Head coach with 28 years experience. Entirely a policymaker who just wants what is *realistically* best for our nation and world.

1. I vote on your analysis of the evidence read in round, not on the evidence itself. Cards are jigsaw pieces, and it is your job to show me how they connect. I will not intervene and fill in the gaps with my own analysis about why a card or argument matters.

2. I do not do well with speeding and spreading; you may have to make a decision between impressing the other team or winning this round. I know that you have worked incredibly hard to get to this round, and I really want to understand you and your arguments. Please know that I cannot vote on arguments I cannot understand. Your brilliance is best revealed by the words I do understand, not the ones I do not.

3. Treat me as a member of congress who is evaluating a policy proposal for our nation.

4. All arguments are fair game, but if you cannot convince me of them (rather than just reading them), I'm as likely to vote on inherency as I am a kritik.

I use she/her pronouns.

I debated in college. I have worked with high school policy debate for five years.

I believe debate is a forum for advocacy. I believe it should be accessible to all audiences. I am not lay, but I prefer styles that cater to lay audiences (big pictures, clear impacts, clear explanations, clear voters, etc.)

-Both teams must share speech docs: forgetting to share will result in docked speaker points, refusal will result in an auto-win to your opponent

-I don't flow or vote on new arguments in rebuttals--responsive evidence to support previously made arguments are okay though. If you intend to split the block, you need to articulate that.

-Ad hominem attacks, offensive rhetoric, and any other forms of abuse/violence will not be tolerated. At a minimum, I will dock speaker points. I reserve the right to end a round early due to excessive inappropriate behavior. No one should ever be personally attacked, bullied, or made to feel like they as a person don't matter. Be professional and respectful. Leave it in the ring.

-I'm fine with moderate-fast speeds. Once you have to go way up in your head voice to spread, you're gonna lose me. Enunciation is key no matter the speed. The clearer you are, the faster you can go for me.

-I could not care less about planks. I view plank complaints and arguments as a time-suck rather than proper clash. Debates that focus on the substantive content of the topic are going to automatically get higher speaker points from me than those that don't.

-Roadmap and signpost. Don't leave me searching my flow to figure out what you are talking about. I like titles, tags, and clear delineation between points.

*Framework is a priori.

I will vote how teams tell me to vote, regardless of my real-life opinions. Give me weighing mechanisms. Give me voters. Give me standards.

If you tell me to weigh the round using impact calculus, I need to know how to weigh impacts (magnitude, timeline, probability, etc.).

All conceded frameworks will stand. All competitive frameworks need to be justified.

*Persuasion is key.

I do not flow jargon. "Extend BlahBlahBlah" should be followed with a brief summary/explanation.

"They dropped BlahBlah" should be followed with an explanation of why that is important and why that is beneficial to you.

I like analytics. I love analytics backed up with a card.

*Counterplans

Sure! If you can solve better, do it. I'm cool with viable perms, too. Win the links and impacts, win the CP/Perm.

*Topicality

Not my favorite, but if there is a strong argument for loss of ground/education, then sure! But you have to make the argument; I won't make it for you. I need clear standards and voters. Answer the "so what?"

If an AFF team reasonably convinces me that either they meet a NEG definition or their counter-interpretation is preferable, I will give it to the AFF. There are few instances where I will award the NEG a T win on predictability/ground if I have seen the AFF before. Making ground claims and then running specific DAs or using specific link scenarios moots your grounds argument for me.

*Kritiks

Sure! Clear alt. Clear world of the aff vs. alt impact calc. Clear links. Clear explanations. Don't assume I am familiar with the literature (remember I prefer lay styles), but don't get caught misconstruing the literature (keep in mind I am experienced).

*Advantages/Disadvantages

I'm not going to vote for time-sucks. Walk me through the links and impacts. Weigh the impacts. If you don't have the time to explain it, you probably shouldn't be running it.

I flow. If you tell me that the other team dropped something and I clearly have it on my flow, you will not win any of your extensions.

I am a mom of 2 debaters. This is my 5th year of judging debate. I prefer to understand the plan and evidence. Speaking too fast or stumbling over words will decrease the likelihood of me being able to fully understand your position.

I debated all four years in high school.

There's nothing technical that I'm picky about; run what you will just as long as you understand what it is you are running.

Don't spread. Please. If you talk too fast I will not be able to understand you and nothing you say will register with me and I will be lost and you will be sad.

All I ask is that you're respectful. I'm basically a lay judge who knows what's up.

Short Version:
-yes email chain: nyu.bs.debate@gmail.com

-if you would like to contact me about something else, the best way to reach me is: bootj093@newschool.edu - please do not use this email for chains I would like to avoid cluttering it every weekend which is why I have a separate one for them

-debated in high school @ Mill Valley (local policy circuit in Kansas) and college @ NYU (CEDA-NDT) for 7 years total - mostly policy arguments in high school, mix of high theory and policy in college

-head LD/policy debate coach at Bronx Science and assistant policy coach at The New School, former assistant for Blue Valley West, Mill Valley, and Mamaroneck

-spin > evidence quality, unless the evidence is completely inconsistent with the spin

-tech > truth as long as the tech has a claim, warrant, and impact

-great for impact turns

-t-framework impacts ranked: topic education > skills > clash/arg refinement > scenario planning > fun > literally any other reason why debate is good > fairness

-I updated the t-fw part of my paradigm recently (under policy, 12/4/23) - if you are anticipating having a framework debate in front of me on either side, I would appreciate it if you skimmed it at least

-don't like to judge kick but if you give me reasons to I might

-personally think condo has gone way too far in recent years and more people should go for it, but I don't presume one way or the other for theory questions

-all kinds of theory, including topicality, framework, and/or "role of the ballot" arguments are about ideal models of debate

-most of the rounds I judge are clash debates, but I've been in policy v policy and k v k both as a debater and judge so I'm down for anything

-for high school policy 23-24: I actually used to work for the Social Security Administration (only for about 7-8 months) and I have two immediate family members who currently work there - so I have a decent amount of prior knowledge about how the agency works internally, processes benefits, the technology it uses, etc. - but not necessarily policy proposals for social security reform

Long Version:

Overview: Debate is for the debaters so do your thing and I'll do my best to provide a fair decision despite any preferences or experiences that I have. I have had the opportunity to judge and participate in debates of several different formats, circuits, and styles in my short career. What I've found is that all forms of debate are valuable in some way, though often for different reasons, whether it be policy, critical, performance, LD, PF, local circuit, national circuit, public debates, etc. Feel free to adapt arguments, but please don't change your style of debate for me. I want to see what you are prepared for, practiced in, and passionate about. Please have fun! Debating is fun for you I hope!

Speaking and Presentation: I don't care about how you look, how you're dressed, how fast or in what manner you speak, where you sit, whether you stand, etc. Do whatever makes you feel comfortable and will help you be the best debater you can be. My one preference for positioning is that you face me during speeches. It makes it easier to hear and also I like to look up a lot while flowing on my laptop. For some panel situations, this can be harder, just try your best and don't worry about it too much.

Speed - I do not like to follow along in the speech doc while you are giving your speech. I like to read cards in prep time, when they are referenced in cx, and while making my decision. I will use it as a backup during a speech if I have to. This is a particular problem in LD, that has been exacerbated by two years of online debate. I expect to be able to hear every word in your speech, yes including the text of cards. I expect to be able to flow tags, analytics, theory interps, or anything else that is not the interior text of a card. This means you can go faster in the text of a card, this does mean you should be unclear while reading the text of a card. This also means you should go slower for things that are not that. This is because even if I can hear and understand something you are saying, that does not necessarily mean that my fingers can move fast enough to get it onto my flow. When you are reading analytics or theory args, you are generally making warranted arguments much faster than if you were reading a card. Therefore, you need to slow down so I can get those warrants on my flow.

Clarity - I'm bad at yelling clear. I try to do it when things are particularly egregious but honestly, I feel bad about throwing a debater off their game in the middle of a speech. I think you can clear or slow your opponent if you are comfortable with it - but not excessively to avoid interruption please - max 2-3 times a speech. If you are unclear with tags or analytics in an earlier speech, I will try to let you know immediately after the speech is over. If you do it in a rebuttal, you are 100% at fault because I know you can do it clearly, but are choosing not to. Focus on efficiency, not speed.

Logistical Stuff: I would like the round to run as on-time as possible. Docs should be ready to be sent when you end prep time. Orders/roadmaps should be given quickly and not changed several times. Marking docs can happen outside of prep time, but it should entail only marking where cards were cut. I would prefer that, at the varsity level, CX or prep time is taken to ask if something was not read or which arguments were read. I think it’s your responsibility to listen to your opponent’s speech to determine what was said and what wasn’t. I don’t take prep or speech time for tech issues - the clock can stop if necessary. Use the bathroom, fill up your water bottle as needed - tournaments generally give plenty of time for a round and so long as the debaters are not taking excessive time to do other things like send docs, I find that these sorts of things aren’t what truly makes the round run behind.

Email chain or speech drop is fine for docs, which should be shared before a speech. I really prefer Word documents if possible, but don't stress about changing your format if you can't figure it out. Unless there is an accommodation request, not officially or anything just an ask before the round, I don't think analytics need to be sent. Advocacy texts, theory interps, and shells should be sent. Cards are sent for the purposes of ethics and examining more closely the research of your opponent. Too many of you have stopped listening to your opponents entirely and I think the rising norm of sending every single word you plan on saying is a big part of it. It also makes you worse debaters because in the instances where your opponent decides to look up from their laptop and make a spontaneous argument, many of you just miss it entirely.

Stop stealing prep time. When prep time is called by either side, you should not be talking to your partner, typing excessively on your computer, or writing things down. My opinion on “flex prep,” or asking questions during prep time, is that you can ask for clarifications, but your opponent doesn’t have to answer more typical cx questions if they don’t want to (it is also time that they are entitled to use to focus on prep), and I don’t consider the answers in prep to have the same weight as in cx. Prep time is not a speech, and I dislike it when a second ultra-pointed cx begins in prep time because you think it makes your opponent look worse. It doesn’t - it makes you look worse.

Speaker Points: I try to adjust based on the strength of the tournament pool/division, but my accuracy can vary depending on how many rounds in the tournament I've already judged.

29.5+ You are one of the top three speakers in the tournament and should be in finals.

29.1-29.4 You are a great speaker who should be in late elims of the tournament.

28.7-29 You are a good speaker who should probably break.

28.4-28.6 You're doing well, but need some more improvement to be prepared for elims.

28-28.3 You need significant improvement before I think you can debate effectively in elims.

<28 You have done something incredibly offensive or committed an ethics violation, which I will detail in written comments and speak with you about in oral feedback.

The three things that affect speaker points the most are speaking clearly/efficiently, cross-x, and making effective choices in the final rebuttals.

If you win the debate without reading from a laptop in the 2NR/2AR your floor for speaks is a 29.

For Policy:

T-Framework: The fw debates I like the most are about the advantages and disadvantages of having debates over a fiated policy implementation of the topic. I would prefer if your interpretation/violation was phrased in terms of what the affirmative should do/have done - I think this trend of crafting an interpretation around negative burdens is silly - i.e. "negatives should not be burdened with the rejoinder of untopical affirmatives." I'm not usually a big fan of neg interpretations that only limit out certain parts of the topic - strategically, they usually seem to just link back to neg offense about limits and predictability absent a more critical strategy. I think of framework through an offense/defense paradigm and in terms of models of debate. My opinion is that you all spend dozens or hundreds of hours doing research, redos, practice, and debates - you should be prepared to defend that the research you do, the debates you have, and how you have those debates are good.

1. Topic-specific arguments are best - i.e. is it a good or bad thing that we are having rounds talking about fiscal redistribution, nuclear weapons, resource extraction, or military presence? How can that prepare people to take what they learn in debate outside of the activity? Why is topic-specific education valuable or harmful in a world of disinformation, an uninformed American public, escalating global crises, climate change, etc.? Don't be silly and read an extinction impact or anything though.

2. Arguments about debate in general are also great - I'm down for a "debate about debate" - the reason that I as a coach and judge invest tons of time into this activity is because I think it is pedagogically valuable - but what that value should look like, what is best to take from it, is in my opinion the crux of framework debates. Should debate be a competitive space or not? What are the implications of imagining a world where government policy gets passed? What should fiat look like or should it be used at all?

I can be convinced that debate should die given better debating from that side. But honestly, this is not my personal belief - the decline of policy debate in terms of participation at the college and high school level makes me very sad actually. I can also be convinced that debate is God's gift to earth and is absolutely perfect, even though I also believe that there are many problems with the activity. There is also a huge sliding scale between these two options.

3. Major defensive arguments and turns are good - technical stuff about framework like ssd, tvas, relative solvency of counter-interps, turns case and turns the disad arguments, uniqueness claims about the current trends of debate, claims about the history of debate, does it shape subjectivity or not - are all things that I think are worth talking about and can be used to make "try or die" or presumption arguments - though they should not be the focal point of your offense. I like when tvas are carded solvency advocates and/or full plan texts.

4. I do not like judging debates about procedural fairness:

A) They are usually very boring. On every topic, the same pre-written blocks, read at each other without any original thought over and over. I dislike other arguments for this reason too - ultra-generic kritiks and process cps - but even with those, they often get topic or aff-specific contextualizations in the block. This does not usually happen with fairness.

