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

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

Abusive arg

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

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

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

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

Other policy related notes

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

- Impact calc should be ran

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

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

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

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

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

PuF and LD

- I am more familiar with LD than PuF

- In LD hold up your criterion and value

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

PLEASE READ THIS

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

Truman '22

Wichita State '26

Assistant Coach at Maize HS

(He/Him)

Email- aydebate22@gmail.com

Former 2A, reformed 2N

I think debate should be an opportunity to put research skills to the test. I highly value good evidence spin and think in many instances teams who tell me what their evidence says wind up better off than teams who just read what the evidence says.

I think the only ideological predisposition that affects me the most is my neg lean on a lot of theory questions. Condo is probably good and certainly doesn't outweigh T but I've recently been finding myself persuaded by condo bad a lot more. Edit: I have oddly enough recently become far more convinced that it's good for the aff to extend and go for condo despite making the switch to 2N. That isn't to say I am easy to win on the argument but rather that I can be persuaded either way. For it to be viable, however, aff teams need to start contextual analysis and interp debating in the 1AR and slow down so I can flow everything.

Evidence quality is something I've noticed decline at a shocking level. No author qualifications, shady websites, poor highlighting to the extent that there's no warrant highlighted, etc. Even though I noted above appreciation for evidence spin, that spin should incorporate indicts to bad evidence from the other team. If they read a card that's tagged, "BBB Passes." and the only words highlighted are "BBB" and "Passes" I feel no reason to consider that card in my decision.

Don't be needlessly mean to your opponents. Being blatantly racist/sexist/transphobic etc. will certainly tank your speaks and probably lead to an L. Making fun of bad evidence does not require attacking the character of who you're debating.

Most of my debate influence comes from Parker Hopkins.

General Scales

Teams should adapt---------------------------X----Judge should adapt

Policy---------------X----------------K

Tech----------X---------------------Truth

Counterplans aren't fair--------------------X-----------Counterplans are fun

Nothing competes----------------------X---------Summers 94

Conditionality good----------X---------------------Conditionality bad

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

Death good is acceptable-----------------------X-------Not a good argument

Case Debate

Impact turns can be exceptionally fun but often times are full of terrible literature. Teams should point that out.

I think teams are scared to go for turns vs affs that aren't flat out impact turns and I think both evidence wise and strategically it's a good idea to put hefty link turn arguments on case.

A lot of affs are so painfully shady in their advocacy that I think the neg certainly gets to make assumptions and assertions about what the aff actually does.

Teams often do impact comparison exclusively at the terminal impact level without incorporation of vital solvency deficits implications to that calculus.

DA

There's a lot of focus on reading an unnecessary number of cards in the block on certain arguments. If 1NRs cut UQ cards in half in favor of link cards I think the debate certainly winds up further in your favor.

If you are gonna read 2 minutes of UQ then my smallest request is to make the tags funnier. I'll give extra speaks if you make the worst part of the debate a bit sillier.

Politics is one of my favorite arguments but I think there comes a time when people should recognize that a DA is beyond repair. Sometimes truth can ethos wise outweigh tech in these debates that makes it feel displeasing to vote on a PTX DA.

Top of any neg speech with a DA after the 1NC should start with something like, "DA outweighs and turns case."

The Rider DA can be a lot of fun and holds an interesting implication for affs but I think it's almost always very flawed at an internal link level.

CP

If an aff is really good enough you should be able to answer every counterplan just by winning it's different from the 1AC. Not being able to do that is not the fault of the negative.

Non condo theory issues are 99% of the time a reason to reject the argument, not the team so if you list them as a reason to do so in 2AC cross you should have a reason why that's true before I hold the neg to answering it with anything else than "reject the arg, not the team."

Clever PICs can be really fun debates but word PICs can be a little more lifeless than others and less fun to debate and evaluate.

Judge kick is usually my default. It makes since to me that the neg always defends the squo even if they introduce other advocacies because their role is simply to prove that whatever change the aff makes is the wrong one.

K

A lot of my first hand K knowledge is limited to Cap, set col, or Heidegger but I feel comfortable in a decent bit of these debates. I think the more abstract and post modern the K leans the more I find myself feeling confused and I'd hope for more explanation.

