please at me to the email chain: madelyn.atkins.debate@gmail.com

pronouns: she/her

expericence:

Debated at Lansing High School for 4 years

Coaching:

Lansing (2021-2022)

Shawnee Mission South (2023-current)

top level:

- tech over truth but arguments must be warranted

- Read whatever aff/neg strategy that you are the most comfortable with and I will do my best to adapt and be unbiased

- Judge instruction is important and often underutilized

topicality:

- I went for t a lot my senior year and I think it is a good strategy that more teams should go for

- I default to competing interpretations

- Explain what your model means for the topic, case lists can be helpful for this

k affs:

- framework - I think that fairness and clash can both be both impacts (but that's also up to the debaters to prove). Don't just read generic framework blocks - try to contextualize them to the aff. Specific evidence can be helpful for a TVA but isn't absolutely necessary

disads:

- make turns case args and impact calc is helpful

counterplans:

- process counterplans are okay, but I probably err aff on theory

- delay counterplans are cheating

- textual and functional is always good

- err neg on condo but can be convinced otherwise

- all theory args except for condo I default to reject the arg not the team

- I will only judge kick if the neg makes the argument and the aff doesn't contest it, best to start this debate before the 2nr/2ar

kritiks:

- answer arguments on the line by line instead of in a long overview

- specific links are better than generic ones

- clearly explain the link, impact, and alt

case:

- neg should utilize case debates more - could definitely win on presumption

I will vote solely on how much I like your fashion.

My Perspective: The role of the judge is to render a decision based on the arguments advanced by the debaters with as little intervention as possible. Debaters will debate; I will judge. Debaters can feel comfortable advancing any sort of argument. I have no preference in terms of argument type. Procedural argument, kritiks, more traditional "substantive" argument... It's up to the debaters.

If the debaters don't provide direction in terms of how I should assess arguments and I'm left to my own devices, I suppose I'd default to a policy-making stance after any obvious procedural hurdles are cleared. But, again, I'm here to listen--not to impose my particular paradigm.

The only hard "rules" I maintain are the tournament time limits and the requirement to assign wins/losses/speaker points.

Novice rounds or those with less-experienced participants inevitably force some adjustment. It's not realistic to have the same expectations and I understand that. I want those rounds to be a relaxed opportunity for new debaters to develop their skills.

My Background: I debated all through high school in Kansas during the late 1980s. In the early 90s, I debate at the college level for four years, traveling a competitive national circuit. I then coached at the college level for three years. After a long hiatus, I started judging again occasionally when my daughter started high school debate. As a debater, coach and judge I've seen a few thousand rounds.

My Preferences: While I'm open-minded in terms of the arguments advanced, I do have some preferences about debate rounds.

I'd prefer debaters organize the round for me instead of forcing me to assemble the puzzle. Clean, direct clash is preferable to mere competing oratory in virtually all cases.

I enjoy debates where the participants have fun while still respecting the activity. I want debaters to feel free to advance the arguments they want to advance and to not feel constrained to act a "certain way". No one should fear a loss due to some unknowable misstep and everyone should have a good time. That doesn't mean a debate should dissolve into silliness, though. The best debates feature debaters who are competitive, engaged and serious about the process and who are thoroughly enjoying the experience.

I am fine with speed. You won't outrun me. That doesn't mean you have to be fast to impress me. Speed is a tool that can be used effectively but it isn't a prerequisite to win a debate round. If, at any point, you lack clarity, I'll make that clear so the debater can either amplify or improve diction. I do have some concerns about top-end speed clarity with these remote pandemic debates. Our reliance on multiple Internet connections and the quality of our technology might necessitate some adjustments for the sake of clarity.

I don't mind aggressive, impassioned debates. And, again, debaters should feel free to be themselves. That being said, I do insist on some level of civility. You might get a little angry. You might get a little sassy. That could be okay. But it's not okay to be wildly obnoxious or hateful. The impact of impropriety will show up in speaker points, not in the W/L. But I will let coaches and/or tournament administration know about any behavior that is wildly out of line.

Additional Notes:

While I'd be happy disclosing decisions and/or offering brief post-round discussions of a debate, it seems as though most tournaments I've been judging the last few years don't share the sentiment. I'll respect the wishes of the tournament host. So, don't ask unless I'm "allowed" to tell.

I'm always happy to answer questions about my outlook or preferences from debaters prior to the round. If there's something that I haven't covered here, feel free to let me know.

Experience

First, introductions. In round, you can just call me Aaron. I’m a graduate of Lansing High School and focused on traditional debate for four years. I was the type of debater to max out the number of tournaments I can go to. I know how debate works and will flow your speeches. I mainly want to see a good debate with thought out strategy and knowledgeable debaters.

Stock issues

- I would not call myself a stock issue judge. If the negative wins on solvency or significance and loses all their offcase, for example, I’ll still vote aff because those positions usually do not generate offense. I am more focused on clash and offense vs defense in a round.

Disadvantages

- Good stuff. Make sure to defend all parts of your disad, and don’t drop impact calc.

K’s, K affs, and Spec

- Not a fan of K’s, but I understand them. Make sure to clearly explain framework. In my opinion, framework is not a priori. If you win framework but lose the rest of the K, then I will vote affirmative. I do like spec though and tended to go for it semi-often in my own rounds.

CP’s and PIC’s

- I like counterplans, just make sure that the CP is mutually exclusive and has a net benefit. I have no reason to vote for a counterplan that solves as well as the aff and nothing else. PICs are fine as long as you convince me that they’re mutually exclusive to the affirmative.

Topicality

- I will listen to T and even like a good T debate, but I will warn the negative that I have a fairly high likelihood of deferring to aff on reasonability. However, if the affirmative is grossly untopical then the neg will probably be able to pick up an easy win.

Cross-x

- Cross-x is binding and teams should try their best to abide by what they say in cross-x. Please don’t get aggressive or interrupt too much; it only makes you look bad.

Tech/Truth

- I tend to be more truth over tech as a traditional debater. That translates mainly into how I weigh impact calc. I tend to prefer probability and timeframe, but that isn’t to say that I wouldn’t vote on a magnitude impact, especially if impact calc was dropped. Just make sure to cover your bases with respect to strategy and be clear on your analytics and you should be fine.

They/Them. You can refer to me as Bailey or Baikey.

I debated at Lansing High school for four years. I am at my second semester debating for KCKCC. In high school i did only did lay debate, but in college I do IPDA, Parli, and LD.

Speed: I am very new to speed as I had never really done it in high school. I can keep up for the most part but I will clear you if needed. Do not go super sonic though, I apologize for my lack of experience in this aspect. I really value my flow now so being able to know what's happening in the debate for me is awesome. I also do expect y'all to be sign posting, I see no reason with y'all having cards to not be sign posting. It also just makes your speech sound cleaner for me.

Ks: I am very new to Ks unfortunately but I really love them! When running them I do think that the framework debate is rather important. Feel free to run them though! For K affs I do not mind them but I'm not a big fan unless there is a good reason. On top of that I feel like the framework is super important and would like that to be touched upon.

T: make it make sense, I think going for T is a a good strat. I like it tho

CP: Run them if you like!

Das: Run them, I like em lot. I think they are really important for impact weighing

#1 thing is don't be mean . I will comment on it and it will change my view on you if you are being for real evil.