B) I often find fairness very unimportant on its own relative to the other key issues of framework - meaning I don't usually think it is offense. I find a lot of these debates to end up pretty tautological - "fairness is an impact because debate is a game and games should have rules or else they'd be unfair," etc. Many teams in front of me will win that fairness is necessary to preserve the game, but never take the next step of explaining to me why preserving the game is good. In that scenario, what "impact" am I really voting on? Even if the other team agrees that the game of debate is good (which a lot of k affs contest anyway), you still have to quantify or qualify how important that is for me to reasonably compare it to the aff's offense - saying "well we all must care about fairness because we're here, they make strategic arguments, etc." - is not sufficient to do that. I usually agree that competitive incentives mean people care about fairness somewhat. But how much and why is that important? I get an answer with nearly every other argument in debate, but hardly ever with fairness. I think a threshold for if something is an impact is that it's weighable.

C) Despite this, fairness can be impacted out into something tangible or I can be convinced that "tangibility" and consequences are not how I should make my decision. My hints are Nebel and Glówczewski.

5. Everyone needs to compare their impacts alongside other defensive claims in the debate and tell me why I should vote for them. Like traditional T, it's an offense/defense, disad/counterplan, model of debate thing for me. For some reason, impact comparison just seems to disappear from debaters' repertoire when debating framework, which is really frustrating for me.

Kritiks: Both sides of these debates often involve a lot of people reading overviews at each other, especially in high school, which can make it hard to evaluate at the end of the round. Have a clear link story and a reason why the alternative resolves those links. Absent an alt, have a framework as to why your impacts matter/why you still win the round. Impacts are negative effects of the status quo, the alternative resolves the status quo, and the links are reasons why the aff prevents the alternative from happening. Perms are a test of the strength of the link. Framework, ROB, and ROJ arguments operate on the same level to me and I think they are responsive to each other. My feelings on impacts here are similar to t-fw.

I still study some French high theory authors in grad school, but from a historical perspective. In my last couple years of college debate I read Baudrillard and DnG-style arguments a lot, some psychoanalysis as well - earlier than that my tastes were a little more questionable and I liked Foucault, Zizek, and Nietzsche a lot, though I more often went for policy arguments - I gave a lot of fw+extinction outweighs 2ARs. A lot of the debates I find most interesting include critical ir or critical security studies arguments. I have also coached many other kinds of kritiks, including all of the above sans Zizek as well as a lot of debaters going for arguments about anti-blackness or feminism. Set col stuff I don't know the theory as well tbh.

Affirmatives: I think all affs should have a clear impact story with a good solvency advocate explaining why the aff resolves the links to those impacts. I really enjoy affs that are creative and outside of what a lot of people are reading, but are still grounded in the resolution. If you can find a clever interpretation of the topic or policy idea that the community hasn't thought of yet, I'll probably bump your speaks a bit.

Disads: Love 'em. Impact framing is very important in debates without a neg advocacy. Turns cases/turns the da is usually much better than timeframe/probability/magnitude. Between two improbable extinction impacts, I default to using timeframe a lot of the time. A lot of disads (especially politics) have pretty bad ev/internal link chains, so try to wow me with 1 good card that you explain well in rebuttals rather than spitting out 10 bad ones. 0 risk of a disad is absolutely a thing, but hard to prove, like presumption.

Counterplans: They should have solvency advocates and a clear story for competition. Exploit generic link chains in affs. My favorites are advantage cps, specific pics, and recuttings of 1AC solvency ev. I like process cps when they are specific to the topic or have good solvency advocates. I will vote on other ones still, but theory and perm do the cp debates may be harder for you. I think some process cps are even very pedagogically valuable and can be highly persuasive with up-to-date, well-cut evidence - consult Japan on relevant topics for instance. But these arguments can potentially be turned by clash and depth over breadth. And neg flex in general can be a very strong argument in policy. I won't judge kick unless you tell me to in the 2NR, and preferably it should have some kind of justification.

Topicality: I default to competing interps and thinking of interps as models of debate. Be clear about what your interp includes and excludes and why that is a good thing. I view topicality like a disad most of the time, and vote for whoever's vision of the topic is best. I find arguments about limits and the effect that interpretations have on research to be the most convincing. I like topicality debates quite a bit.

Theory: Slow down, slow down, slow down. Like T, I think of theory through models of debate and default to competing interps- you should have an interpretation to make your life a little easier if you want to extend it - if you don't, I will assume the most extreme one (i.e. no pics, no condo, etc.). If you don't have a counter-interp in response to a theory argument, you are in a bad position. If your interpretation uses debate jargon like pics, "process" cps, and the like - you should tell me what you mean by those terms at least in rebuttal. Can pics be out of any word said, anything in the plan, anything defended in the solvency advocate or in cx, any concept advocated for, etc.? I think there is often too much confusion over what is meant to be a process cp. The interpretation I like best for "process" is "counterplans that result in the entirety of the plan." I like condo bad arguments, especially against super abusive 1ncs, but the neg gets a ton of time in the block to answer it, so it can be really hard to give a good enough 1ar on it without devoting a lot of time as well - so if you are going to go for it in the 2ar, you need to expand on it and cover block responses in the 1ar. Warrant out reject the argument vs. reject the team.

For LD:

Prefs Shortcut:

1 - LARP, High Theory Ks

2 - Other Ks, Topicality

3 - Phil, Theory that isn't condo or pics bad

4/5/strike - Trad, Tricks

My disclaimer is I try to keep an open mind for any debate - you should always use the arguments/style that you are most prepared with and practiced in. You all seem to really like these shortcuts, so I caved and made one - but these are not necessarily reflective of my like or dislike for any particular argument, instead more of my experience with different kinds, meaning some probably require more explanation for me to "get it." I love when I do though - I'm always happy to learn new things in debate!

Phil Debates: Something I am fairly unfamiliar with, but I've been learning more about over the past 6 months (02/23). I have read, voted for, and coached many things to the contrary, but if you want to know what I truly believe, I basically think most things collapse into some version of consequentialist utilitarianism. If you are to convince me that I should not be a consequentialist, then I need clear instructions for how I should evaluate offense. Utilitarianism I'm used to being a little more skeptical of from k debates, but other criticisms of util from say analytic philosophy I will probably be unfamiliar with.

Trad Debate: By far what I am least familiar with. I don't coach this style and never competed in anything like LD trad debate - I did traditional/lay policy debate a bit in high school - but that is based on something called "stock issues" which is a completely different set of standards than LD's value/value criterion. I struggle in these debates because for me, like "stock issues" do in policy, these terms seem to restrictively categorize arguments and actually do more to obscure their meaning than reveal it. In the trad debates I've seen (not many, to be fair), tons of time was dedicated to clarifying minutiae and defining words that either everyone ended up agreeing on or that didn't factor into the way that I would make my decision. I don't inherently dislike LD trad debate at all, it honestly just makes things more difficult for me to understand because of how I've been trained in policy debate for 11 years. I try my best, but I feel that I have to sort through trad "jargon" to really get at what you all think is important. I would prefer if you compared relative impacts directly rather than told me one is better than the other 100% of the time.

Plans/DAs/CPs: See the part in my policy paradigm. Plans/CP texts should be clearly written and are generally better when in the language of a specific solvency advocate. I think the NC should be a little more developed for DAs than in policy - policy can have some missing internal links because they get the block to make new arguments, but you do not get new args in the NR that are unresponsive to the 1AR - make sure you are making complete arguments that you can extend.

Kritiks: Some stuff in my policy paradigm is probably useful. Look there for K-affs vs. T-fw. I'm most familiar with so-called "high theory" but I have also debated against, judged, and coached many other kinds of kritiks. Like with DAs/CPs, stuff that would generally be later in the debate for policy should be included in the NC, like ROBs/fw args. Kritiks to me are usually consequentialist, they just care about different kinds of consequences - i.e. the consequences of discourse, research practices, and other impacts more proximate than extinction.

ROB/ROJs: In my mind, this is a kind of theory debate. The way I see this deployed in LD most of the time is as a combination of two arguments. First, what we would call in policy "framework" (not what you call fw in LD) - an argument about which "level" I should evaluate the debate on. "Pre-fiat" and "post-fiat" are the terms that you all like to use a lot, but it doesn't necessarily have to be confined to this. I could be convinced for instance that research practices should come before discourse or something else. The second part is generally an impact framing argument - not only that reps should come first, but that a certain kind of reps should be prioritized - i.e. ROB is to vote for whoever best centers a certain kind of knowledge. These are related, but also have separate warrants and implications for the round, so I consider them separately most of the time. I very often can in fact conclude that reps must come first, but that your opponent’s reps are better because of some impact framing argument that they are making elsewhere. Also, ROB and ROJ are indistinct from one another to me, and I don’t see the point in reading both of them in the same debate.

Topicality: You can see some thoughts in the policy sections as well if you're having that kind of T debate about a plan. I personally think some resolutions in LD justify plans and some don't. But I can be convinced that having plans or not having plans is good for debate, which is what is important for me in deciding these debates. The things I care about here are education and fairness, generally more education stuff than fairness. Topicality interpretations are models of the topic that affirmatives should follow to produce the best debates possible. I view T like a DA and vote for whichever model produces the best theoretical version of debate. I care about "pragmatics" - "semantics" matter to me only insofar as they have a pragmatic impact - i.e. topic/definitional precision is important because it means our research is closer to real-world scholarship on the topic. Jurisdiction is a vacuous non-starter. Nebel stuff is kind of interesting, but I generally find it easier just to make an argument about limits. Reasonability is something I almost never vote on - to be “reasonable” I think you have to either meet your opponent’s interp or have a better one.

RVIs: The vast majority of the time these are unnecessary when you all go for them. If you win your theory or topicality interp is better than your opponent's, then you will most likely win the debate, because the opposing team will not have enough offense on substance. I'm less inclined to believe topicality is an RVI. I think it’s an aff burden to prove they are topical and the neg getting to test that is generally a good thing. Other theory makes more sense as an RVI. Sometimes when a negative debater is going for both theory and substance in the NR, the RVI can be more justifiable to go for in the 2AR because of the unique time differences of LD. If they make the decision to fully commit to theory in the NR, however, the RVI is unnecessary - not that I'm ideologically opposed to it, it just doesn't get you anything extra for winning the debate - 5 seconds of "they dropped substance" is easier and the warrants for your c/i's standards are generally much better than the ones for the RVI.

Disclosure Theory: This is not a section that I would ever have to write for policy. I find it unfortunate that I have to write it for LD. Disclosure is good because it allows schools access to knowledge of what their opponents are reading, which in pre-disclosure days was restricted to larger programs that could afford to send scouts to rounds. It also leads to better debates where the participants are more well-prepared. What I would like to happen for disclosure in general is this:
1) previously read arguments on the topic are disclosed to at least the level of cites on the opencaselist wiki,
2) a good faith effort is made by the aff to disclose any arguments including the advocacy/plan, fw, and cards that they plan on reading in the AC that they've read before once the pairing comes out,
3) a good faith effort is made by the neg to disclose any previously read positions, tied to NC arguments on their wiki, that they've gone for in the NR on the current topic (and previous if asked) once they receive disclosure from the aff,
4) all the cites disclosed are accurate and not misrepresentations of what is read,
5) nobody reads disclosure theory!!

This is basically the situation in college policy, but it seems we still have a ways to go for LD. In a few rare instances I've encountered misdisclosure, even teams saying things like "well it doesn't matter that we didn't read the scenario we said we were going to read because they're a k team and it wasn't really going to change their argument anyways." More intentional things like this, or bad disclosure from debaters and programs that really should know better, I don't mind voting on. I really don't like however when disclosure is used to punish debaters for a lack of knowledge or because it is a norm they are not used to. You have to understand, my roots are as a lay debater who didn't know what the wiki was and didn't disclose for a single round in high school. For my first two years, I debated exclusively on paper and physically handed pages to my opponent while debating after reading them to share evidence. For a couple years after that, we "flashed" evidence to each other by tossing around a usb drive - tournaments didn't provide public wifi. I've been in way more non-lay debates since then and have spent much more time doing "progressive" debate than I ever did lay debate, but I'm very sympathetic still to these kinds of debaters.

Especially if a good-faith attempt is made, interps that are excluding debaters based on a few minutes of a violation, a round report from several tournaments ago, or other petty things make me sad to judge. My threshold for reasonability in these debates will be much lower. Having some empathy and clearly communicating with your opponent what you want from them is a much better strategy for achieving better disclosure practices in the community than reading theory as a punitive measure. If you want something for disclosure, ask for it, or you have no standing. Also, if you read a disclosure interp that you yourself do not meet, you have no standing. Open source theory and disclosure of new affs are more debatable than other kinds of disclosure arguments, and like with T and other theory I will vote for whichever interp I determine is better for debate.

Other Theory: I really liked theory when I did policy debate, but that theory is also different from a lot of LD theory. What that means is I mainly know cp theory - condo, pics, process cps, perm competition (i.e. textual vs. functional, perm do the cp), severance/intrinsicness, and other things of that nature. You can see some of my thoughts on these arguments in the policy section. I've also had some experience with spec arguments. Like T, I view theory similarly to a da debate. Interpretations are models of debate that I endorse which describe ideally what all other debates should look like. I almost always view things through competing interps. Like with T, in order to win reasonability I think you need to have a pretty solid I/meet argument. Not having a counter-interp the speech after the interp is introduced is a major mistake that can cost you the round. I decide theory debates by determining which interp produces a model of debate that is "best." I default to primarily caring about education - i.e. depth vs. breadth, argument quality, research quality, etc. but I can be convinced that fairness is a controlling factor for some of these things or should come first. I find myself pretty unconvinced by arguments that I should care about things like NSDA rules, jurisdiction, some quirk of the tournament invitation language, etc.