I think a good link debate is frequently a lost art. A lot of teams will just assert that there is one but I think there really needs to be an explanation of the direct effects of voting aff. That doesn't mean it has to be a disad style story of cause and effect but explain what the aff's theorization of things justifies and use their evidence and authors to prove it. I think that link explanation also requires a reason why the alt solves it. Good enough link debate gives teams a better chance of winning without the alternative and if a team chooses to kick the alt absent a solid link your chances of winning certainly go down.

A lot of framework interpretations that don't have an end point that allow the aff to weigh its stuff vs the K seem counterproductive to me. Framework should function not just to the advantage of the K's impact and solvency calculus but should also have relatively clear parameters for what an aff must do to weigh itself. I think usually framework interpretations are better the more simplistic and common they are (the aff should be an object of research that must justify its scholarship is typically a solid interp) Otherwise it ends up too self serving.

The alt should be able to be explained to tangibly do something. Alts that just "refuse" or "reject" something seem counterintuitive to political progress in a lot of ways because I don't think they can ever have an endpoint that solves the Ks impacts.

K Affs

I've only been on the negative in these debates but I don't think I've wound up as opposed to critical affirmatives as my coaches or even partner. There's no doubt that affirmatives that challenge the resolution are important to debate as a whole but since I've spent most of time thinking about neg strategies I think a lot of my views can be filtered through weighing traditional neg offense.

I think affirmatives are always best whenever they take advantage of the 1AC to leverage a counter model of debate that can access some of the negs offense. It's hard to convince me in a competitive setting that procedural fairness is outright bad whenever the affirmative is required to engage in some procedurally fair part of the activity before the 1NC even occurs, that said I think impact turns should be paired with reasons why the affirmatives model can avoid said offense.

Affirmatives really need a clearly defined theory of power and a reason why that should filter neg offense. Aff teams who read a bunch of authors who would probably disagree with one another and throw made up words into tags are more likely to lose my attention than win my ballot.

I should be able to explain what voting aff endorses and why the model that comes with it is better than whatever the negative proposes.

Neg teams in these debates should be more direct and willing to read a lot of off case positions. For one it can be effective against teams who are only ready to answer 2 or 3 off, but also I think it helps get a gage on what the aff actually does and helps point out contradictions in what they advocate for.

Topicality/Procedurals

T is one of the more fun arguments in debate because I think it's good to limit out bad or shady affirmatives in real time.

I feel like Extra and Effects T affs are more common and that's dumb. Aff teams usually just say "because there's extra stuff from the plan you get more DA links." That's ridiculous and neg teams should put a stop to it.

Impact debate on T needs to occur alongside a counter explanation of what the neg interp does to both solve it and create better debate as a whole. It feels like a lot of T debates suffer from serious disconnect.

Most procedural arguments are lost on me as legitimate reasons to vote against an aff team. Procedurals that require unorthodox things of the affirmative usually seem silly to me.

Sneaking in ASPEC is quite ridiculous and I will decrease speaks of any neg team who hides the analytic or sends out everything in the 1NC except for it. If it's short enough that the aff team doesn't notice it I'll guess that's because it's not warranted enough to justify voting negative and the 1AR will get new answers.

As far as I'm concerned there's only one procedural type argument that's of immediate value:

Disclosure is probably one of the most important things about modern debate. I come from a school where my partner and I were the only team consistently debating with a small coaching staff. Despite that, I think I'm opposed to the view that disclosing is even close to bad for smaller programs. I agree a lot with Chris Roberds here, "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." Teams should disclose what stuff they read and open source docs on the wiki. If you tell me you open sourced the round I'll bump speaks. All of this comes with some caveats like the neg should ask for disclosure before the round before they make the argument in the 1NC, which requires that both teams come to the room (or zoom) shortly after pairings are released. I think if the aff team flat refuses to disclose anything (on the wiki or preround after being asked) than I can easily be convinced on the theory argument but the the neg did not attempt to get disclosure or if there are a reasonable set of interrupting circumstances for the aff pre round then maybe I will give leeway. Your best bet is to have some sort of physical evidence (ie a screenshot of an email which was not answered or if you ask for disclosure while I am in the room and the aff says no) and contextualize the violation.

Quick Summary - I am a second year college debater in NPDA, I am a flow judge but will change to however you debate. If you refuse to disclose, you will lose the round. Dropped arguments = conceded arguments, and it's hard to come back from that. Have fun and be nice.