Run whatever you like at the end of the day and try your best!

bailey.debate18@gmail.com

I'm Tobias (he/him), and I'm a Shawnee Mission West Graduate, and was Co-Captain of this team my senior year (2020-2021)! I have four years of debate experience, as well as about 3 years of judging experience. As a judge, I love watching teams getting creative with their arguments, as well as their responses/rebuttals. I prefer the teams I judge to be professional to one another, which means no nasty attitudes towards me or their opponents. This is meant to be fun and educational! ON a more technical stand point, I like seeing teams utilize their speech teams well, so i want to see diverse arguments from both sides. SO, from the neg standpoint, i want to see you not only use one disad. I don't mind a Topicality, Counterplan, or even multiple disads, I just love seeing teams connect them all at the end, and drop their weakest arguments in the 2NR for a spicy, and well thought out speech. For the affirmative side, I want to see knowledgable responses, clever reasons on how you won't trigger the disad, and how your plan will work better than a counterplan! More often than not, teams forget the importance of impact calculus, or weighing out the impacts that are at stake. If there is no impact caluclus done on the Aff side, or the Neg side, it will make me not want to vote for you! Ask me questions, before or after the round, if you have any!

In conclusion: Extend all arguments made for an exciting debate, be professional in the debate room and other competition spaces, and finally, do your impact calculus!

Debated @ SMW from 2016-2020 (China (2016/2017, Education 2017/2018, Immigration 2018/2019, and Arms Sales 2019/2020)

Debated @ JCCC 2nd semester of my senior year 2020 (Space)

Debated at KU (alliances fall 2020)

Coached at SMW 2020-2022

Pronouns they/them

add me to the email chain: catheydebate@gmail.com

~~~~~~~~LD DEBATERS~~~~~~~~~~

I may be experienced at policy but I have no idea what's going on, treat me like a parent judge please, im begging you. I don't even know round structure.

~~~~~~~~POLICY DEBATERS~~~~~~~~~~

UPDATE 12-2-22: I took a step back from the debate world this school year, so this is the first tournament of the season for me, yay!! I have really no idea about the topic. If you're good at what you do, it shouldn't matter. Make sure to explain everything out, impact it, do the stuff, basically write my ballot for me. Feel free to read whatever, get out there and do your thing. Since I have been out my spreading awareness has just gotten worse, so you can, just maybe not top speed for me? Slow down, and clearly say tags & analytics. I don't care how fast your cards are as long as I can get the speech doc and what I just mentioned. I will be watching for clipping, but I trust y'all.

*New rule for zoom debate, send me analytics when spreading because I have a really hard time processing stuff when I’m listening to things on the internet, captions are honestly my best friend, when you otherwise can't send analytics slow down. Plus you never know about audio quality on my end so don't assume that my scratchy speakers can put through your spreaded analytics. You don't have to send them to everyone if you don't want to, but please send them privately to me, because then you know I flowed them for sure and can get justifiably mad at me when I say you didn't say something that's right infront of my face. It's much easier for me to focus if we were in person so don't worry about speed.

Don't say anything abusive. You'll get 0 speaks. So no racism, no homophobic/transphobic things, no ableism, no sexism, nothing. I will give your team the automatic loss, with 0 speaks, and talk to your coach. So please don't. It should be a given. On pronouns, if you misgender someone, if you just say I'm sorry and then move on and don't do it again, I won't feel inclined to drop your speaks. But if you say more, yeah I will, just apologize and move on. Doing anything else in my mind is toxic, because if you say anything other than sorry you're justifying it and that's not cool.

I've been trying to figure out what I want my paradigm to say for a while now, but honestly I think less is more at this point.

You can run anything. Except, I really don't want to vote on T. Please don't read more than 1 or 2 arguments.

Framework I will vote on, but I don't want to vote on just framework, give me a good reason why I shouldn't vote for this K aff other than it scares you and you have nothing else ready.

Run all the abusive CP's you want, I love abusive counterplans, as long as they solve something.

DA's I love em, keep em coming, but make them link.

K's make sure you explain to me the nuances of your K, otherwise go at it. I know some stuff from running it but please understand I am a business major and don't have the energy to read every single philosopher to exist. UPDATE 1/2/21: I am no longer a business major, I've changed to something different, but the premises still stands

For theory stuff if you read condo I won't vote on it unless the neg is running more than 5-6 things, but it also really depends on what they are. Like a DA, a CP, 2 T's, and a K yeah no, probably won't get me to vote on condo because you can easily respond to all of it if you manage your time right. More than 1 K plus a bunch of other things will get me to. I don't want to see a round have more than 1 K ever so please don't do that, and what i mean by more than 1 K is dont read 3 5 card K's that totally contradict each other. If they pair well I don't care(like a language K + something else), but if their philosophies are totally off base from each other yeah no.

Hi, I’m Max DaMetz. I’m a three year debater. Usually when it comes to debates, I’ll watch everything and I’m open to hearing you out on your case as long as it isn’t completely stretched outside the realm of possibilities. I enjoy watching solid arguments as long as the team doesn’t leave the argument after the 1AC/1NC. I look forward to the debate. Good luck.

She/her pronouns.

Pronounced Naa-Naa-Co

Email: nanako.hallier.03@gmail.com

I debated for four years at Olathe Northwest (education, immigration, arms sales, criminal justice). I competed primarily in open/KDC for policy and did Congress, extemp, and interp events for forensics. I am pretty well-versed in most things policy (minus Ks), so run what you'd like, but keep in mind I value knowledge of what you are speaking about over anything, so be able to explain your arguments in depth. I won't vote for something I don't understand, so be sure to explain your points clearly and concisely. This should go without saying, but any homophobia, racism, sexism, ableism, etc. will absolutely NOT be tolerated in any round that I am judging.

tl;dr: If you tell me a riddle that I cannot solve you get +1 speaker point. I default policymaker, but I'll view the round however you want me to. It's easy to get my vote if you bring good impacts into the debate. Try not to leave anything uncontested; I will take note of unanswered arguments. Tech>truth unless it's a bad argument. Again, no racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism good args. I will automatically vote against you. K's aren't super encouraged unless you are absolutely confident that you can explain it to a judge who knows little to nothing about them.

Pace: Please don't spread unless it is ABSOLUTELY critical for you to do so. If you choose to do so, please make a point to send me your evidence through an email chain; I will not be able to keep up with you otherwise. Slow down for tags if you choose to spread, I will dock you speaker points if you don't.

Topicality: Topicality is probably my favorite negative argument but I am picky about some T arguments (T substantial can get messy depending on the argument, ex. if affirmative plan saves lives and the argument is T sub, I probably won't like that very much). T is a voting issue, so make sure you're making aff violations CLEAR. FRAMING!! If you don't continue T through the entire round, then I won't vote on it. Neg; if aff drops T or doesn't address it at all, it is your job to carry it on throughout the round. Just acknowledging that they dropped T doesn't automatically equal a win for you. Carry it into every speech and you give yourself a good chance to win my ballot.

Roadmap: Off time roadmaps please, for all speeches! Tell me the order you want me to flow in.

Kritiks: I am a rarity in the debate community in that I participated in 4 years of policy and never hit or ran a K. And yes, I got through the criminal justice topic without hitting abolition. As of judging novice state, I have now judged one (1) K. I know absolutely nothing about K's, but I'll tolerate them if you walk me through them. (Note: when I say I know nothing about kritiks, I am VERY serious about not knowing anything.) K affs aren't something I'm familiar with, but again, if you feel that you can explain your case well, go for it.