Tricks: I think I've officially judged one "tricks" round now, and I've been trying to learn as much as I can while coaching my squad. I enjoyed it, though I can't say I understood everything that was happening. I engaged in some amount of trickery in policy debate - paradoxes, wipeout, process cps, kicking out of the aff, obscure theory args, etc. However, what was always key to winning these kinds of debates was having invested time in research, blocks, a2s - the same as I would for any other argument. I need to be able to understand what your reason is for obtaining my ballot. If you want to spread out arguments in the NC, that's fine and expected, but I still expect you to collapse in the NR and explain in depth why I should vote for you. I won't evaluate new arguments in the NR that are not directly responsive to the 1AR. The reason one-line voting issues in the NC don't generally work with me in the back is that they do not have enough warrants to make a convincing NR speech.

4 year debater at Olathe Northwest High School

I graduated from ONW in 2020 and now compete on the mock trial team at Mizzou. In high school I completed primarily in the KDC division. I also did all 16 forensics events in my time at ONW but my specialty was DX, HI, OO, and Congress.

First off, do not let the flow get messy. If I cannot flow your arguments, I will not vote on them. If you are the team to keep a clean flow, bonus points to you. I would appreciate a flash of the doc or to be on the email chain in order to keep a clean flow and catch clipping. I will give you my email in round for the chain and on the ballot for any questions regarding my decision, for personal reasons I will not post my email online.

Arguments

Topicality: T is one of my personal favorite arguments to make. However, if you do not know how to run T, do not attempt it. I will only vote on topicality if you have all the pieces (interpretation, violation, standards, voters). In addition to this, do not run T just for the hell of it, this argument should be reserved for truly untopical plans in my opinion. When evaluating T, I typically value the competing interpretations the most. Explain to me why your interpretation is better, this doesn't mean reading the authors credentials, but rather interpreting them and explaining why they are better than the counter interp. In your doc, you should have the parts of T listed out. While violation can seem obvious in some cases, do not assume I see the violation, still touch on it even if it is one sentence.

Framing: Honestly I don't weigh framing as much as other arguments, it is more an issue of ground for me. You can obviously still debate framing and explain why yours is better, but I will not vote solely on framing, you must win something else as well. I will favor whatever framing gives a fair amount of ground to both sides and allows for an educational debate.

Theory: Theory can be good, but it is not my favorite argument. I do not like SPEC arguments and I rarely vote on vagueness. All in all, if you are going to run a theory argument, explain it to me. If you have a good explanation and I believe the argument is valid I would not be opposed to voting on it.

Kritiks: I am not the most familiar with K's. The only K I have run is militarism, so if you run any other K you will need to explain it to me. I like K's and I like the idea of them, I just am not as familiar with them as I am other arguments. Similar to my stance on T, do not run an incomplete K. You need a link, impact/solvency take out, and alt in order for me to vote on this argument.

Disads: I have run a disad in every round I have debated in. This being said, I again expect you to have uniqueness, a link, an internal link, and an impact. I will vote on a disad, especially a politics disad. A good, recent politics DA gives me the warm fuzzies. As long as you have a coherent DA, I will evaluate it. When combating a DA, I believe that link and impact arguments are the most effective, however you can win on the DA with other arguments against it. Please do not only combat a DA with analytics, you will need at least one card to effectively argue it.

Counterplans: I love a good CP. But, if you don't read solvency or do not have a net benefit, I will not vote on it. Make sure you know what your CP is doing and how it is different from the aff before you run it. When aff, ALWAYS perm the CP. You can make other arguments, in fact I encourage you to do so, but you should also always perm.

Case: I do not like when teams only run case. If you are going to do so, you must have turns so that there is a distinct reason not to pass the aff. I do appreciate a good case argument in addition to some offcase. Do not argue inherency. Solvency and advantages are the best case arguments. Solvency is probably my favorite case argument. That being said, you can win the round on the neg without making any case arguments.

Non-Argument things

Contradictions: The neg is allowed to have competing arguments, as long as the neg doesn't contradict itself on the same flow, I am fine with it. I will vote on whichever argument persuades me, if you have contradicting arguments I just won't vote on both. I advise that you do not take contradicting arguments to the 2NR, but do as you will.

Speed: I am not afraid to say clear. If I say clear, this is a warning to slow down a bit. If I find myself constantly yelling "clear", I will be sad. If speed is your thing, go for it, but if it is fast to the point where I lose my flow, well, uh-oh.

Date debates: I understand dates are an issue in some instances such as the administration changed or something, but please do not base an entire argument you take to the 2NR off of dates. I will listen, but I will not be happy if your entire argument is "our evidence is more recent", explain why that matters.

"My partner will cover this in their next speech": I hate this. All this tells me is that you do not know your own evidence and/or arguments. Saying this will hurt your speaks.

Disclaimer: Be polite. Have fun. I will take into consideration how you treat your opponents during the round. I do not know why debaters feel the need to yell or be rude in cross. As long as you are polite, this shouldn't be an issue.

Please do not run new off case in the 2NC, this is abusive in my opinion. New case in the 2NC is fine. Use that information as you will.

If you ask the ceiling if it is ready before the round, I will know you have read my paradigm. Points to you.

pfd peeps:

I have only judges pfd a handful of times, but I did qualify for nats in public forum in high school. I also competed in public forum for three years in high school. I should be good with anything you decide to do, but let me know if you have any questions at all.

Policy peeps:

You don't lose until I sign the ballot - if you know you are way too behind then it's time to shoot for the moon; condo, dispo turns, try and sell a new link turn, whatever. I appreciate not giving up and being risky on a mid round strat change if executed well and justified.

Voted aff on the policy topic: 13

Voted neg on the policy topic: 19

email: trinityb@ksu.edu

she/her/hers

Four years at @ Manhattan High School

Assistant Coach @ Lawrence High

Everything is up for debate.

I am a heavy flow critic. I find myself looking towards the arguments and how they function in the debate over the inherent “truth” of an argument. I will vote on an argument I know is not true (many economy arguments, for example) if this is not refuted. Basically, I am tech over truth in most instances...

However, I will not vote on arguments such as racism good, patriarchy good, transphobia good, ableism good, colonialism good, etc. Give content warnings for graphic content (I will vote you down) If there are any of the aforementioned violence practiced theoretically or materially in round I will vote against your team immediately. These types of injustices kill education and means that no ethical pedagogy can occur. Zero tolerance here. Debate space should be a space to act without fear of oppression - I will make sure that is reflected in my judgments and comments.

I am fine with any speed you choose, you will not go too fast for me. However, do not spread just to push the other team out. That is an accessibility issue and if they are pushed out of the round and make an abuse argument or criticism of your practices I will most likely vote against you. I see way too many debaters push other teams out just because they think they are better than the other team. Don't be a dick.

Topicality: I love it. A good T debate is my favorite debate to judge and was my favorite argument to run. T is always a voter because it taps into the performative aspects of debate and how this education can be effective. They are always about competing interpretations and the reasons as to why that interpretation is more beneficial than others. You must weigh the offense based on your standards/voters vs. the C/I and their subsequent standards/voters. You have to win your interpretation is the best for the debate. This applies to all theory arguments.

***Topicality is just an agreement between two teams on what is to be debated.*** If there is/are more pertinent issue(s) that the teams wish to discuss (e.g. anti-blackness, transphobia, colonialism, ableism) of a particular event that is proximal to the debaters then that is okay. Do not think you are stuck to the topic if there is a general consensus on what should be debated.

Counterplans: Read one, please. If you don’t, you need status quo solves. If you read a perm text, please give SOME explanation on how the perm functions. I don’t view perms as advocacies (no one does anymore) because the CP is just opportunity cost to the affirmative, so don’t act like you suddenly have an amazing new net-benefit because you permutated the CP. Presumption never flips aff. Presumption, simply put, is that the existing state of affairs, policies, programs should continue unless adequate reasons are given for change. I believe condo is good, I'm going to have a hard time listening to anything else.

Criticisms/Performances: I do run Ks as a debater. (I have argued neolib, cap, security, fem, gender, set col, and queer kritiks) It should be an advocacy. Additionally, I do not think white debaters should run anti-blackness. I do not think non-queer individuals should run queer theory. This runs the line of commodification and you cannot work within that position if you do not belong to it, meaning that you will never truly understand what you are running and operating form a position of privilege to do so. I am okay with whatever criticism or performance you so choose to run, just make sure you can explain it and how it solves the aff.

Case: haha you should do it, literally aff's are so bad and not well designed anymore. I could have lost on presumption so many times my senior year but people are too afraid to give that 2NR. If that is your best 2nr option, do it.

***BOTTOM LINE***

It is much more important to me that you find an educational gain from this activity and adequately express the things you care about greatly than hitting all the stock issues or being a policy maker. Debate is about the debaters, make the round what you want. ANY attempt to push the other team out of the debate will result in a dropped ballot.

fiat is fake and the debate round should be ethically and strategically centered in the contact between the bodies in the space (me and the debaters). that doesn't mean i don't buy your ptx da or shady i/l link chain, but that i want to see a politely conducted, complex debate with four people who know a lot more about what they are talking about than me. at the end of the day, we all leave the round and what we take away from it is knowledge, empathy and experience. if you prove to me that you are best for the production of those three things in this space, then it is likely you have won. (Sam took this from me)

Attack the argument, not the debater. As a woman in debate, I have experienced forms of sexism, if I see any of this, you will be voted down. microaggressions, racism, homophobia, or xenophobia will not be tolerated by me. If I encounter this, I will stop flowing and vote you down. CX is a time for understanding, not for coming after the other team. Don’t be a jerk. If you are, you will be voted down. Debate is a place for fun and learning, not for being mean to people for the sake of “winning.”

Any other questions just find me and ask.

POLICY DEBATE PARADIGM

Name: Jamelle Brown

Current Affiliation: Sumner Academy of Arts & Science High School - Kansas City, KS

Debate Experience: 20+ years as a Head HS Coach, Debated 4 yrs in High School and 1 semester during college

List types of arguments that you prefer to listen to.

1. I appreciate real world impacts.

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

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

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

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

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

2. Generic disadvantages without clear links to the AFF.

List stylistics items you like to watch other people do.

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

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

3. Let me see your personalities in CX.

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

5. I am excited about performance teams!

List stylistics items you do not like to watch.

1. I dislike unrecognizable speed.

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

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

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

Carlos

I debated at Washburn University (LD)

No topic experience!

Email chain: aegfew@gmail.com

LD in college is pretty much a condensed policy round.

TL-DR: I evaluate the round through risk analysisLike to think I have no biases so do what you want. I default to evidence quality when clash is very close. Me adapting to you>>> you adapting to me. Want to see you at your best.

Speed- Bueno

Case: Impact turns are bueno. Impact calc! 2ACs should extend case, 2AR not so much.

FW: If you don't clash don't get mad when I have to intervene

DAs: bueno

T: The standards debate will dictate the ballot- will not vote on gut checks and a risk of offense on competing interps means the aff is unreasonable

Theory: idc

K: do whatever

CP: Perms should be more than perm do both. On PICS, Consult, Delay I lean neg on theory but i weigh solvency deficits heavily for the aff

Speaks: 28.5 is middle

be nice

Updated January 2021

Debated 4 years at Olathe Northwest and am currently attending the University of Kansas (not debating)

Add to email chain: nick@cornellusa.com

Summary: I attempt to be as tabula rasa as is possible, tell me what my ballot functions as and why voting for your side means anything. Any argument is ok to run so long as its not racist/ sexist/ ableist/ etc. Run the arguments you are most comfortable with and it will be a good debate.

Speed: Ok to go fast so long as you slow down for tags/ theory blocks and start at around 80%

T: I have a fairly high threshold on T, reading a list of standards and hoping they drop one isn't sufficient. For a T argument to be compelling there needs to be a clear articulation of the education lost and/or why the plan makes a substantive debate impossible. In an activity based around education I find competing interps a race to the bottom when there is not work being done on why t is what I should vote on.

K: Am extremely comfortable with Kritiks. Ableism was the main K I went for in HS but as long as you are knowledgable on the argument and convey it in the context of the aff well it won't be an issue. Clearly articulate links/ impacts and an alt if you have one. I am fine with Ks without alts if the argument is stepping out of the debate game and focuses on real world impacts/ advocacy, I find these Ks most compelling. K affs are fine.

CP/DA: Anything is fine, don't have any controversial opinions on these arguments. Articulate perms well. If there is no K in the round I default policymaker. Try to avoid generics.

Now that I am no longer debating I can sympathize with the frustration of judges tasked with making a discussion when they are deciding whose pre-typed out blocks sound prettier. Do line-by-line and give me a competitive reason to for you, simply reading blocks in lieu of elaborating on arguments isn't debating.

Feel free to ask any questions you want before round.

Email: bcunningham7373@gmail.com

In addition to doing debate all four years in high school, I'm currently on my fourth year of coaching it. I'm open to anything really, especially if you're able to articulate your points well. That being said, I'm not fantastic with K's. I'm not saying you can't run them, just do so at your own peril. It is greatly appreciated if you explain them. As for speed, you can go fast so long as your clear (especially if I have access to your evidence).

I'm a big fan of T and on case, but like I said, open to anything. I'll also pay close attention to any framing arguments made. I vote on stock issues, that includes things like T and Inherency. A more skilled, more eloquent aff team will lose if they drop or neglect something like that.

Above all else, I love good clash and a friendly, educational debate.

Don't be a jerk (I used to have a different word here, but tabroom has since smited me for my hubris), I will vote you down on it.