Background - WSP. I'm Pat, I competed in PF for most of my highschool debate career. I qualified to a multitude of post season tournaments in that and did well in policy when I debated it. I am now a debater for William Jewell College and have improved greatly since leaving highschool, breaking at many tournaments and being a tournament champion.

Style - I am a flow judge. Any discriminatory language will lose you the round if it is deemed to be that way from your opponents and the subsequent reaction that is taken to apologize or dispute the claim.. Debate is about learning and having fun, but winning while you do it. SIGNPOST, if you lose me in an argument dump without signposting, it could cost you multiple arguments. Tech=Truth (both will be evaluated to some extent)

Spreading - If you want to spread, ask your opponents and let me know beforehand. When spreading, I expect a speech doc for every speech in which you do with warranting and tags.

Paraphrasing - If you paraphrase your ev will not be worth as much until i can see the whole card

Specifics - "Abuse" - DO NOT use this term to define anything less important than legitimate material violence.

Pronouns - Always use your opponent's preferred pronouns or your speaker points will drop and if it is repeated you will lose the round.

Theory/Progressive Arguments - I think progressive arguments are very interesting (K's, theory's, etc.) and I will evaluate them just like any other arguments

Contact - Email: Pterry4c03@gmail.com

I am a 4th year debater, experienced in both LD and PF. I love arguments that are more philosophical and one of my pet peeves is when debaters turn LD into policy discussion. I care about the credibility of evidence, like to hear statistics that are relevant, and care more about your persuasive ability than meeting the exact time slots. I am a flow judge but your ability to communicate your ideas is equally as important as your contentions and arguments. Speak clearly, I can't judge what I don't understand. If you want to speak fast it must be well enunciated. :)

email chain - AiriyannahWashington1@gmail.com

I debated in policy for 3 years at Truman high school, along with doing oratory and ld.

*IF VIRTUAL*

you should turn on cameras when it is your turn to speak unless your device can't do that for whatever reason.

quality > speed. we are online so being able to clearly hear arguments matters over speed.

I give feedback, but give me time to finish my rfd and comments.

When it comes to this years policy topic, I have little knowledge on it, so please be clear on your tag lines and what you're referencing to.

Things You shouldn't do

Being sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or any of the ists. If I find you to be doing ANY of these things, I am giving you the lowest ranks possible, you lose the round and I will stop listening.

Giving me a 100-page doc as your evidence. that isn't a speech doc and I shouldn't have to search for what you're saying.

Be weird about giving your evidence to your opponents.

Policy -

I vote on flow not speaking ability.

I will more likely than not vote on solvency.

Disads

do not care for extinction impacts since the likelihood of one plan being able to cause that is unlikely, but have a good internal link and it's valid.

Cps

I think cps are pretty cool if ran correctly. unfortunately, that is a rarity. if you do run one please have a net benefit. no net benefit = no case

Topicality

I do not see a point in running topicality unless you really feel bringing it up is vital in the round. technicality and impact calc is key in topicality. I would like to see it.

kritiks

(novice running k's? okay)

I like policy args more but on K's, I go as far fem, abolition, and anti-blackness. If you go outside of that I can probably follow and flow. on neg, you need to explain to me extensively on your links, and more on why I should vote on this. weigh the k against the aff. on Aff, I feel kritiks should still be somewhat in the resolution. I will more often than not lean more on the topicality argument if you don't explain to me your case well. Essentially, explain and overextend.

I don't care for abusive args but if you feel something in the round is abusive, run it I guess.

Lastly, HAVE FUN. nothing is worse than being in a round where it is hostile and everyone doesn't want to be there. Trust me I've been in those rounds and I don't want to judge one.

Aubrey Webster

Parkview High School, Springfield, MO

Assistant Coach

I did not debate in High School but performed Storytelling for individual speech tournaments. This is my second year as the assistant speech and debate coach at Parkview High School in Springfield, Missouri.

Please provide me with the documents that you flash/email over. This makes my life easier in case there are tech issue or if I need to look things over again.

When judging, I look at the following details:

How well you were able to explain and provide evidence.

How well you were able to ask questions and answer questions during cross examination.

How well you were able to attack your opponent's case.

How well your speaking skills were during your speech.

I truly believe speech and debate provides so many life skills for students and it is an honor to be apart of this amazing activity!

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