Flow: I will flow normally, but if you're addressing something that you've mentioned in a speech, please be specific!! Saying "circumvention" means nothing if you don't tell me if it's in regard to solvency, advantages, etc. Just be specific! Jumping all over the flow also isn't encouraged, especially if you want me to keep up.

Disadvantages: I'll listen to anything you bring in if you can find a link. Politics DAs are fun to listen to when they are relevant. Don't be that team that brings me something politics related that is 7 months old.

CPs: For the 2020-21 season (criminal justice), there were very few rounds that I didn't run a CP as the negative team. With that being said, you run a major risk of strengthening the aff argument via perm. Make sure your CP is mutually exclusive and competitive, you're only going to shoot yourself in the foot if you have to kick the CP after the aff perms. I won't vote against you solely for kicking the CP, but when I ran a CP it was always a huge part of my argument on neg, so make sure you have a different winning argument to fall back on.

Other: I typically believe the affirmative always holds the right to fiat, and its going to take a lot of convincing to make me not believe that.

Most importantly, I want debate to be a fun experience for everyone. Be kind and we will have a fun round!

Baylor University '25 (not debating)

Lansing SR '21 - debated in DCI and TOC varsity (in-state and out) and KDC - stuck primarily to policy debate and public forum

add me to the email chain: chloe.kautt.debate@gmail.com

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Basic Preferences

-I'll ask before the round starts, but I would appreciate it if everyone disclosed their pronouns

-I can handle any speed you are comfortable with it, but I haven't debated for about a year so do with that what you will, but I'll clear you if I can no longer understand

-If you have a question, ask before the round not when you are about to give your speech

-Don't be an ass, debate is a fun activity and we are all here to learn don't let your crappy attitude get in the way of anyone's learning experience

-Read any racist, sexist, homophobic, or any offensive argument in front of me and expect to lose the round and get 0 speaks. I've had someone impact turn queer theory and the past and it didn't go well for them.

-I'm pretty expressive about different arguments so if you see a head nod while I'm flowing, I guess you're doing something good

-I'm not a typical stock issues judge or a "policymaker", you should tell me what I should vote on. I go on a defense vs offense scale. Both teams should have offense. Aff - throw in a link turn or two on the disad or turns arguments on the counterplan, or a good impact turn and GO FOR THEM! Neg - same. Go for impact turns and turns case arguments on the disad. Your one answer to case as "Warming isn't an issue" definitely won't do you any good if they answer it or if there is a broad spill-up claim (same for you aff).

Theory

-Condo is fine as long as you don't read an egregious number of counter plans

-Dispo is weird so I wouldn't do it tbh

-You need an impact to theory and proof of in round abuse

-Most likely, it will be a reason to reject the argument, not the team unless there is substantial abuse that would make it impossible for you to win a round (rare)

Topicality

We stand a good T debate, but there are a few things to consider:

-I'll default to competing interps. You should do analysis on the impacts you have. Don't just give me "FAiRneSs and EdUcaTion aRe ImpActs" explain to me why they are

-*NOVICES*- Start adding standards into your T shells, reading an interpretation and a violation won't cut it as a voting issue - if you don't read standards or don't extend them I won't vote on it

-Pointing out in round abuse is FIRE! Please do it!

-If you read offense on T such as overlimiting or underlimiting good, I'll love you forever

Disads

-I like specific links I don't know who doesn't

-PLEASE have warranted internal link chains that make sense

-Run any disad you want (linear, politics, etc) I don't care

-You should be extending each piece of the disad otherwise you won't get access to different arguments

Counter Plans

-I'll go with Jamie Welch on this one. DON'T SAY CP SAY COUNTERPLAN!

-I don't like PICS that much, but I've run them so don't think you can't run one in front of me- you should block out answers to PICS bad though

-the better the solvency advocate, the better the counterplan

-If your only answer to "perm do both" is that it links to the disad, probably holding it to a high threshold

-PLEASE READ OFFENSE ON COUNTERPLANS- aff make the neg have to defend every single portion of the counterplan

K

-I've run them and I've gone for them. Feel free to read anything but Nietzche and Baudrillard. I am the most familiar with neolib, fem, settler colonialism, and militarism. If you plan on reading one in front of me that isn't those, please be sure to explain it.

-You should have specific links, that's always a good thing.

-Links of omission are bad and uneducational, please block out specific links to the affirmative

-You can have an alt or you can go for the linear DA, whatever you think the best strat is, go for it

-If you are going for the alt, you must explain how the alternative is able to solve for every link you read and why its key to access your impact.

-Be prepared to answer the framework debate please!

K affs

Like I said before, I don't care what you read in front of me. I would prefer if you read one with some residual link to the topic. If your aff has literally no link what so ever to the topic, probably gonna lean more on neg for framework. Please be prepared to answer framework. I've read a K aff before so I know what's up.

For framework, you need to explain to me what the impacts are. Fairness to me is an internal link to clash and education, but if you think it is a legitimate impact go for it.

If you plan on reading one in open, please talk to your coach about framework, the last things I want to see is you not knowing what the hell you are talking about. If you read a K aff in open for clout, you are doing more harm for the group you are talking about. Doing it for a ballot is not the best way to debate. That being said, if it is a strange K aff explain it, but I'm open to many types of literature including the ones mentioned in the "K" section

LD

For the sake of clarity, I am somewhat familiar with the value/criterion style of this debate, but offense/defense is easier for me to follow (everything above applies)

Hello, I am Stephen Kautt, I am a traditional debater, but I vote tech over truth. If you drop an argument you lose that argument, make sure you extend everything. This is my 4th year debating at Lansing High School. I do know some technical arguments in debate, also I love clash, if there is no clash, the debate is just boring.

If you are doing an email chain, my email is: stephen.kautt.lansing@gmail.com

TLDR: Debate the way you want to, but make sure you signpost, extend, and are clear, so that I can make sure I flow the round properly, if you are not clear, I may lose arguments you read, and I am voting off my flow. I also have a high threshold for new arguments in the rebuttals, you can read new evidence (even though you really should not unless you absolutely need to), but do not read new arguments. I also read evidence, but if your evidence does not make the claim you said, I will not vote you down unless the other team brings it up. I will just mention it on the ballot.

Speed

I can handle fast speeds, I speak fast myself, but I do take clarity over speed, so if you just sound like you are mumbling, I will deduct speaks.

Topicality

I like topicality, but do not make topicality the focus of the debate, do not make it the one thing you go for, unless it makes sense, I will vote on T if the aff does not do a good job answering the parts of T, also make sure you extend your counter interpretation standards, and the impact of the T.

Disads

I have ran disads a ton, so I know whats going on. Make sure when you run a disad, I buy the link chain, I do not want some stupid link chain to make me believe that the Aff leads to your impact. I will vote on generic links, but I prefer specific links, I will read evidence. Also make sure you extend your link, impact, and internal link. Just extend and make me buy the argument. If the Aff is able to make me believe there is no link or there is no impact, then I will flow the disad to the aff.

Counterplans

I have ran counterplans a ton, so I know what's going on. Make sure the counterplan is able to solve the aff, make sure the cp has a net benefit, if you lose the net benefit you lose the cp. I also love perms, read a lot of them but do not forget to extend them, or answer them on the neg.

Kritik

I know what ks are, and i do not mine hearing. I am the most comfortable with setcol and cap. Be careful though, i am especially attentive when it comes to framework. And be careful, I am attentive, I will hear if you make the debate space unsafe on the topic of race or gender. If it does not make sense, I will not vote for it. Explain your k and the world of the alternative.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I enjoy debate, I am excited to hear everyone debate, just listen to what I said above, and listen and have fun. Debate is all about having fun.