My name is John Dotterweich and I am a high school social studies teacher. I am an assistant coach for Manhattan High's debate/forensics team but do not have a background in high school policy debate. However, with my background in history and government, this gives me a unique perspective as a coach: I care more about substantive issues rather than debate technicalities. As long as things are reasonably fair, I care more about the substance of your debate.

Also, talking at 300 words a minute, while impressive, will not win you any favors. If I cannot understand you, I will not side with you. I do not want to have to take notes off of the email chain when I should be focusing on your speech.

Im a policy maker. The winning side should prove they cause more good than harm or vice versa, preventing more harm than good.

email chain: ethan.eitutis@gmail.com

>>If you're not flowing, I'm not flowing.<<

I debated for 4 years for Cindy Burgett at Washburn Rural High School where I graduated in 2017. I coached for Annie Goodson at Blue Valley West for 4 years. I went to KU, studied Political Science, and graduated in 2022.

I will not do any work for you.

You can read fast but don't go 100%. I need to be able to understand your tags and analytical arguments, especially during online debates. I'd much rather you make 3 good, thought out, real arguments than 6 garbage ones. Getting through your T shell in 2.8 seconds is cool I guess but I won't be able to flow it.

If you're not flowing, I'm not flowing.

Extending claims without warrants is not making an argument.

I am familiar with Cap, Security, Abolition, and some SetCol. I'll gladly listen to whatever K you read, but for ones outside of those 4 I will probably just need some explanation.

Stop reading 8 minutes of bad arguments in the 1nc hoping that the 2ac will undercover one and you'll win that way. That's bad for debate and horrible to listen to. I wish aff teams would make args about this in the debate. If your arg is that pqd stops nuisance lawsuits about naval sonar, and naval sonar kills horseshoe crabs which are key to the survival of the human race, perhaps you should lose. Stop it

((I'm not saying affs should make speed bad or condo args, I'm saying affs should make args that pqd -> sonar -> horseshoe crabs -> human extinction is bad for debate))

If you're not flowing, I'm not flowing.

Respect for your opponents and the activity is most important.

I think it's critical to stay organized during the round and make it clear when you end/begin talking about a new or the next argument. Tell me where whatever you're talking about goes on the flow.

As long as you are clear and can explain your arguments thoroughly, I don't have any preferences as to what you run.

Not a big fan of spreading.

My name is Sherrie and this is my second year as a debate/forensic judge. I have a son who is also in his second year competing in debate and forensics. I have voted equally both affirmative and negative. It is helpful to me when students enunciate and slow down their speaking pace. When students "speed speak" it's difficult to follow the arguments being presented. I'm open to all arguments and affirmative plans. I look forward to judging your rounds.

People seem to misunderstand this so I'm putting this at top to make it clear. I will vote on any argument because I am tech > truth. Run what you are comfortable with. These are just my general thoughts about debate. Don't run an argument that you think I would like just because. If you don't know how to run it properly you probably won't win.

hudsonhrh7@gmail.com put me on email chain or email me any questions

General:

He/him. I debated at Olathe Northwest for 4 years. I'm now an assistant debate coach at ONW for 2 years. I competed in both policy and LD. Debate should be an activity for everyone, and if you prevent that from happening in the round, I will vote you down. I have done a pretty even mix between DCI and KDC, but I would definitely prefer to judge a DCI style round.

I am fine with speed but I would prefer if you slowed down for tags, analytics, and theory especially because I'm not debating anymore.

I'm tech>truth maybe too much

I hope I can make my biases clear. Even though I say there are arguments I do and don't like that doesn't mean I won't vote for these arguments, so please run whatever you are comfortable with because that will make the most educational round for all of us. I will do my best to adapt the debaters in the round. So, if you prefer to run policy arguments that's fine too. If you run weird arguments go for it. However, I will not vote for any racism/sexism/ableism/homophobia good or any similar argument.

Please ask me questions about my paradigm before the round!!!!

Disadvantages:

I never really used these in flow rounds when I debated because I don't think they are good arguments compared to other things that could be run. That doesn't mean I don't know a lot about DA's. I would run some pretty specific and weird disadvantages when I debated. Generic links are okay but can be easily defeated by a smart team. I'll listen to politics disadvantages but this is not the round I would like to see. Theory against DAs can be cool.

Impact turns:

I like impact turns because I feel like they are underused. I ran heg bad a lot and ddev sometimes.

Counterplans:

Rarely used counterplans but when I did they were usually really abusive. PICs are fine. Delay and consult counterplan are less fine and you should watch out for theory but still acceptable. Perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy. Theory is fun I will vote for anything if you do it right.

Kritiks:

I ran one-off ableism a lot, usually attacking language, representations, and generic links to the topic. I also am very familiar with fem, intersectionality, Nietzche, and cap/neo-lib.I have read some Baudrillard, psycho-analysis, and afro-pess lit so I understand most of the concepts, but don't expect me to be familiar with all the different niches. I am comfortable judging all types of rounds.

Doesn't need an alt if you can impact out how the K turns the aff, wins framework, or gives me a reason to ignore the affirmative impacts. PIKs are acceptable especially for language/reps Ks.

Floating PIKs are maybe abusive but you can win the theory on that by using your K as an offense or any other way but it is still a risk you have to be willing to take. Please explain your alt and how it solves. The ballot can be alt solvency if needed and explained. Severance on perms is a voter but be careful how this interacts with other theory-based arguments you have already made on why we shouldn't be looking at education or fairness etc.

K-affs:

I ran a k-aff with a plan text that would either fiat my alt or I would kick plan later in the round after reading a K. Your plan doesn't have to relate to the resolution, but it would be preferable if it does. If you are negative against a k-aff your best strategy with me as the judge would be to run a K. I feel like lots of teams put themselves in a position where they are defending policy or the state action which the aff team probably has prepped against. Running a K makes the framework debate easier, will catch the team off guard, and can turn the aff. I do think switch side debate can be good. Not too familiar with performance affs but I am very intrigued by them if you want to run it please do

Topicallity:

I love a good technical T debate and will vote on T even if the plan is perfectly topical if the neg has good impacts.

I default to competing interpretations. I belive your interpretation is your model of debate and that voting on T is meant to prevent certain affs from being run debate wide. I don't think a definition needs to be contextual to the resolution. If by the end of the round it produces the most [insert T voter here] than I will use that defintion to evaluate the round.

I feel like a lot of teams think that a dropped standard means they won T. Think of it like conceding the other teams solves for 500 lives when you solve for 1000 lives. If you don't articulate how that conceded standard acceses the T impact the most you won't win the round. For example if they concede a limits standard it would be smart to go all in on depth>breadth. It is also good to impact out voters, ie people quit debate which means education is decreased writ large. K teams feel free to impact turn T thats always a fun time. I will vote on time skew RVIs, but I also believe that topicallity is not an RVI most of the time unless they are running multiple interps. RVI's can also be abusive. Basically, I am open to any theory argument if you can argue it well.

Theory:

You can run theory agaisnt anything if you believe hard enough. That being said you have to have a good impact that is clearly articulated by the need of the round

I love theory arguments and would like to see an in depth debate here. I will vote on blippy dropped theory arguments if all the parts are included (need to see some resemblance of interp some standard and voters) and it is thoroughly impact it out in the round. If you drop a theory argument your best way to win is weighing your inherent voters and trying to claim education gained (or some other voter) outweighs the education lost. Theory spikes aren't used as much in policy but I think they are cool and test a teams ability to flow and respond to every argument. Might be abusive tho. A lot of the stuff I said for topicallity applies here.

Only place I intervene is obvious egregious clipping and won't allow new args in the 2nr(unless justified) or 2ar (never allowed even with justification unless justification is in previous speech then it wouldn't be new arg)

Stock issues:

Inherency/harms/significance is only a voter(most of the time) if the plan is already happening. Please impact out why this is a voter because the affirmitive can still generate offense off of advocating for a plan that already exists. I think circumvention arguments are cool and will vote on them if they are sufficient (don’t think durable fist applies to everything the aff will claim). Solvency deficits are good and underused arguments and remember to bring them up when weighing impacts.

Framing:

I don’t default to a utilitarian framework for evaluating impacts, and don't believe magnitude outweighs probability by default. I don't think I ever ran a extinction impact unless I had to throw together a crappy DA because the judges in round made me. Since I see myself as more of an LD debater, framing debates are very important to me and I think they are underused in policy. I'll evaluate the round however you tell me to.

Framework:

I made lots of framework arguments when I debated and I will defintely vote on them. I like a good role of the ballot. It shouldn't be self serving, but if the other team drops it then I guess it is over for them if you continue to meet the role of the ballot as the debate goes on. I believe that the affirmitive and negative should be viewed as a body of research and that plan focus is bad. However, like any argument you could argue me out of this. I think education is more important than fairness, especially in terms of a framework debate. Fiat is illusory is a real argument because it is true. I'd like to see clash on out of round impacts as much as possible whether it is fairness, education, violence, or some other impact. I think fairness should be used to show how education is lost or how they further an out of round impact.

You can use framework still in round with normal affs and no K's. If you did this I would be pretty happy. Honestly don’t know why more teams don’t do this

Final notes:

DEBATE IS A PLACE FOR ALL PEOPLE. To reiterate, I am very lenient about what you run, but if it doesn't include certain groups in the debate space or blames certain groups of people you will not like the ballot at all.

Please have fun that's all I really care about. Don't make the debate bad for another participant.

Please add me to the email chain! My email is johnnyhiggins0@gmail.com

I debated at St. James Academy for four years in high school (graduated 2017), and I have assistant coached there for the past three years. I do not have experience judging this topic yet, so you may not be able to assume that I know the particulars of your plan.

I am most familiar with policy style debate, but I will consider anything as long as you justify it in a convincing manner. I realize 'convincing' is subjective - what I mean is that it should be clear that you understand the argument you are making, provide logical analysis, and contextualize it within the round. I think that clash is very important, and I always appreciate a substantial, nuanced debate.

I am okay with speed, so talk however fast (or slow) you are comfortable with. Clarity is very important - if I cannot understand you, I cannot flow your arguments.

I lean tech over truth, but with some exceptions (e.g. I won't vote on death good). If an argument is dropped and the warrants are extended, they win that arg. Overall, make sure that your evidence and warrants justify your claims.

I will not just vote on your tagline, but also on the warrants for the tagline. If these don't match, then you're not going to have a great chance of winning that argument if the other team points out this discrepancy. I appreciate evidence analysis - some of the best debates I've judged have involved detailed evidence comparison and analysis. If the other team is reading bad/problematic evidence, it is your obligation to point it out.

I really like a good line-by-line analysis, so don't be afraid to go down the flow. In that regard, make sure to signpost and make it clear where you're at on the flow. Sometimes this is not done and it makes for a very disorienting experience. In order to make sure I flow your arguments correctly, it is important to be clear.

Case debate is highly encouraged - you need both offense and defense!

I love impact comparison, so don't be afraid to spend time on this. Probability and timeframe are just as important as magnitude - make sure to compare impacts across these dimensions as well. One nuke war impact vs. another is a wash, but an argument that one scenario is more likely than the other will break that tie. More generally, in your rebuttals I think it is important for you to compare the world if I vote for you to the world where I vote for the other team.

T: Go for T if you want to! I'm open to vote on anything except highly spurious, nitpicky T arguments (for example, T-substantial must be x% - the aff would have an easy time convincing me why this is not a great argument). I think that the justification for your interpretation is important - why does this interp lead to better debate? How does it more fairly limit the topic? Explain to me why topicality is important and worth signing my ballot over. Depending on the severity of the T violation, it may not be enough to automatically win the round unless you do an excellent job on the T flow or the aff messes up big time. However, I think it is generally an important component of a neg strat and will always consider it. My general default would be competing interpretations over reasonability. The burden is on the aff to justify reasonability - if you're going to claim it, you have to really make a convincing argument as to why this leads to better, fairer debate. Don't just read off a theory block and move on, spend some time making it clear why reasonability is a better standard.

If the aff is super vague or shifty, I will entertain a vagueness argument. I think it is important that the affirmative provide a clear case and don't shift and clarify throughout the debate. More generally, I am open to vote on theory arguments so long as they are well-run and don't involve just reading a generic theory block provided with little explanation.

DA: I am down to listen to whatever DA's you want to run. I will vote on the most generic to the most specific. That being said, plan-specific links are generally better than generic (of course, this may not be feasible - it's just more convincing if you can articulate how the plan itself will link). I am totally fine with politics DA's. My general word of warning with DA's is that I will not weigh your impact as heavily if the logic of the disad isn't very clear. You need to provide a logical link and internal link chain and tell me how we get from link to impact. Please emphasize the warrants of your evidence and how they relate to the story of the DA. I am fine with any impact, but if presented with two scenarios of equal magnitude, timeframe, and probability, I will prefer the one which provides a more specific, tangible scenario.

CP: I am pretty much okay with most CPs with a clear net benefit (agent, advantage, process, etc.), except for delay CPs or other ones which just seem like cheating to me (like delay, plan plus, conditions, etc.). I won't necessarily vote against a something like a delay CP outright, but it won't take much for the aff to be able to convince me why it's not a great idea. For CPs, I think that competition is important and that the neg must establish their net benefit well. For me, it is preferable when the neg can provide specific evidence demonstrating how the CP solves the aff better, but it is not necessary. If you win the flow, you win the flow. I would default to condo good, but I can be persuaded if you can demonstrate how the neg's behavior is abusive and detrimental to debate. I think that neg does get fiat, so unless you can make a very convincing, unique argument in this regard (or if the aff completely drops), I would not count on me voting for it.