Cant wait to judge you,

Stephen

4 years of debate (KDC) at Lansing High (2017-2021)

Assistant Coaching at Lansing High School, Debate sponsor at Lansing Middle School

I'm down for speech drop or email whichever works best for you. christopherlapeedebate@gmail.com

Updated for BVSW 2023

Top level things:

Prompting– I will only flow prompting from partners based off what the speaker actually repeats/says. ie if we're in the 2ar and the 1a is making a bunch of arguments prompting the 2a ill only flow what comes out of the 2a's mouth. (This doesn't mean that an 1ac/1nc that requires both partners reading/speaking is bad. I think the opposite in that instance bc that isn't prompting)

Speaker points– speaker points to me are incredibly arbitrary, they vary dramatically based off format, style, and the community in debate. I plan to do my best to adjust, although that likely means lower speaks. (ie: I've been known to give very high speaker points in past years/tournaments, that will change)

SPEED– Slow down on analytics even if they're on the doc. You shouldn't be reading analytics at card speed.(bumping this bc it was a problem at waru) with that being said I wont doc you for it if the other team doesnt make an arg/do something about it (saying speed/clear). But speaker points will reflect that.

TLDR: I've learned that as I judge more the more I realize I don't particularly care for certain arguments over others. Rather, I care more about debaters doing what they're good at and maximizing their talents. Granted to whereas I'm ok with you reading whatever, do keep in mind that the experience I've had with debate/arguments might not make me the best decision maker in the back of the room for that round. So if you get me in the back of the room read what you want but be mindful it might need a little explanation in the Rebuttals.

LD– All of the stuff below applies if you wanna read a plan and have a policy debate do it idc its your debate have fun!

More in depth version of how I evaluate

Top level:I default tech over truth. The only time I'll use truth as a means of decision making is to break a tie in an argument which usually will only happen if the debate is very messy.

T: On T I'll default to competing Interps unless I get a good reason to favor reasonability or if reasonability goes conceded. I think T is a debate about models of a hypothetical community agreement to what the the topic should look like, in this I think the debate comes down to the internal links like who controls limits and ground and who's limits/ground is best for education and fairness. I don't think you need proven abuse but if there is you should point that out.

CP: I think CP's can be a good test of solvency mechanisms of the aff I wont vote on a cp unless it has a net benefit. I think the CP is a reason why 1% risk of the DA means I should probably vote neg if the CP solves, even if case outweighs. I don't think the CP alone is a reason to vote neg, just because there is another way to solve the aff doesn't mean I shouldn't give it a try. Internal net benefits are real and I'll vote on a CP with one.

Condo: I tend to think condo is good unless the neg is just trying to time suck by reading like 5 CP's and then just going for whichever you cant get to in time

DA's: I have quite a bit of experience with these but not a lot to say on them, I think a DA being non uq means no risk. I think no Link means the same, I think the I/L strat is commonly underrated if the link doesn't actually trigger the mpx then there is probably no risk, MPX turning a DA is underrated too. If you go for the DA in front of me focus on the story of the DA and form a coherent story and focus on the internals if I understand how the plan actually causes the MPX I'm more likely to vote for the DA.

Spec: If you go for spec go for it just like you would T. I'll listen to 5 mins of spec and vote on it. Same thing as T I view it as a models debate and you should focus on the internals because that tends to show who actually controls the mpx debate.

The K: On the link level first. I think the links to the k page operate in the same way as links to the Disad. What I mean by this is that the more specific the better. Just vaguely describing "the apocalyptic rhetoric of the 1ac" seems like a very generic link which is prolly not that hard for a turn and or no link argument.

On the impact debate. I think you need to be weighing the impact of the kritik in the round I find that a lot of debaters get jumbled up in line by line and forget to actually weigh the impact. Just extending it and saying "they cause xyz" isn't good because it isn't developed and lacks the warranting of why that matters and why I should vote neg because they cause that.

On the alt debate. It's a common stereotype of K debaters that we can't explain the alt. What does the alt look like? Why is that good? And so on so forth. I think that while I hate this stereotype I dislike even more that in the rounds I've watched debaters have tended to just read their tag line of the alt solvency and the alt whenever asked in cx what does the alt look like, and or do that to extend the alt in later speeches. This is not a good way to debate and doesn't help you convince anyone your alt is good, you should be able to articulate the method of your alt whatever that may be and how that changes the debate space or the world. I don't think this means you need to be able to tell me exactly what goes on at every waking point of the day.

K aff:

On the case debate– I think k affs should link to the topic/debate in some way shape or form otherwise they feel very generic. specificity >>>>>>>> generics (on every arg tho). There should be a clear impact/impacts to the aff. I think where the aff falls short is in the method/advocacy debate I think that I should be able to understand the method and how it is able to resolve the impact in some way shape or form. I think the rob/roj should be clearly identified (the earlier in the round the better). That way I understand how I should evaluate the rest of the debate and process through things (I think in close debates both teams wind up winning different parts of the flow, I need to understand why your flow comes first). I think that performance K affs lose the performance aspect which sucks, I think that applying the performance throughout the rest of the debate is >>>>>> rather than losing it after the 1ac.

V FW– I tend to think debate is a game that shapes subjectivity – Ie y'all wanna win rounds and fairness is good, and also the arguments we make/debate shapes who we become as advocates. I will technically sway based off args made in the round (ie debate doesn't shape subjectivity/debate isn't a game) I think from the neg I need a clear interp with a brightline for what affs are and are not topical extended throughout the debate. I need a clear violation extended throughout the debate. I think standards act as internal links to the impacts of fairness and education. I think you should be able to win that your fairness is better than the affs fairness and that it outweighs their education. for the aff I also think you need a clear interp for what affs are and are not allowed under your model of debate extended throughout the debate. If you go for a we meet I think that the we meet should be clear and makes sense and also be throughout the debate. I think the aff should win that the TVA doesn't resolve your offense/education, that your fairness is just as good or better than the neg's model of fairness. And that your education outweighs. I think top level impact turns to t/fw are good. And use the rob/roj against the T debate (remember it all comes down to filtering what arguments are most important and come first)

KvK– uhhhhhhh I tend to get a little lost in these debates sometimes tbh bc I think its tough to evaluate and weigh two methods against each other especially if they aren't necessarily competitive with each other. I think in these debate the fw debate including the rob/roj is most important, and judge instruction is likely how you'd pick me up if I'm in the back of the room. If you don't tell me how to evaluate arguments and what they mean in context to the round we'll all prolly wind up frustrated at the end of the round bc I'll intervene or make a bad choice. (I'm not perfect and make mistakes so judge instruction is crucial to make sure I don't make them)

Speed: I'm okay with speed if I cant catch what you're putting down I'll say CLEAR if you're unclear. I'll say SPEED if you're just going too fast... I'll say clear/speed three times before I stop flowing. Slow down on analytics even if they're on the doc. You shouldn't be reading analytics at card speed.

Updated January 2023.