K: I was not a K debater, but I'm not anti-K. Given my relative lack of experience in this regard, I would hazard against running kritiks unless you believe you can convince me why I should vote on it. I will likely not be overly familiar with the literature you're reading, so it may require explanation. I believe one of the major factors in my consideration regarding kritiks is the degree to which the link (and generally, the underlying theory of the K) is articulated. If you do a great job illustrating how the K is germane to the round, then I will certainly weigh it seriously. On a related note, I have virtually no experience running, debating against, or judging K Affs - if you are set on running one, I cannot guarantee that I will be able

Daytona Hodson

Previous Olathe Northwest debater for 2 years (Including quarterfinals at Novice State)

Overall, debate is an educational event. Every competitor should actively participate and contribute to the argumentative landscape. This means promoting a environment that is inclusive of everyone (ie. being polite during CX and other team's speeches), yet competitive to decide a clear winner of the round. The first thing I look for in round is professionalism.

Topicality: While Topicality is meant to establish a more educational definition, I understand topicality as a time skew. When explaining topicality, I want to see all parts of the argument (Counter Interp, Violation, Standards, Voters). Without the key parts the entire argument can be lost. As the Aff team, meeting the interpretation of the Neg is good, but I strongly urge the Aff to provide the interpretation they used to develop their case to promote the educational aspect of topicality. Tell me why to prefer the definitions, debate the definitions. Use education and fairness as your reasons to prefer the counter interpretation.

CP / DA: I prefer a traditional negative argument including CP's and DA's. I look at DAs in four parts UQ, Link, Internal Link, and Impact. I prefer argumentation on the Link and Internal links as it directly brings the DA into relation with the AFF case, but if they have been already debated, Impact debate is the next best option. If the round consists of several different types of impacts (Dehumanization, poverty, war ...etc) I want to see framework on which Impact should be preferred. This can be in the form of Impact Calculus (Magnitude, Time Frame, and Probability), card evidence by an author, or both. Addressing framework should use impact calculus as the reason to prefer the other interpretation. CP's don't need to be topical. If they are topical, that is perfectly fine, but explain why it can't be achieved under the AFF plan. Also, if a CP does not have any net benefits, then I will not vote on it as you shouldn't prefer the CP. I will vote against the argument, and not the team. As long as you run other arguments, I will continue to look at your other arguments not apart of the CP.

K's: If I had to choose to hear or not hear a K, I would lean more on the NO side. I'm not familiar with K debate. I am open to hear it, but you must explain the importance of each piece of evidence and type of argument. If you run a K and the other team drops the argument, Obviously it is an easy vote for the team that ran it. If you want to run a K-AFF, same thing applies.

Theory: I support arguments with Theory about Fiat, Topicality of CP's, and other arguments. The largest piece to win my ballot with theory is to explain why debate overall is better with it being changed. Use Fairness and Education as the voter.

Inherency/ Solvency/ Advantages: Inherency is why you should be passing the plan. If a Neg team can prove that the plan has either already happened or the problem doesn't exist, then the NEG will win. While advantages are benefits to passing your plan, they are not the reason to pass your plan. I will vote NEG if the plan doesn't solve. If the NEG shows that the case will not solve, then your plan no longer has advantages. Circumvention is a viable argument, but the NEG must prove all of the solvency is gone and not just a small part of it. Even if the AFF still solves for some substantial amount, they will win on Solvency. For any governmental circumvention case by the NEG, I am open to listen on how the plan will be circumvented after it's implementation. On Advantages, I look to see that the AFF prevents the largest impact in the round (look at how I measure impacts in CP / DA section). I also look to see if the advantages you claim are probable. Maintaining the link story is the most important part for an AFF team to maintain their advantages in round.

Flowing / Judge Requests: I often cross apply several arguments when flowing. The evidence used in one argument will be compared to the other evidence used in the round. I also please ask don't speed read. I think it completely devalues the entire point of debate. Obviously talking fast is perfectly fine, but if the goal is to run a ridiculous amount of off-case arguments just so you can say that the other team forgot to address 1 of your 5 arguments, that will reflect on your ballot.

I ask that you please provide me with a copy of evidence before speeches. This enables me to better listen to arguments and look into accusations of inaccurate claims by teams. I also ask for closed cross examination as it provides the most education for individuals during the activity. I strongly encourage teams to communicate with each other and track each others time. Unless specifically stated by the tournament, prep times should not include putting evidence on a flash drive. The most important thing I ask is for coherent road maps. If a team brings up new arguments in the rebuttals, I will not vote on them. A response by the other team directing me to the new argument would be appreciated, but not required.

While judging the largest thing I look for is sportsmanship. During my time in debate, I have seen the good, ugly, and bad. Don't make arguments personal attacks on other competitors. At the end of the day, you have to debate both sides of an argument at a tournament. After that, the best way to my ballot is preventing solvency. If the AFF solves, explain why the disadvantages overwhelm solving the problem.

If I am judging you, then I want your docs. Please set up an email chain and include me (Brendajeffjackson@earthlink.net). AFF should have their 1AC ready to send at the start of the round. I will not keep up with time and I expect debaters to keep each other accountable for speech and prep time.

COVID Online Debate

Issues with clarity and diction compound when listening to debates online. Please speak clearly and do not spread.

Background

1) Did you debate in high school?

Yes – four years

2) Did you debate in college?

No

3) How many elimination rounds have you judged on this topic?

0

4) How many preliminary rounds have you judged on this topic?

5

Preferences:

I. Which best describes your priorities in judging debates?

Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance.

II. Which best prescribes your paradigm or approach to judging debate?

· Skills emphasis (Who does the “better job of debating”)

· Stock issues emphasis

· Policy maker emphasis

III. What speed or rate of presentation do you prefer?

a. Slow and deliberate – conversational pace, speed discouraged.

b. Moderate contest rate - faster speed discouraged.

IV. Counterplans are:

Rarely acceptable, and only if specifically justified by substantive plan mandates.

V. Topicality is:

Rarely important; violation of topicality must be fairly blatant to win my ballot.

VI. I find generic disadvantages:

Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

VII. I find kritiks:

Reprehensible; I prefer specific real world arguments.

Other

Please present clear roadmaps at the beginning of each speech so I can get a chance to write them on my flow. If I cannot hear or understand you, then I cannot understand your arguments. If I cannot understand your arguments, then I cannot vote for you.

Please keep a level of decorum and respect. Condescending behavior will not be tolerated and I will significantly lower your speaker points.

Teams should slow down and clearly articulate standards for why I should favor their arguments. I really dislike teams that read directly from their blocks if there is not a direct response to specific arguments. In other words, teams that directly respond to their opponents’ arguments will fare better than teams that just assert an argument and make me do the work for them.

I am fairly new to debate so I am still learning some of the fundamentals of debate. I prefer debates that are reasonably slower pace with a bent towards flow policymaking.

I debated for four years at Washburn Rural High School and a year at KU. Previously an assistant coach.

Generally I evaluate in an offense-defense paradigm, but in rare circumstances I do believe that 100% defense is possible. I would generally prefer to see a team run arguments that they are good at rather than try to adapt to my specific paradigm and run arguments that they are less familiar with. With that being said, I do have some preferences.

If your speech contains content that may be disturbing, a trigger warning for judges and other competitors is appreciated. This warning should occur before your speech. You should also have a non-triggering version of your speech available. It is not okay to force another team to be triggered.

Generally I believe an affirmative should read a topical plan text. However, if you cannot articulate specific ground loss and education loss as a result of your violation, I find it hard to evaluate T. A strong discussion of why topicality should or should not be a voting issue is helpful, especially in the final rebuttals.

I also have trouble believing that one or two conditional positions are a reason to reject the team.

Thoughts on counterplans - Delay counterplans are almost always cheating unless timeframe is explicitly in the aff plan text. Consult counterplans seem to problematically assume that the plan that comes out of consultation resembles the original plan, though a specific solvency advocate or specific say yes evidence would be helpful with that. 50 state fiat seems questionable. At the very least, state flexibility arguments are wholly unpersuasive if your counterplan text requires uniform state action. PICs usually don't bother me. That is not to say I won't listen to or vote on a counterplan that seems like a cheating counterplan. It just means my threshold for theory arguments to reject it will likely be lower.

If the negative team goes for a counterplan, I generally believe that presumption flips aff. Judge kicking a counterplan seems extremely interventionary unless I have been told it is an option, and if the affirmative team tells me a good reason why I shouldn't I might not even be okay with judge kicking then.

Kritiks are usually okay, but they should be paired with arguments as to why the aff cannot or should not get to access their impacts. They are rarely an excuse to ignore the aff case.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

I debated for 4 years in Kansas in the late 80s and early 90s.
I have been a head coach in high school for 19 years.

I can listen somewhat quickly…but not very fast. I’m a very traditional policy-maker.

Standard things:

I want really good explanation of all arguments. I try hard not to do analysis work for you. Overviews really help me!

Topicality- If the case is clearly non-topical, please run the argument and I’ll pull the trigger on it pretty quickly. If it is probably topical…I am very slow to pull that trigger.

Kritiks- Not really a fan. I am very policy-maker in this regard. If you choose to run a K, I will listen and try and understand it. However, the way my brain works in a debate context is that I will probably weigh the impacts of the K against the other team’s impacts…you know…like a policy maker would.

Counterplans – probably a good thing to have. Not a fan nit-picky word pics, but agent counterplans and others like it are a good thing for me..

Kritikal affs- Not a fan…they typically confuse me…

Alix Kunkle — Head Coach at Spring Hill High School

kunklea@usd230.org — Add me to your chain, please.

When judging rounds, I primarily vote on stock issues — have you convinced me that the AFF plan meets all of the stock issues beyond a reasonable doubt? I value clarity in arguments over words-per-minute. If I cannot understand what you are saying, I am very unlikely to follow your argument.

Please be respectful — and most of all, have fun!

Kyra Larson
kyra.larson13@gmail.com

*For Congressional Debate at Nationals 2021*:

I did Congressional Debate all 4 years of high school and was a two-time National Qualifier in Senate. I was a National Semi-finalist in the Senate in 2017. I primarily did Senate, but sometimes House.

A congressional speech should have structure, evidence, and most importantly be a debate. Other speakers and their arguments should be contextualized in your speeches, specifically later in the debate. I dislike repetitive debates and recommend that if you are repeating a point that you justify it and do it well.

Policy Debate:

Last Updated: June 2021
Debated at Olathe Northwest for 4 years (2014-2017) Attending University of Kansas for my PhD
Assistant Coached at Lawrence High School for 2 years (2017 Fall-2019 Spring)

The Basics
1. First and most importantly tech over truth (almost in every case, exclusions at the bottom)
2. I'd rather you explain the warrants of your evidence, than reading 3 more cards that say the exact same argument
3. I can comfortably keep up with fast debates, they are what I preferred in high school, but go at what pace is best for you. Don't spread if you can't do so clearly
4. Affirmatives with excessive advantages/impact scenarios and/or extensive negative strategies are acceptable, but preferably the debate will condense at some point
5. I will default to weighing the K against the aff if no other framework arguments are made

T:
Any strategic 1NC will run a T arg, that being said while I often extended it into the block it was a rare 2NR for me. It's very possible to win this debate, but it is very technical and the violation needs to be justified. There is an argument to be made for both competing interpretations and reasonability. You're losing in the 2AC if you fail to have both a we meet and a counter-interpretation. I've found that education and fairness are both highly valuable, and based on the debating have voted in favor of both. Standards-wise limits and ground are your best bet if you're doing something else, why? Do not run an RVI in front of me I'll be annoyed and simply question why such a stupid thing is occurring

DAs:
Specifics DAs will always be preferred to generics, but I understand the need to run them and will likely vote for them often. Bringing a DA into the block should include an overview, as much turns case arguments you can manage, and a lot of impact work. The Politics DA was my favorite and most frequent 2NR in high school. Just bc I loved them and they bring me joy doesn't mean I know your hack scenario, so please explain. All DA debates should include discussion of uniqueness, link, and impact

CPs:
Every CP you could think of is acceptable to run in front of me. CPs in the block should include overview of what the CP does to solve the aff. The affirmative team-the more creative the perm the more rewarded you will be, but it MUST be supplemented with explanation that isn't prewritten blocks from camp that you spread at me. Doesn't solve arguments are definitely your best bet. Negative-I won't kick out of the CP for you sorry not sorry do the work.

Ks:
It is critical that there is link and alt articulation. If the negative team is failing to engage the aff's arguments that is the easiest way for a K team to drop my ballot. When it comes to the K line-by-line is essential. I'm comfortable with Kritiks it was, after the Politics DA, my most common 2NR in high school and the argument I often took in the block. I'm well-versed in Fem, Legalism, Neolib, Heidegger, and Colonialism. If not listed, I'm not versed in literature of other Ks so it is is YOUR job to do a sufficient explanation. Simply running Ks in high school does not make me a K judge-you still have to do the work. I hate lazy K debates.

Pace:
I'm comfortable keeping up with fast debates. Take it back a notch on tags, T, and theory please. I'll say clear once and then if you continue to be unclear your speaks will suffer.

Theory:
More often than not Condo is good, but the aff can also win this debate. Other than that I don't hold many other default theoretical positions and tech over truth means these debates usually come down to technical skill.

K Affs:
If the right judge was present, I would read these in high school. They're educational up to the point you can relate it to the resolution. Framework is the best argument against them

Random:
1. Open cross is acceptable, but nobody is going to like it if you're all yelling over each other at once
2. I want the docs however they're being exchanged
3. Jokes and some non-targeted sassiness is humorous, but only in regards to arguments. If it's at a debater you're going to be very sad when you see your speaks
4. Death good was an argument I ran in high school. I'm adamantly opposed to it now. If you run this argument in front of me you will lose the debate no question
5. Have questions? Email me or just ask in the room (:

I have been judging debate for over twenty years, but am old myself so when I debated in high school it was very different (real cards). I am a teacher (I teach cultural anthropology so we discuss a lot of social justice issues) but not a debate coach. I like to see that debaters understand what they are saying - that they can explain in their own words, not just read endless cards at top rate speed without explaining why the cards are relevant.