Yes I want to see your docs, so include me on the email chain (if you’re using one and not just doing speechdrop which is easier IMO). savannahlegler@gmail.com

I flow on my laptop on an excel sheet so there will be significant typing

My pronouns are they/them

Policy paradigm

I recommend reading this whole thing but I know it's long so TLDR; DO NOT SPREAD I will not flow it, likes Ks and K affs but you should understand the lit and IMO they can be abusive if you're just trying to confuse the other team, prefs specific (not generic) DAs, weird CPs can be abusive, T is meh (mostly because people don't run it right), other theory is ok. Framework debates will be prioritized over my personal preferences mostly. I don’t tolerate harassment/abuse of any kind, have warranted args, don’t clip cards, flow every speech in the round. Ethics philosopher cares about ethics so be ethical please. If you need to stop the round because of mental or physical health reasons, just tell me, I've been there

Background

I did policy all four years of high school at Olathe Northwest and have coached there for two years. I am a philosophy and psychology major at KU with a minor in women, gender, and sexuality studies. My favored branches of philosophy are ethics, political, and metaphysics and I’m specializing in abnormal psychology. I am familiar with a lot of theory as a result of my majors and experience, but I do have trouble remembering exact details like authors. I catch on quickly to new theoretical arguments and I thoroughly enjoy k debate. I’m not very familiar with the older style of debate (plan planks and contentions).

Truth informs tech. I’m not going to be voting on warrantless arguments or blatant untruths, that’s an abusive way to try and win the round and I think judge intervention is necessary. I think this applies most frequently to theory blocks, since a lot of times there isn’t an established internal link between the structural harms you’re citing (eg. neg block side skew) and the proposed solution (eg. aff sets framework). If you establish that internal link, it should be fine. My logic here is that you wouldn’t expect me to vote on a DA without an internal link, so why would you do that with theory? Additionally, I’m a strong believer that technical nonresponses to unreasonable arguments don’t outweigh winning substantive arguments and, because debate is about clash and education and discussion, I will always prefer to see discussion of important topics rather than arguments that are just there as distractions.

Overall, explain the things you’re saying because I’m not going to vote on an argument you don’t actually make (but I also won’t vote on warrantless args).

I think the idea that debate is a game and the goal is to win is extremely harmful. Just trying to dump cards on your opponent to make them slip up and not respond to something is slimy, same with running stuff and banking on the fact that the other team just won't understand what you're arguing. You're not helping yourself get better at analysis and argumentation by avoiding clash to win on technicalities and misunderstandings. I view debate as a space to have conversations and expand knowledge bases, a place for high schoolers to engage in political philosophy, and that requires everyone understanding what's going on and everyone operating fairly. Winning is nice, but unethical strategy in the name of winning is a major problem in debate. If this comes up as a meta argument in round, know I will not buy your debate as a game good theory, I simply won't budge on this one area.

Evidence

Don’t clip. It’s pretty simple to say “cut the card there” and send out a marked copy once your speech is done (I recommend spamming tab on your laptop to mark where you stopped because it can be easily done mid speech and makes sure your marked doc is correct and sent in a timely manner after your speech). I realize that, especially since I’m asking you not to spread, that you’re going to need to cut things off, but just take the two seconds to make me aware of it so I don’t have to get you disqualified for clipping (I really don’t want to have to do that). If your evidence is fraudulent or altered in any way, I will probably find out, and it will cost you the round and maybe the tournament, and I’ll chat with your coach about it. Just don’t do it, there’s plenty of evidence out there and it’s unethical to be making your own.

Aff burden

Aff has the burden to relate to the resolution, but this doesn’t exclude k affs. Obviously, the easiest way to do this is to do a policy aff, but that’s not always what people go with. Relating to the res in an abstract way is valid if you can explain that. Be prepared to defend why your approach is best for debate and why your take on the resolution is necessary. If the debate ends and I’m unclear what an aff ballot means, I’ll vote neg on presumption.

Neg burden

A neg ballot is usually whatever you pull through to the 2NR. If you want to argue judge kick for a CP to also have the squo as an option, you’re going to have to do some theory lifting in order to get me there because I lean toward multiple worlds existing on the neg ballot being inherently abusive. Explain why it’s not. K alts and CPs are functionally the same to me, the difference is in the complexity, so just make sure your alt and what it means for the ballot is clear. If you're running a k with no alt you're gonna have to explain why you don't need one.

Speaking

Do not spread. I will not flow your arguments if I cannot understand them. I have an auditory processing disorder. You don't need to spread to win. I get that you may find it annoying, but you need to be able to adapt to judge preferences and this is what I’m asking of you. I’m asking for speech docs for accessibility and to monitor for clipping, not to fill in gaps on my flow. You have to make connections and read off the args for them to get on there.

Keep track of what you read and what you don’t read and where you’re marking cards. Sending impossibly long speech docs (like whole camp files) that you know are more than you can read is bad practice. Essentially, trying to trick your opponent/the judge into believing you read a card you didn’t read is extremely unethical and over the line where I start to find ways to vote against you. Explicitly falsely claiming to have read a card in a previous speech is a round loss. You should be flowing your own speeches to avoid this happening.

Argument choices

You need to be running full arguments in your speeches. Starting a DA or T in one speech and saving the impact/voters for the block is abusive and not having those things at all means that you've wasted your own time because I can't vote on that argument. DAs need uniqueness, a link, and an impact (sometimes and an internal link). T needs an interpretation, violation, standards, and voters.

I love kritiks. This is probably not surprising as a philosophy major, and I do a lot of theory in my classes (I don’t just take major related classes so I’m familiar with economic oriented theory as well). I probably won’t have read exactly what you’re reading, but I’m familiar with a wide range of concepts and am comfortable with my ability to understand complicated arguments. The stuff I’m most familiar with is queer theory, biopower, settler colonialism, afro-pessimism, feminism, and anything relating to ethics. However, this is not a freebee to just run something because you think it'll confuse the other team. Philosophical discussions go both ways and I'm going to like your K a lot more if you're being diplomatic and helping the other team get your point so they can actually respond. In K debates you should be focusing on having a productive, fair philosophical debate with your opponent and that gets really muddled when all anyone cares about is the W. A fair warning about Ks, I will probably understand your lit better than you do, 9 times out of 10 this is the case, and this means I will notice if you don't understand the argument you're running, so best to run Ks you're comfortable with and not just something you pulled from open ev just for this round.

I will vote on topicality, but I think running it when you know an aff is topical is tacky (in a roll my eyes kind of way not a vote you down kind of way). However, I get that sometimes you don’t have anything else to run because you’re not a k team. Reasonability to me is more about there being multiple acceptable interpretations of a word, so if you’re not meeting any definition in the round, you’re probably not reasonably topical. I’m less lenient to obscure policy affs than to k affs on t and that’s a personal preference that you should be aware of (this is based on how useful I think each are to debate; the former not at all and the latter extremely). I’m probably not going to buy into t isn’t apriori to my decision but if you think you can convince me, go for it by all means. You don’t need 5 minutes of t in the 2NR for it to be convincing, but sometimes you need that five minutes to cover everything that’s happened on the t flow, so play it by ear. I don’t really enjoy t debates, they get really reductive a lot of times because it devolves into semantics for semantics' sake. I know some people are really into them, but I personally think there’s more important discussions to be had and throwaway t args are a waste of time. However, recall that I will vote on t because it is important.

DAs and CPs aren’t super interesting unless you have something that’s not generic. You can win on them, like everything, but I find big stick, low probability impacts dull and they’re one of my least favorite parts of debate. Politics DAs need to be updated to be relevant and even then, they’re a lot of speculation and fear mongering so be careful how you’re arguing. CPs are a whole can of worms and can easily be annoying to judge and abusive to the aff. PICs are iffy for me since the aff isn’t just coming up with the best possible plan, it’s the best possible plan and fitting in the resolution, but if you can argue theory for them then, as with most things, be my guest.