Harms, inherency, and solvency are the most important Aff stock issues for me. I want to know what problem you are trying to solve and how you are going to do it. And why it will continue to be a problem without your plan. I am very interested in real world problems.

Counterplans and generic DAs are fine from Neg, but again, I like to at least see a firm link.

Topicality is fine - but I don't love the generic harm to debate, I love some good word play, so if you can convince me something isn't topical by really delving into language I will sometimes judge on that.

Kritiques are sometimes okay- I like to see real world issues being brought up and debate tied to real world issues. But if they get really esoteric I honestly get lost.

Again - I like to see direct clash, ties to real world, debaters who understand what they are saying and can explain it to me.

I prefer medium speed - if you are unintelligible I get nothing out of that.

Background

4-year debater from Pittsburg graduated 2019. Currently assistant coach at Olathe South

Experience in high-flow rounds both as a debater and a judge

Don't care how evidence is shared, but I personally want speech docs

email: marlerleyton2@gmail.com

General Stuff

I will evaluate the round in whatever lens you tell me to, I'm very very open to most arguments. Only thing I will say to be careful of is that I will not do work on the flow for you, I expect you to tell me where to vote, why I'm voting, and what the ballot means when I sign it.

Tech vs Truth - I'm pretty middle ground on it, I find it hard to believe that tech outweighs truth completely and vice versa

If you want vote on cheating or anything like that, you need to give me a quality block and undeniable proof. Sending a picture in an email chain where I can barely see the whats happening because it is so blurry will not cut it at all. If you're accusing a team of doing something that should lose them the round then you are going to have an extremely high burden and you better not have done anything shady during the round as well.

No new in the 2 please

If you keep the flow clean there's a 90% chance that you'll get my ballot from that alone.

Specific Args

Ks - Open to all types of literature and args, I'm not as well-versed as I would like to be, but I do love the lit and spend time outside of the debate sphere studying it as well so I won't be completely lost. I'm very well-versed with Cp Ks, Set-Col, Imperialism, and some nihilism. Most other lit I'm comfortable with and will understand, you'll have to keep the flow clean and explicitly state where you want everything to go.

DAs - Pretty much every DA will fly, Trade-Off DAs will have a harder time finding my ballot I think there's a ton of thumpers on them and you'll have to give me a pretty specific chain here otherwise I'm probably going to err aff. Tix DAs are 100% acceptable and you can get my ballot a good chunk of the time, only thing I'll say on them is don't blow up some random super tiny piece of legislation it needs to be something that actually matters and can have an impact on the world around us. Outside of that I'll just evaluate it based what you explicitly state.

CPs - Open to all CPs, just be prepared to argue theory if you run 3 CPs with condo on all of them, severance CPs you'll have to do a ton of work on the flow with as well so just be smart and use them strategically rather than just as an arg you can throw out at any time.

T - Love T debates, I will judge them harshly though, I was a big T debater so if you aren't pulling through and debating your standards/voters then it'll be really hard to pick up my ballot

K Affs - For the most part the same opinion I have on Ks applies here, I like the lit, I find it interesting, and I'm always open to the arg as long as you can justify on the flow or you can win the framework debate

Theory - Need a good reason for it or you need to provide real quality argumentation or I will not vote on it

Former Assistant Coach at Lansing High School for three years.

I did not debate in High School or College but DID participate in Forensics.

Speed - clarity is important

I will not vote against my own self interest. (don't read death, wipeout, spark)

Kritiks: I enjoy the philosophy but you have to make sure it makes actual sense, you also need to explain the logic of the K for me to vote on it.

Please include me on the evidence chain at: mcdubs06@gmail.com

My Background and Experience

I debated in high school from 1991-95 at Shawnee Mission East, in one of the states that has a Kansas City. I was a sponsor and assistant coach at East from 1996-2008 and 2019-20. I judged policy at NFL / NDSA Nationals in 1999, 2000, 2006, and 2008; and at NCFL Grand Nationals in 2006, 2011, 2012, and 2013. I judged PFD at NCFL Nationals in 2018. I’ve judged policy debate, LD, PFD, extemp, informative, and original oratory at invitational, state, and national qualifying tournaments for over twenty-five years.

For additional insight on my perspective, I have judged for several years the high school moot court (mock Supreme Court argument) competition held by American University School of Law as part of the Marshall-Brennan Constitutional Literacy Project. I also judge high school and undergraduate mock trial and undergraduate and law school moot court competitions.

I am an attorney for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; I am literally a policy-maker well versed in navigating the challenges of making policy under frequently conflicting congressional mandates. The first thing you learn in law school is that the answer to every question is "it depends." Justice Breyer recently answered the question "is a hot dog a sandwich?" by responding "sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't."

Policy Debate, Generally

Speed: I am handling speed better now we have evidence chains (in legal oral argument, you always submit written briefs to the judge). That said, the responsibility is on you to ensure you are intelligible, especially when using virtual platforms. I am also of the view that all things being equal, rebuttals should be presented at a slower pace than constructive.

Strategy versus Tactics: “Seven Off-Case” is not a strategy. Negatives would benefit immensely from having a bigger picture strategy that frames the story you want to be telling at the end of the round. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t run multiple alternative arguments – you should, however, be thinking three moves ahead. Also, time-suck arguments have strong tradeoffs. Both teams get equal time allotment so if the opposing team is wasting time on it that means you’ve wasted time you could have used making winning arguments.

Topicality: T is a jurisdictional issue and nothing more. As a lawyer, I believe in precision, but I am also of the view that high school policy debate affirmatives are not capable of being drafted with the precision of congressional legislation (nor should they be). So I’m willing consider reasonable interpretations. I also am willing to entertain arguments that the Aff is effects topical. I don’t get as excited about extra-topicality because Aff can always drop the offending advantage (by analogy to severability provisions in legislation where only offending provisions are thrown out by the courts, not the entire legislation).

Conditional Counterplans: I an attorney, the concept of burden of proof is fundamental. In my view, when the Neg runs a counterplan, it shifts the burden of proof from Aff to Neg. I liken it to an “affirmative defense” in a criminal trial. Neg can argue inconsistent alternatives because it does not have the burden of proof. If I am the defendant, I can argue that you failed to prove I did it, or that maybe Graham and Maddie did it. I cannot argue that I did it in self-defense, but if you don’t believe that, then Graham and Maddie did it.

There is no rational justification for allowing Neg, which starts the round with the benefit of presumption, to “take back” a bad strategic decision to run a counterplan solely because they are losing. If conditionality were sound debate theory, we wouldn’t spend seventy percent of the last two rebuttals arguing about it. If we view conditionality as a “rules” modification to enhance competition, there ought to be a mechanism for settling that before the round. We don’t change the rules of basketball with five minutes left in the game to benefit the team that’s losing.

Critical Argument: I have never voted for a Kritik. Over the years, I have developed a much better understanding of the various philosophies underlying most critical theory. My legal training also allows me to better evaluate and apply your arguments to the Aff case. Someday I will get there on Ks, but for the time being you run them at your own peril.

My biggest hangups: (1) the lack of a meaningful alternative; (2) related, as a policymaker I do not like being in a “why bother” position – if there is a harm that can be solved, why not do something? (3) Many philosophies underlying critical arguments are extremely complex; most high school debaters (and many college judges) don’t understand what they are arguing or hearing, apply extremely broad theories to extremely narrow policy questions; or just flat out misapply the theories to affs; and (4) As a policymaker I am predisposed to utilitarianism and economically rational decision making. The limitation of Kantian ethics is that the moral compass always points true north, but it tells you nothing about all the obstacles and dangers between you and where you’re trying to get. All along the way you have to make decisions that deontology is, in my view, ill-equipped to guide.

“Performance Affs”: I rarely vote for critical affs. I have never voted for a performance aff. My views on performance affs are evolving and transitioning, but I am still working on a coherent paradigm so you assume the risk if you run one. Hang ups include: (1) I don’t like “why bother?” debates; (2) I don’t like to be guilted into voting for one team or the other; and (3) I am not a fan of dismissing the conventions of policy debate as a meaningless academic simulation. The high school moot court competition I judge is tailored to inner city students in the DC area. The problems involve first and fourth amendment issues. Even though the competition is an academic exercise, participating students are better equipped to advocate for themselves, their peers, and their families, and these students are significantly more likely to have encounters with police and other authority figures implicating free speech, illegal detention, and improper searches.

Policy Debate – Kansas Novice and Open

Please be respectful to one another. Also, a “brief off-time roadmap” should take less than ten seconds. Just state the title of the position so we can organize our flows: “T, counterplan, politics da, advantage 2, solvency” Lastly, I am a policymaker. I view the stock issues not so much as a paradigm but as the elements of a prima facie case. If the aff doesn’t solve at all, it’s pretty straightforward. On the other hand, if the affirmative has a propensity to solve, neg needs a disadvantage to outweigh. Lastly, view every round as a free learning opportunity. At work, we joke that we always reserve the right to get smarter.

Public Forum Debate

My only specific observations are that PFD is not intended to be a college style policy round in a faster amount of time. Also, in online debate only one person can talk at a time. It takes a bit of fun out of the Grand Crossfire, but online when multiple people talk over one another no one is intelligible.

Lincoln-Douglas

[To be provided.]

I've made this paradigm short, in hopes you read it, if you don't plan to, I recommend to AT LEAST look at the section for the event I'll be judging you in.

I've been in speech and debate for nearly a decade (and yes that is a really good line to put on my resume). I have done NFA-LD for 4ish years and that's where I've developed a lot as a technical debater. That meaning I am really good with the content of policy debate and the strategies of LD (the 1AR in NFA is 6 minutes instead of 4 though).

I use speechdrop, I absolutely hate email chain. Couple reasons:

1. If you're worried about not having the files later, then save them to a folder when the round is over/write down the code for the round.
2. I don't believe that your coach "doesn't allow you to use speechdrop"

This the only strong opinion I have about debate from a procedure sense. I try to be an impartial judge, but inherent bias is impossible to ignore. That being said I wasn't born yesterday so when kids lie to my face about using speechdrop I find it very hard to not let that influence speaker points.

GENERAL CONTENT -

K - I love the criticism but I am not a K hack. There are definitely critiques that I haven't read/heard seeing as I am not an omnipotent being. I am exceptionally fluent in cap/imperial critiques. I used to read anthro a lot... Worst case scenario just ask and I'll tell you, that or you could just make sure to be explanatory in your tags and I should be able to follow. If I can't explain what voting for you on the critique means, then I probably wont... I love well-articulated links, and insert some other buzzword thing that all judges like to see. Generally speaking, if you run and explain the criticism well you should win.

DA/CP - Like this strategy too even though it's not my forte. Not much more to say here other than don't be racist. Also, I don't have any strong opinions either way about any type of CP.

T/Procedurals - I should be able to explain how I get to an interp through one or more standards into one or more voters and why that actually justifies a ballot without adding too many words for you. I don't think any procedural arguments are off limits, but I am not a fan of tricks, like if you want to win on theory I want it to be due to the quality of your argument and not because you snuck a hidden argument into like point 6/23 of a theory sheet and suddenly the debate is over.

High School LD-

I did value debate in high school. It's been a while, but I still remember everything as much as I don't think it's as educational as policy debate. You can read your value and criterion; however, I am looking for a few things.

1. I want the value to be thoroughly explained whether it's as a broad principle or as it pertains to the rez. I also need you to explain why your value is superior.
2. I want you to explain how your criterion reaches your value or is the best path to achieve a shared value. That being said this is where I'll evaluate case arguments.
3. The way I interpret value debate is that case debate that doesn't connect to the value or criterion doesn't really matter so make sure you don't focus on micro arguments and lose sight of the big picture.

This all being said I don't think you have to do value debate in LD, but if one person tries to do value debate and the other doesn't, I expect an argument as to why value debate is good/bad. I'll probably default to policy good and not expect a value unless it is clear that most debaters in the pool are running values.

Email Chain: qmnguyen1229@gmail.com

Please include relevant information (tournament name, round, team codes, ect.) in the subject line and speech doc names.

I debated at Wichita East (2015-2019). I then coached + regularly judged (2019-2022). Since then, I have not coached and only judge once or twice a year. I likely know absolutely nothing about the topic or newer debate trends/norms.

When I debated, I was a stereotypical policy 2N – I usually went for a counterplan + disad, never read kritiks, and always went for T-USFG vs K affs. I have very little experience reading kritiks but plenty answering them.

Thus, I am most comfortable and competent judging policy vs policy rounds. I am okay for policy vs K rounds. I will be a very bad judge for K vs K rounds. I do not have an ideological opposition to kritiks but due to my lack of experience going for them you should err on the side of over explanation.

That being said, please debate using whatever speed and arguments you are most comfortable with, and I will do my best to adapt to you. If you provide clear and warranted analysis, explanation, impact comparison, and judge instruction you are likely to win my ballot regardless of your argument style.

For Policy:

I do not have many opinions when it comes to what you can and can not do but if you are going to run Topicality it better be freaking good. I have listened to way too many debates where weak T takes over.

Also, Ks are not my favorite arguments but it can be used if you see fit.

If you are going to spread try to enunciate so I can get at least a little bit of what you say. Bad spreading just makes me irritated and more likely to vote against you.

For speech:

I did speech longer than I did debate, and it is my preferred tournament to judge. Please keep a professional attitude when in the room whether it is prelims or after breaks and be respectful to all those competing.

The biggest note I have for speech tournmanets is please understand that while trigger warnings can be redundant they are necessary. I do not want to walk in blind and listen to a really triggering speech without warning.

1) Did you debate in high school?

No

2) Did you debate in college?

No

3) How many elimination rounds have you judged on this topic?

0

4) How many preliminary rounds have you judged on this topic?

5

5) Please choose the following that applies to your judging criteria:

I. Which best describes your priorities in judging debates?

c. Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance.

II. Which best prescribes your paradigm or approach to judging debate?

a. Skills emphasis (Who does the “better job of debating”)

e. Tabula rasa (judge adopts perspective according to standards in the round)

III. What speed or rate of presentation do you prefer?

c. Fairly rapid delivery acceptable so long as presentation is clearly enunciated-very rapid speed discouraged. If you talk so fast that I can't understand you, I will be unable to consider your position.

IV. Counterplans are:

c. Acceptable if justified, and if consistent with other elements of the negative approach.

V. Topicality is:

b. Fairly important; roughly on par with other major issues in the round. Be warned: If you run a topicality argument an obvious time-wasting exercise to use up the clock, you will lose the round. Clearly articulate your violation, and standards and voters.

VI. I find generic disadvantages:

b. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed. Note these must be explain in detailed, very clearly, with analytics, in a clear straight line, and without hyperbole.

VII. I find kritiks:

a. Reprehensible; I prefer specific, real-world arguments.

Other:

I flow. I value consistency. I am not a fan of theory, theoretical arguments, or pleas to my perceived humanity. Engaging in "mental well-being" or "on-going trauma" arguments are unlikely to prove profitable . I want clear, factual, specific, non-specious arguments that are ground in analytics and the provable. Properly constructed scientific and economic arguments are preferred over theoretical end of the world scenarios, political hyperbole and highly partisan dogma. This applies equally to both end of the political spectrum. The onus is on you to convince me of your position.

If you try and lie in your 2AR, you will be caught and voted down.

I do not need your files.

I’ve judged 8 debate rounds in the last 4 months. Before that, I had no debate background. I try to be unbiased while I’m listening to the debate and the scores will reflect this.

I'm a recent OE grad that debated for 3 years in High School (1 at BVN, 2 at Olathe East) mainly in the Open and KDC divisions for policy and Congress, Extemporaneous Debate, DX, PFD, and Info in Forensics.

Policy

TL:DR: I'm just here to watch your round. Be you, be respectful, follow the rules, and demonstrate understanding of your evidence. If you want to speed up, just be clear on your tag lines and analytics.

In terms of preferences, I'm not too picky about debate rounds; you can run whatever you want, as long as you understand the nuances of your agreement. It's your round, and I'm just here to watch. However, I am a firm believer in the idea that clash is crucial in debate round, and will prefer a team that takes the time to properly address the opposition's arguments over one that doesn't.

Recently, the biggest gripe I've had with debaters is the overlooking of synthesizing arguments in favor of reading more meaningless cards. In my eyes, evidence is useless without analysis. I want you to take that evidence and elevate it into an argument; reading cards to me without inputting them into the advocacy through analysis, especially in response to an opponent's arguments, isn't going to help your case. Show me that you understand your case and support your advocacy. I would love to see line by lines and impact calc whenever pertinent. Again, clash is what I prefer in a debate round, and analysis is a key portion of that.

In terms of advocacies in general; there's no argument I won't go for with the right defense (spare any offensive or inappropriate argument). I must admit, I'm not the biggest fan of dramatic and overblown framing arguments, but again, with the right defense and in the right context, it's not something I would never vote for. I prefer truth over tech.

I don't prefer topicality and/or theory, unless the argument is truly valid in the situation. I've seen the two often be used as more of a time suck than a true argument, and I'm fine with any other off case position being used in that manner. Please only run these arguments if the opponent's advocacy truly affects your ability to participate in the round.

I won't hesitate to vote against you or dock speaker points/rank if you make a blatant violation of debate rules/etiquette. It goes without saying that you should be respectful and professional with your opponents, but some people often forget that that respect extends into discourse during the round. I expect everyone to be truthful in the round, and that includes bringing up relevant and credible evidence as well as making sure that your partner follows up if you say "my partner will cover that in their speech."

In terms of speed, I can generally handle it as long as you slow down and be clear on your tag lines.

At the end of the day, Debate is just another high school activity. Respect your peers/opponents, act professionally (that includes being aware of when your audio/video are on), and have fun.

If you're going to be on an email chain, please include me. My email is aadityapore@gmail.com. Thank you.

PFD

I've got plenty of experience with PFD, so I consider myself tabula rasa. Run what you want, speak how you want, and I'll adjust. I will say though, I feel like PFD is the best place to improve and display an individual's speaking skills, regardless of what cards you've got in front of you. I prioritize clash and prefer that you use cards solely as an accompaniment to your speech. This is not Policy, and I don't want to hear what your author has to say. I want to hear what you have to say and how your cards support what you claim. If you're going to be on an email chain, please include me. My email is aadityapore@gmail.com. Thank you.

Hey yall!

⭐ I'm a former college policy debater (2 years) & 4 years in High School. Mill Valley HS Ast. Coach for 4 years.

⭐ You can throw anything at me argument-wise. Speed is fine as long as you are still articulate (a big influence in speaker points is clarity).

⭐ speech drop> email chain. email: hprins@usd232.org

⭐ I read evidence throughout the round, so know that I am paying attention to important warrants, and will only vote on something if there is evidence backing it and it's extended properly throughout the debate.

I debated four years in high school and four years in college. But it was many years ago. Since then I have judged debates over the past 30 years. But it is probably wise to consider me a lay judge. I was trained as a stock issues debater. The slower the better, including 1AC. Look at me as much as possible. We did not use a lot of counterplans and critiques were not a thing then. I am a dinosaur.

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!

I'm currently a Third Year law student. I debated for four years in high school. Did KDC and DCI but did Oration for national tournaments. I'm on my fourth year coaching for Blue Valley.

I'm not picky on the arguments you run I'll vote on whatever you win on the flow.

In electronic debate, I prefer people to be as efficient in transitions as possible to account for technical difficulties and so I usually count prep until teams have pressed send on their documents in exchanging speeches.

I have been the head coach at Blue Valley High school for the last 28 years. Before that, I debated in college at the University of Missouri Kansas City and in High School at Shawnee Mission West.

I am primarily a policy maker as a judge. I will filter all arguments through the lens of what policy I'm voting for and if it's the best policy on a cost-benefits analysis. Kritiks should also be filtered through this lens unless the team issuing it presents really compelling reasons why my policy lens should be suspended. I have a high threshold for the Negative on Topicality. The plan has to show clear abuse to the negative or future negatives through its interpretation in order for me to be persuaded on topicality. I would rather see counterplans run non-conditionally since affirmative plans rarely get to be conditional. However, this could change based on who convinces me in the round.

Stylistically, I still feel like debate should have some element of persuasion to it. You should be able to speak extemporaneously at me at times and not just read off your laptop. Talk to me about why you deserve my ballot through the issues presented. I hate open cross examinations because I feel like they tend to make one of the debaters look weak and another look domineering. I can listen to a fairly fast round but I don't like speed being used when it is not necessary to the the round. I should be able to understand your evidence as it is read to me and only have to look at it if I need a deeper understanding or context. Be polite and be efficient in sharing files so we're not all abusing prep time.

Sam Rinke

Olathe Northwest (2015-2019)

Contact: samrinke@gmail.com.

Topicality:

I like a good T round, just keep it organzied. When I debated, I typically preferred competing interps but I've leaned toward reasonability depending on the topic.

Disadvantages:

These were my favorite off-case argument. I'd prefer to hear DA's with a specific link, but it's not the end of the world if you use a generic link. I love politics disads, but don't run it if you haven't cut new evidence.

Counterplans:

I often ran CP's when I debated. I do default to Condo as the status of a CP.

Kritiks:

I have a very limited experience with kritiks. If you run a K, you will have to walk me through it. If I have to vote on a K at the end of the round, I'm basically making the decison based on my gut-instinct.(P.S. I was an accounting major in college in case that influences the K)

Framing/Impacts:

On the impact/framing debate, I default probability > magnitude, but I'm open to the debate.

Cross-X:

Be polite. I don't have a preference between open or closed, I'll leave that up to you all. If one team wants open and the other wants closed, I would defer to closed. If it's open Cross-X, the speaker should answer most questions instead of getting bailed out by their partner.

Speaking/Speed:

I never sped when I debated and I can't flow it - if you chose to speed then don't be upset when I misunderstand your arguments.

Assistant Speech and Debate Coach for 11 years.

POLICY:

Please put me on the email chain: mark.skoglund AT gmail.com.

Overall: Tab, default policymaker and policy impact work is generally the most predictable path to my ballot. Tech over truth for the most part though there’s a line somewhere. I often take speech docs to check clipping but I try to not use speech docs for the decision unless there’s no other option. In general I am not a fan of embedded clash; do the work in the round.

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

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I believe that enforcing disclosure with the ballot ends up favoring schools with resources against those without, rather than enforcing any sort of equal playing field. I also will not evaluate “which school has more resources” so I avoid voting on this argument entirely.

Speed: Fine with me, though I don’t judge as much as I used to so help me out on tags. Also if you speed through your theory block at the same rate as card text it’s not likely all going to end up on my flow.

Topicality: Default competing interps. I don’t think I have a particularly high threshold for T, though teams often do one of two things that are bad ideas:

1. Read a “precision bad” block against a “precision good” block and assume embedded clash.

2. Not focusing enough on which interp has better access to the standard and spending all the time on which standard is best.

Other Theory: I’m not likely to vote on blippy theory; do work if you want to win my ballot. Your strategy should not be to read 8 two-line theory arguments hoping the other team drops one.

Disads: I don't care if they're generic, but specific links assist in probability calculus.

Counterplans: If you’re not running a CP you’re probably making a strategic mistake with me. I lean Aff on delay CPs bad and to a lesser extent on consults bad, but I won’t do the work for you of course. I will not judge kick CPs unless clearly told to consider it by a team with justification, and the other team loses the debate re: the legitimacy of judge-kicking.

Kritiks: I’m fine with Ks, though you’ll be far more familiar with the lit base than I am, so help me out. In particular, if you’re going for the alt and I don’t understand what it is well enough, I can’t vote for it. “Reject the aff” is generally a weak alt unless it’s a discourse K or otherwise uniquely justified, but it wins often enough anyway.

Discourse/Reps Ks sidenote: I vote for discourse Ks fairly often when a team has said something exclusionary and do believe there is value in rejecting teams to correct that action in future. That said, there’s plenty of debate that can be had in this area.

***

Congressional Debate -

Experience: I have been coaching this event since 2007. My primary experience is with NSDA.

-Bigotry of any kind is not tolerated.

-Early foundational speeches can be just as important as later responsive speeches.

-When possible, direct clash is important. A late speech on legislation that does not cite/respond to anyone else is almost never very strong.

-When responding to/citing others, try to make it productive. An offhand mention just to prove you're following the debate is fine but doesn't do much to advance the debate forward; work in a response or distinguish someone else's point.

-If you are retreading ground someone else covered, you should clearly distinguish your analysis. Simply repeating past claims indicates someone is either not tracking the debate or is not well-researched and is penalized.

-Crystallization speeches are good when done well but you need to be adding value, typically at the impact weighing/framework level.

-Extending questioning periods is almost never productive (certainly not as productive as the speech we may have been able to have) and if the same competitor is repeatedly making that motion, the ranks may reflect that.

-Being a good, professional, and organized presiding officer is rewarded.

-I believe it is critically important for judges to consider whether a criticism would apply equally regardless of gender. For one obvious example, women are often penalized for the same focused aggression that men are rewarded for. The primary way to combat this is judges being conscious of implicit bias, and I try to ensure that I am fairly applying criticism.

I did not debate in high school or college but I have judged every year for the past 10 or so years. I would describe myself as a policymaker judge although topicality is important to me and I don't mind Ks. I am not opposed to CP as long as net-benefit or perm are clearly articulated. I am comfortable with traditional or progressive debate as long as the harms are real world and I don't have to struggle through speed readers.

Email: debate.swafford@gmail.com

Experience: Competed in HS (policy debate only), current Shawnee Mission West Speech and Debate assistant coach

Pronouns: He/Him

Non-Policy Notes:

LD: I'm open to just about anything in LD, but I do tend to expect a traditional values debate. If you want to get real philosophical or fun with it, that's fine, just explain your stuff. See if you can glean anything from my policy notes, but as long as you aren't a jerk you're going to be fine. I will always view high school debate as an educational activity - this means I value good, proper argumentation over everything. The basis or motivation of that argumentation is totally up to you.

PF: I straight up just weigh contentions. My ballot will list my decision on each contention and how much I weigh it in the context of the round. Fully winning a single impactful contention will sway my vote more than winning a bunch of less important ones. I don't love having more than 2 or 3 contentions, less is always more. Please don't be chaotic during grand crossfire, some of y'all need to chill.

Policy Notes:

Don't be rude or condescending to me or your opponent. Don't use problematic language. Be nice, have fun, live, laugh, love.

I fundamentally believe this to be an educational activity more than a competitive one, so I tend to lean truth over tech. I'm big on communication skills and proper argumentation. Logical fallacies, bad-faith arguments, lack of warrants, and blatant misuse of data or statistics (I teach math) make me sad. I will almost always prioritize probability when weighing impacts. Clear analysis is key. I always follow along in docs, but will not be doing any additional reading - I've gotten more and more comfortable doing less and less work in a round.