I prefer structural impacts because big stick impacts feel like sensationalized news headlines IMO, but it's not a hard preference in any way.

Theory is fun but needs to be clear and have internal links, as stated above. I don’t really have much more to say than don’t use theory as a time waster because it usually means it’s argued poorly, doesn’t apply, and makes you look bad.

A lot of people assume they’re winning every flow, but you’re probably not, so I recommend using the “even if” layering of argumentation in rebuttals to have flows interact with each other. Best to not assume you’re winning and built contingencies into your speeches for me.

Flowing

You should be flowing, even if it’s from the speech doc for accessibility reasons (another reason why marked copies are important, I did this all the time). If you respond to arguments that weren’t presented, your speaks will suffer for it, and obviously, not responding to a core argument because you weren’t flowing could cost you the round.

Apparently, y’all have decided prewritten overviews are the new hip thing. It doesn’t sound like a great idea to me, mostly because overviews should be short summaries of what you’re extending in the speech in the context of the current round (exception to this is aff case extensions, go ahead and prewrite those to your heart’s content). Every round shakes out different, so you should be adapting your extensions to what’s going on in front of the judge. Line by lines are very nice but I recognize they require a lot of organization. It’s usually better to go through each individual argument rather than doing each flow as an argument, since a lot of detail can be lost. Prewritten overviews that aren’t for unaddressed, pure extensions will be affecting your speaks.

Misc

I’m not going to tolerate any harassment, abuse, insulting, or exclusion in rounds (this is for extreme cases, which do happen, unfortunately). As someone who has experienced those things and been frustrated by judge apathy in the name of intervention philosophy, the debate space has to be accessible and equitable for everyone who is participating and that is the most a priori thing in a round. If someone is having a breakdown or is uncomfortable in ways I can’t visibly recognize, let me know and we can take a break. Your mental health and sense of belonging in the debate space is the most important thing to me and I won’t let other people compromise that for you. I will not tolerate violent, bigoted rhetoric being used in round. I’ve had people say I shouldn’t be allowed to participate in debate, to vote, or to make my own decisions because of aspects of my identity and I will absolutely not allow you to make these arguments. I am hard zero tolerance about this. You do not have the right to make the debate space unsafe.

Disclosure should be reciprocal in order to be ethical. If you wiki mined the aff’s case, you should disclose negative positions. In rounds where there’s a disagreement about disclosure, it’s unlikely to be the topic of my RFD, but I will probably have some criticism if there’s clear unfairness. Hold yourselves accountable for ethical practices.

The only time I will reject a team instead of an argument is on abuse/harassment/exclusion.

Grant McKeever – he/him – ggmdebate@gmail.com (put this on the email chain and feel free to ask questions)

Experience: Current coach for Lincoln Southwest. Current NFA LD debater (1v1 policy) for UNL (elections, nukes) - did DCI/TOC style stuff senior year (water) and was on the trad/KDC circuit in Kansas prior (criminal justice, arms sales, immigration) at Olathe Northwest HS so I’m most likely familiar with whatever style you’re going for

Evidence sharing - yes please. Would prefer to get word docs but would rather have something rather than nothing.

TL;DR: Run what you run best. I’m open to mostly whatever, specifics down below. Default to policymaker. Give me judge instruction, explain arguments, and tell me how to vote because that’s probably how I will. The rest of the paradigm is moreso preferences/defaults/advice than explicit constraints; my job is to flow the round and evaluate what happens in it, and I try to do so as unbiased as possible.

Don’t be disrespectful. Just don’t.

I've noticed a disappointing lack of warrants and impacts from claims coming out of debates - an argument has 3 parts; you will get a MUCH more favorable (or, at the least, less intervention-y) RFD if you go beyond the claim and give me comparative reasons why it is true and how it frames my ballot.

ON EVIDENCE CITATIONS -

My patience is growing thin on a lot of these questions - I have watched blatant violations of the NSDA rules on evidence (sources:https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Evidence-Guide.pdf and https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hq7-DE6ls2ryVtOttxR4BNpRdP7xUbBr0M3SMYefek8/edit#heading=h.nmf14n). I will not hesitate to tank speaks and/or drop the debater for failure to comply with these standards (and it's magnified if your opponent points it out).

What this means:

1. You MUST provide cut cards with full citations - this means setting up some form of evidence sharing (speech drop, email, flash drive, paper case, etc.) that I have access to for the ENTIRETY of the debate to check for clipping and evidence standards. THE IDEA THAT EVERYONE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE CARDS YOU READ IS SILLY AND MAKES FOR BAD DEBATES. FAILURE TO SHARE YOUR EVIDENCE WITH YOUR OPPONENT AND MYSELF WILL RESULT IN A MAX OF 25 SPEAKER POINTS AND A LOSS IN ELIMS." (stolen from Zach Thornhill). This includes having access to the original source material the card was cut from, and provide : full name of primary author and/or editor, publication date, source, title of article, date accessed for digital evidence, full URL, author qualifications, and page numbers for all cards. In round, you only have to verbally say the name and date, but I need the rest of this information provided in another format. HYPERLINKS ALONE ARE NOT SUFFICIENT - THEY ARE ONE PART OF THE CITATION, AND FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE REST OF THIS INFORMATION IS SUFFICIENT TO VOTE DOWN.
2. I am VERY unlikely to give you much leeway for paraphrased/summarized evidence - this model highly incentivizes debaters misconstruing evidence, and 99% of the time misses out on the warrants as to WHY the claim is true (which means even if it follows evidence rules I am unlikely to give it much weight anyway). In addition, paraphrasing is only used for one small, specific portion of an original source, not summarize pages of information into a sentence to blip out 20 cards. If you are concerned I may misinterpret part of your paraphrased case as violating this and/or are concerned, you should read cut cards that highlight the words from a source read in the debate. If you do paraphrase, you MUST have outlined the specific part of the card paraphrased clearly - failure to do this is an evidence violation.
3. Clipping, even if accidental, is enough to be voted against - I don't care who points it out when it gets pointed out or how - I will be following along, and if I find you clipped I will vote against you. This is non-negotiable.
4. Distortion, nonexistent evidence (in here, point 1), and clipping (point 3) are the only violations in which the round will be stopped - that doesn't mean any other evidence violations will not negatively impact your speaks and the arguments I have on the flow.

I don't want to do this to be mean, but these are necessary to maintain academic integrity and faithful representation - especially at postseason and national-level tournaments, these violations are inexcusable.

Pref Sheet (mainly for LD, but works for policy too)

LARP/Policy - 1

K - 1/2

Theory*** - 1/2

Phil - 3/4

Tricks - 5

Other: probably somewhere throughout the paradigm - or just ask

***depends what theory; I can evaluate it, and if you win it I'll vote, but would much rather have substantive theory arguments with substantive impacts versus tiny violations with marginal impacts and reason to vote (for relative example. they don't disclose that's bad > they don't provide cites for every argument in comic sans on the wiki that's bad) (read theory section below)

General

Debate is a competitive game, and it is my job as a judge to evaluate who wins the game. As competitors, you get to tell me how to evaluate the game outside my defaults and why I should evaluate this way - this takes a lot of different forms with many different reasons, criteria, benefits, and more, but my job is to evaluate this clash to decide a winner (which becomes much easier with judge instruction). However, debate as a game is unique with the educational benefits it provides and have real impacts in the way we think about and view the world - I think debate about what debate should look like are important to framing the game, and can easily be persuaded to find extraneous benefits to the "game" to evaluate/vote on.

Tech>truth, though sticking with the truth usually makes the tech easier

Prep Time - not a big fan of people stealing prep. If it gets bad enough I will start to just dock prep time as you're stealing prep so steal at your own risk. I also give verbal warnings, if I tell you to stop please just stop I don't want to be grumpy. TIMES TO NOT TAKE PREP: while someone is uploading a speech doc, as someone is going up for cross, after your prep time has expired, etc.

Speed – Spreading is fine. Make sure everyone in the round is okay with it though before you do. If you spread make sure it’s clear. If you’re super fast I probably can't understand your top speed, and appreciate going a slower on tags/analytics. I'll yell a few times, but if the keyboard ain't clacking/I'm frantically trying to keep up I'm not recording your arguments.

-Within that, I'm probably not going to verbally call on a panel; I'm going to assume the speed you're going at is to best adapt to the other judges; a lot of the same signals tho will still apply, I just won't be as verbal ab it

Framing – it’s good. Please use it, especially if there’s different impacts in the debate. Impact calc is very good, use it to the best of your ability. I'm a policymaker after all you’ll win the round here.

I've increasingly noticed that heavily posturing is becoming less persuasive to me; it looks much better to frame the debate through you being ahead on specific arguments (ie evidence/warrant quality, impact weighing, etc.) then posturing about the round writ large. Especially with the way I evaluate debates, the last minute ethos/pathos push is by and far less important than writ large "I'm soooooo far ahead" that can get articulated on the flow to shape my ballot.

Neg

Ks – I probably don’t know all of your lit. As long as you explain I should be fine and am more than willing to vote on them. I'm once again reminding that you should either send your analytics or slow down otherwise else my flow WILL be a mess. Judge instruction is key here - give me ROB and impact stuff out.

Topicality – I love a good T debate. Not a fan of T as a time suck; it's legitimately so good. If the aff is untopical/topical/exists go for it. That being said, I need good violations on T. Slow down a bit on the standards/voters piece of things. I default to competing interps, but can evaluate on reasonability if it's won.

CPs – Swag. Theory is highly underused here, so as long as I can flow them (slow down on them) I'll vote on them. Condo is usually good but I default a bit to reasonability here - especially if the aff points out specific abuse stories. I default to framing this debate as a scale of "if the CP solves ___ much of the aff, what does the risk of the net benefit need to be to outweigh" - so pairing good case defense and net benefit debate is crucial.

DAs – Good. Please just have at least a somewhat reasonable link chain.

Theory – I'm fine with it. I heavily lean towards drop the argument and not the team unless it's egregious/about in-round discriminatory behavior. Still will default to competing interps but would be happy to go for good C/Is under reasonability. Disclosure (for an example): I think disclosure is good and you should disclose, but I am much less likely (not opposed) to reject the team and instead default more towards leaning neg on generic links/args. Condo/Topicality are probably the only ones that I reject the team on. Generally frown on RVIs, the better out is making those articulations under reasonability.

Case – I feel that case debate is highly under-utilized. A strong case debate is just as, if not a slightly more, viable way to my ballot. However, please pair it with some sort of offense; case defense is good but if there's no offense against the aff then I vote aff. Especially with a CP that avoids the deficits heck yeah.

Aff

K Affs – Refer to the K section. Fairness and education are impacts, but the more they are terminalized/specified (to things like participation) the more persuasive your arguments become. Haven't been in enough FW debates to know how I truly lean on that, I'll evaluate it like everything else - impacts are key.

-TVA is better defense than SSD imo but both are defense; they take out aff impacts on the flow, but if you go for these (which u should) pair it with other offense on the page

Extinction Impacts – have a probable link chain and make sure aff is substantial - that's much easier to win and helps u later on.

LD

I'm a policy kid, LD circuit norms and evaluations can fly over my head. I did a couple years on the trad circuit so I know some things but it's not my forte - refer to the policy stuff and ask questions before round. Judge instruction is still CRUCIAL.

I don't know philosophy and I won't pretend to know it. You can run it but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE explain it and how I evaluate it - odds are LD time constraints make it an uphill battle.

Not a fan of tricks. I have low threshold for responses to it and actually considering it in the round. Couple this with the theory section above.

I think LD uses the word "ought" for a reason, and that it's to make it an uphill battle to win PTX/Elections DA/Process CPs/any argument that the link relies on certainty/immediacy of the resolution being bad and not the actual implementation (read all your other DAs/CPs to the rez/their plan/whatev)

-this isn't to say you can't just that it's a bit more uphill - win the definition debate to win these are legitimate

PF

You still should be cutting evidence in PF with good, clear cites.

I still will judge this event like any other - judge instruction and impact calc are key.

Most of my policy section still applies (focus on aff + DA sections - CPs and Ks in PF get wacky and is prob easier w/o them).

Good luck, and have fun!

Last Major Update 5/27/2023

Honestly, I tend to be old-fashioned in that I like a debate round with a good solid case that is argued. I will listen to counter plans and DAs but they do need to be applicable to the case.

I do not mind some speed but I still like there to be some emphasis on speaking skills and presentation.

I will vote on Topicality if it truly is applicable but make sure you are doing T instead of significance.

I have voted for K before but it needs to be good, applicable and succinct.

Be polite, logical and please do not change history.... For example don't say something such as World War II was the only world war. Doesn't the two imply a one?

If you have questions, ask. I always forget something.

I debated in high school and college but that was in the 1980s; I have coached the past 37 years but at a 5A or 4A school in Kansas. With those two pieces of information, I'm pretty traditional in my approach to debate. I am a policymaker. I like communication, but I will try to keep a good flow if you will PLEASE signpost and label arguments; real words make it easier for me to flow than big gasps and high-pitched droning noises. I will NOT be looking at any electronic copies of arguments or evidence; I believe that debate is an oral communication activity, so I will be listening to and flowing what you actually say. I try to avoid being interventionist in the round, but I will struggle with believing things that are unrealistic. I don't care for a lot of theory discussion; I would prefer to hear about this year's resolution. I LOVE direct clash!

im a first-year out, ex-DCI debater from Lawrence.

i will listen to and believe any argument assuming you can sell it. that being said, i think that actual discussion and debates about the aff are better than running like twenty da's and wacky t args.

i don't believe in tabula rasa. stock issues don't matter to me as much as a coherent argument. i won't vote you down if you don't "prove" harms or inherency.

if you tell me that you don't understand what USFG or some other acronym stands for, you've lost my ballot.

truth = tech, its more about the framework, in my opinion. you could honestly convince me either way, but i tend to lean towards truth > tech. i think there is an inherent value to the debate space but that's a different tangent.

i am most read on kritikal arguments and enjoy watching them but do what you do!

if you say anything sus i will vote you down.

if you have any questions feel free to ask.

Lansing High School '21

University of Kansas '25 (not debating)

Please add me to the email chain: maddie.souser@gmail.com

Pronouns: she/her

top level

Do your thing. I'll try to resolve the debate with as little intervention as possible. I'd rather you read something you enjoy reading, I'll do my best to adapt to what arguments you read.

I’ve done limited research on this topic and have only judged a few rounds this season.

If anything on my paradigm isn't clear or your have questions - feel free to ask me before round or shoot me an email

Planless affs:

I'm best at adjudicating and giving constructive feedback in debates with policy affs because that's where most of my experience as a debater was, but I enjoy watching and evaluating planless affs.

Make sure you're explaining the literature/process that your aff takes

Being in the direction of the topic is important

Framework - 2nc/2nr's should interact with the aff at some level, ie. don't just read generic uncontextualized t-usfg blocks. Give a detailed explanation as to why the specific model/aff is worse for debate. Most debates that don't contextualize framework arguments to the aff end up sounding like "K affs are bad for debate", which is a strat you can go for but it's much easier to win with specific offense and more difficult to convince me that any and all planless affs are bad for debate.

Fairness and education can both be impacts (unless argued otherwise), but I personally think fairness is argued best as an i/l to education

Topicality:

I default to competing interpretations

TVA's are good to help explain impacts and help contextualize what offense you lose under the aff's model

Slow down a little bit on analytics

Disads

Da/cp debates are usually pretty fun and probably my favorite to watch

Specific links>topic links

Not much to say here

Counterplans:

Default condo is good, but can be convinced otherwise

Process cp's are fine, but I eer aff on theory

I default to judge kick

Condo is the only theory argument that is a reason to reject the team

2a's - please utilize going for theory more, negative teams can be pretty abusive when it comes to fiat - even if you don't end up going for it, having it in your arsenal is good practice and might save you from losing to a random process cp one day

Kritics:

Assume I don't know your lit, make sure you are explaining your ev and contextualizing it to the topic/aff

Not the best judge for kvk debates, very limited experience here

Line by line>long overviews

Other:

Judge instruction is important - your 2nr/2ar should outline what you want the decision on my ballot to look like

Be kind to everyone in the round! Debate is a fun and educational outlet for people - don't make me intervene because you've made someone else feel uncomfortable/unsafe in the debate space.

I have been an assistant coach for around 12 years.

I do not value any one type of argument over another or automatically discount any type of argument. Anything is game; it just needs to be argued well. Make sure you are listening to the other side and actually addressing what they are saying.

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

4 years of debate (KDC/OPEN) at Lansing High

add me on the email chain gagethompsondebategang@gmail.com however I'd prefer speechdrop.net its overall faster

Top Level: I've learned as I've began judging more that I don't necessarily like certain arguments over others just how the arguments are ran and extended. Right now I'm big into the K in pretty much every way. That doesnt mean you dont have to explain anything to me in fact I believe that the kritik is the argument that will always require the most explaining but basically I'm cool with whatever you'll do just make sure to explain the argument and respond to what the other team says against it extend the voter and do impact calc and youll basically win my ballot. And dont be racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/or overall a dick it's prolly the fastest way to not only get speaker points docked but also to lose my ballot. Overall this activity should be fun and inclusive for all lets make it be that way.

More in depth version of how I evaluate

Judge intervention freaking sucks dont make me do it please that means extend voters/read voters and do impact calc/extend impacts. After getting screwed in a semifinals round because of judges intervening the idea of voting on something that never comes out of your mouth genuinely makes me like the worst human in the world.

T: On topicality I'll default to competing Interps unless you give me a reason to favor reasonability. I think competitive equity and education are the best impacts to run on T. IE: Its not necessarily about the ground you lose but the ground they gain bc lets be honest the aff already gets Infinite prep First and Last speech so they prolly shouldn't be getting another leg up on the neg. For the aff tho I find that "we meet" arguments are very convincing and if its pretty obvious you meet you dont have to win a counter interp for that. Also a lot of aff teams will read that Lit checks abuse ( I do this all the time LOL) but its not a good arg and is easily beaten with this line "Lit exists for everything just because the lit exists doesnt make what youre doing good for the activity" also if your neg focus on the impacts we see if affs can read untopical plans and win every aff round. Ie: they make being the neg impossible which means lower novice participation and lower rates of people coming into the activity. That's prolly the fastest way to win my ballot NGL because hey guess what if that happens I lose my job and the activity I love goes into the grave.

CP: ah yes this part of the paradigm oh boy put on your seat belt for this one... I like CP's I think that theyre a good test of the affirmative however too many people end up reading these and they develop into super complex theory debates super fast like lighting mcqueen fast. So lets break it down

Condo: Condo is good if the neg reads one cp i feel like they should be able to kick it and go for something else but if they read like 3 cp's come on G dont be like that please only read 1 cp so that way we all dont get confused.

PICS: haha PICS are super bad if you read one youre prolly gonna lose the round so dont theyre one of the most abusive args you can read.

50 states: easily permable unless you read tix IG even still dont know how i feel about 50 actor fiat so the aff could maybe snag you on that but it also depends on the topic. the framers lowkey never like to give neg ground on domestic topics so 50 states and like federalism/tix is all you got so im chill with them then just explain how they do the same thing as the aff or are better and that they avoid the NB

net ben: please please please for everything thats good in the world read a net ben with your CP otherwise i have no reason to vote for your CP

Consult CP's: I view these similarly to PICS because thats what they are change my mind

Delay CP's : Same exact thing as consult cp's and PICS because its a PIC

DA's: Not a whole lot to say here tbh Da's are pretty straight forward um make sure to tell me that they outweigh case if your neg and if youre aff prove that theyre either non unique/ turn the DA's link/ Turn the Impact and um given the neg doesnt answer that youll win id say. also if youre aff tell me why your case outweighs i dont just want to hear the words i also want to hear why. overall tho I want to hear debate in each level as you condense the round.

Spec: I have an interesting love hate relationship lowkey spec args are one of the nit pickiest things in the book and are older than a dinosaur. but I also love them for that reason exactly. make sure like a DA or ig more like T provide an interp, violation, standards, and a voter/MPX. ill vote on spec given that you actually go for it fully in the 2nr. it can be an effective strat tho if you read a spec/vagueness arg in order to protect the links to a politics DA or to some like agent specific DA.

K: This part of my paradigm used to be super vague but now is not :) ya boi got some experience with the kritik finally. Alright so as the aff the things I think you need to do to in round is one respond to every link including links of omission if not they have proof that you cause the impact to happen. second weigh the impact of the aff against the impact of the Alt. Third, perm the Kritik unless the perm would create a link of omission then be careful. Fourth challenge Alt solvency if the alt cant solve for the root cause of its problem it means I shouldnt vote for it. thats prolly the easiest way to tell you how to answer. you can also give me a ROB arg which tells me how i need to frame the debate round IE: h=whoever has the best durable solvency or whoever prevents the biggest impact in terms of magnitude. or whatever you wish it to be. and on the negative be able to defend everything above and any sketchy things the aff might do.

Speed: im okay with speed but beware if its not on the doc slow down and sign post otherwise i will lose track and wont get it on my flow and whatever i flow is king IE: if i dont catch it i wont use it in my RFD

Experience: I debated for four years and have coached for three years at Olathe South.

I view myself as a policy-maker, whoever leaves the world a better place is who I will vote for.

Topicality: I'm a big fan of topicality and think weighing whether or not the aff is a part of the resolution is a big part of the round. I believe the resolution was written to try and create the most educational environment for debaters and if cases fall outside of that I don't think the event is educational.

Counterplans: I'm fine with counterplans. I think they are an interesting way to test whether or not the aff is the best way to solve the issues they present.

K's: I'm fine with listening to K's as long as you actually understand what you are running. If you don't understand it, then I won't understand it. If I don't understand it, I don't vote for you.

Last of all, don't be rude. This event is about learning and discussing ways to change the world. Being mean has no place in that.