I'm fine with speed (like 7/10) with appropriate signposting and a clear structure. If you spread through absolutely everything and I can't reasonably comprehend something, I won't vote on it. Judge instruction and having good rebuttals can help cover you. I'm not the judge for you if you're just trying to win by out-speeding your opponent. That's boring and, in my opinion, antithetical to the point of the activity. I'm also not the best judge for a highly technical round - I don't have a lot of high level varsity experience and can struggle with processing all the jargon when going fast (think closer to 5/10 on speed for heavy theory). I find theory debates boring at best and inscrutable at worst. The team that can actually explain why I should care (in plain language) will get my ballot. Other than that, I really don't have any opinion or preference on what you run.

Assume I know nothing when reading philosophy, because I likely know very little about whoever you are talking about. I'm comfortable with most standard kritiks, but I don't read (or generally care) about philosophy, so you'll need to help me out there. I do enjoy a good K debate. You do you! All this said, don't be performative. Really think about what you are saying. Running a K just to win a debate is, oftentimes, high-key problematic.

Things I find annoying:

- Wasting time with tech issues (speech drop, email, computer, etc.); always have a back-up plan. In the words of the poet T.A. Swift, "If you fail to plan, you plan to fail."

- Interrupting your opponent during cross ex and then later saying they didn't answer your question.

- Overuse of jargon or abbreviations. Until something is clearly established in a round, I don't want to hear a slang term. Be better communicators.

- No attempt to offer a roadmap, signposts, or any semblance of structure to your speeches.

- Just reading card after card after card without actually saying anything substantive.

- No clash in a round. What are we even doing here?

- Bad rebuttals. At least outline why I should vote for you. I'm lazy, write my RFD for me. Give me some specific cards I should reference in my decision.

- Stealing prep time. You can't "stop prep" and then spend 5 minutes uploading a document. If you are truly that bad at technology, you need to go old school and be a paper debater.

- Don't roll your eyes at the other team, that's such an unnecessarily mean thing to do and being mean is loser behavior.

- Extinction/nuke war outweighing on magnitude is nothing if you can't definitively prove probability. It's hard to do that, of course, so maybe you should all stop escalating everything all of the time and have a reasonable debate instead.

- One thing I think about a lot: all you varsity kids spend so much time pouring over each other's stuff, you can't get upset at judges who miss something when we only get ONE shot to follow arguments live. Debate isn't my life and I'm going to miss stuff. I promise you I will give you my full attention, but you have to have realistic expectations.

- Asking for feedback from me after a round; it'll be on the ballot. (I need time to process my thoughts and don't want to say something mean/unhelpful to you on the spot). If I feel like there is something necessary to immediately share, I will. I will usually update my RFD/notes throughout the tournament, so check back at the end for the most detailed feedback. (Note: if the tournament is doing verbal RFD's, feel free to ask questions, don't expect eloquent answers though.)

- Trying to shake my hand (I'm sure you're nice, but, gross).

TL/DR:

- be nice, truth over tech, clear analytics, explain your kritiks, rebuttals are key, don't shake my hand

I debated for four years in High School at Olathe North and am currently assistant coaching there. I have not judged a whole lot of rounds and that is due to the college classes I am also taking at Johnson County Community College and the University of Kansas.

Please share what you plan on reading

email for email chains: swansonator01 @ gmail dot com

Speak clearly especially if you plan on going fast. If you are not clear in your spread...don't spread. I care more about the quality of your arguments rather than the quantity and I also care about how they fit into the flow of the debate.

I am fine with Ks and K affs and I especially care about HOW we achieve the alt if you run a K. ex. Revolution. Also, condo is good.

I will try my best not to intervene save for if you are rude and toxic in the round. Tell me how to vote and why. Run what you want to run and not what you think I want you to run.

If you run T, make sure it is reasonable and I will most likely not vote on it unless it is dropped.

Employment: 7 years as an attorney and 7 years as an assistant debate and forensics judge.

Experience: 2 years high school debate, 1 semester college debate at KU, over 10 years of judging including judging policy at EKNSDA and KCKNCFL and judging PFD at NSDA and NCFL, including PFD finals at NCFL 2019.

Arg Prefs:

Topicality is rarely an acceptable argument, unless in extreme cases. When it is run, it should be at the top of the flow and is an a priori issue for me.

Generic disads are always acceptable. Just don't expect them to be super important to my flow if the impacts are outrageous or the link story is weak. Regardless, if they are on the flow, aff must respond.

Topical counterplans are almost never acceptable to me, but if you can make an argument why it would be necessary in this round, tell me.

Open to any K, just make sure you know the material. Misrepresentations of the philosophy presented in the cards, or cards that don't actually make or support the argument made by the neg team will be discounted.

Big impacts are disfavored but not terminal to an arg. They simply don't carry a lot of weight with me.

Give me voters! Tell me why to vote on any argument, weigh it against other arguments in the round, and do the work for me. Leave as little as possible up to my discretion/analysis so that you remain in as much control of the round as possible.

While I will not do a team's work for them on arguments, if a team misrepresents what a card actually says, the persuasive power of that argument is heavily discounted. The other team still needs to challenge the argument, but the misrepresented argument will not weigh heavily in the round.

Style Prefs:

Speed is fine, provided there is competent analysis and your enunciation is clear. Speed does not work for me if your enunciation/volume is poor, or if you are just burning through cards without considering what the cards are actually saying/doing any analysis.

On-case in the two is fine with me, though I would like a preview of it in the 1N.

Give me more detailed roadmaps than "everything on the flow."

I debated for four years in high school and did forensics in College.

I am currently the assistant coach at Moundridge High School in Moundridge Kansas.

Policy Debate:

I tend to vote policymaker, if there are no policy options in the round I will vote stock issues.

Individual Issues:

Counter Plans: I will vote for a counter plan both nontopical and topical.

Disadvantages: I will vote for a generic DA. Saying the DA is generic is not an answer that will win.

Topicality: Topically must be argued more than just in a 1NC Shell. If you drop standards and voter I no longer care about your Topicality.

Theory: I will vote on theory arguments if you have evidence along with standards and voters.

Kritik: I will vote on a K. I prefer ones that are in a policy framework but will consider any alt as long as the team defends the position.

I will not vote on just defensive arguments as a policymaker, if there is no reason not to try the plan then I will vote for the plan.

Lincoln Douglas:

I will consider the value and criterion debate first when weighing the round.

Your criterion should logically support your value.

Speed- LD is intended to go deeper rather than broader and more philosophical, your debating about interpretations, not plans. I don't think speed supports this kind of debate. Don't lose depth for the sake of speed.

Evidence- I think that evidence is important, however, a lack of evidence does not mean a loss. Empirical examples can be just as weighty as traditional evidence.

Both debaters are responsible for clashes, don't ignore your opposition's value or criterion. I don't want to hear a debate in a vacuum.

I have debated and coached at both the high school and college level.

I would probably call myself a policy maker in that, if left to my own devices, I ask if I would vote for such a proposal as the aff if I were in a position to set policy for some organization.

I don't mind debate about debate theory. Don't plan to win the round by confusion. If you are running some non-traditional stuff, you'll need to justify that to me, and maybe even prove to me you know what you are doing by explaining it to me. If you are going to run a topical counterplan, you'd better be able to tell me why that is a justifiable approach. (Sorry - I am old school on this. At least you know it.)

Well, tabroom literally deleted my paradigm and I hate repeating myself so here's the condensed version. #FREELUKE

239 rounds judged (yes I update this every round) (going for a record or something) and I'm a 4th year coach.

Debate : I literally don't care what you run. As long as you know what you're reading. If you're rude to other people in the round, I'll think it's cringe and vote you down. Impact calc is always nice. I actually read your evidence so don't self-sabotage. Mean what you say, because a captain goes down with their ship.

Forensics : ALL OF THIS IS CONDITIONAL AND VARIES BY EVENT - Well-developed blocking is always appreciated. A good intro and conclusion are important. Voice impressions or differentiation is nice as well. If applicable, your speaker's triangle is crucial. Confidence is key. Getting in your own head only messes you up.

Mitch Wagenheim

4 years debated in HS, assistant coaching since 2015. Last updated September 2022

If we’re still doing email chains, I’d prefer to be on them: mwagenheim@outlook.com 

Overview: 

My basic paradigm is that I will vote on almost anything so long as you win the argument and demonstrate that argument is sufficient to win the round.  I used to be more of a policymaker judge but have become less attached to that framing. I firmly believe in tech over truth within the scope of the round. The only exceptions to this are arguments or types of discourse that seek to exclude people from the activity (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) If your arguments fall into the above categories, you will lose my ballot regardless of anything else on the flow. I am wiling to vote on almost anything. What follows are my general views on arguments and I can be convinced otherwise on any of them. 

Specifics: 

1. For theory arguments, you need to specify a compelling reason to reject the team. Saying “reject the team, not the argument” is not actually an argument. 
2. Topicality is often an underdeveloped argument in rounds I’ve seen. 
3. If you are running a K aff, it should have something to do with the resolution. It doesn’t need to be topical in the same way a policy aff does, but there should be a clear reason why it’s directly relevant to the topic. If you don’t want to engage the topic for whatever reason, you’ll need some strong framing why. 
4. I can generally follow the theory of your K, but make sure to clearly articulate your arguments and don’t just read blocks. Your alt needs to be supported by the literature base and somehow mutually exclusive with the affirmative. ROB/ROJ arguments are extremely helpful.
5. In terms of familiarity with critical arguments/authors I’m pretty conversant in Fem/Fem IR/Security/Foucault/Heidegger as well as the basic Cap/Imperialism/etc. arguments. Topics like Afropessimism/Queer IR or less common authors (Baudrillard for example) I can generally follow, but am less knowledgable about. 
6. DAs should have a clear link story and generic disads generally don’t hold much strategic value.
7. Smart analytics are just as valuable as cards. 
8. Clarity is substantially more important than speed. If you are unclear, I’ll give you a warning if you’re unclear but it’s up to you to make sure you are communicating. If I miss something because you’re unclear, that argument won’t be considered. 

Overall, do what you are comfortable with as best as you can. Don’t let my preferences discourage you from running your strategy. 

I hold a policy maker paradigm.

About me: I debated for 4 years at Mill Valley (2014-18) and I am now an assistant coach at Blue Valley West. I'm currently in my first year of OT school if that matters to anyone.

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

Top level:

*Pre-KSHSAA state update:* I have not judged a lot of debates on the water topic, but I would say I am pretty familiar with the core of the topic from coaching.

I will evaluate anything you read to the very best of my ability. I try my best to leave any biases at the door and make a fair decision no matter what. However, my background and most experience is in policy-oriented arguments and therefore I will be best judging those debates.

Tech > truth, but warrants of arguments should still always be extended and explained. Evidence quality is still important to me, but I won't make arguments for you based on the ev that weren't made in the round.

Please tell me how to evaluate arguments in rebuttals so that I am not left to figure it out myself. I always try to intervene as little as possible when making my decisions and only vote on arguments based on what was said in the round. I try not to read evidence when writing my RFD unless it was an extremely important card to the outcome of the round and/or I can't resolve the debate without reading it. If you want me to read a piece of evidence, tell me that in the 2NR/2AR.

Please be kind. Debate is hard; there's no reason to make it even harder for others.

Kritiks/K affs/FW

I don't have a lot of background knowledge in critical literature and therefore I will require more explanation of these arguments than some other judges. If I can't reasonably explain an argument myself or explain to a team in an RFD, I won't vote for it. This does not mean that I need to have a super high understanding of the literature or argument, but that you spent enough time on it in the debate for me to feel comfortable voting on it.

Literature I am more familiar with: security, neolib/cap, set col. Assume that I am unfamiliar with anything else. Please slow down on tags and analytics (especially important things like perms) and don't use buzzwords. Good line-by-line and impact comparison is very important to me in making my decision. Long overviews are not a good idea.

Ks on the neg: Explain clearly what the alt does and how it solves for the impacts you're claiming. I often find myself confused as to what I am voting for at the end of the round, so a robust explanation of the alternative will help you immensely. I don't think that links of omission are links and links that are very specific to the plan are most persuasive. I will let the affirmative weigh the case unless I'm given a convincing reason not to do so.

Framework vs. K affs:

I think that affirmatives should probably defend a plan, and if not, they should be grounded in the resolution in some way. I am usually pretty persuaded by the TVA if it's done well, so the aff needs to explain why the TVA can't access the same impacts as they can. Neg teams need actually engage the aff and do impact explanation and comparison vs. reading blocks without ever contextualizing it to the aff.

I am increasingly starting to think that fairness isn't a terminal impact but rather an internal link, but I can be persuaded otherwise. I think a lot of neg teams don't really explain why these impacts matter, they just say 'key to fairness,' 'key to clash,' etc. but miss the explanation of the implications of those impacts.

I am not a good judge for a K v. K debate.

Counterplans

The more aff-specific, the better. I will reward you/give more leeway on creative counterplans and ones with recut 1AC ev. They need to be competitive and should probably have a solvency advocate - if it doesn't have one I'll have a much lower threshold for voting aff on solvency deficits. I default to judge kick unless I am told otherwise.

Even though I think condo is generally good, I think it's definitely underutilized by aff teams, especially when neg teams read 3+ advocacies, kick planks, etc. I would say I generally lean neg-ish on most counterplan theory arguments if debated equally.

Topicality

I am not a fan of T on the water topic. I get sometimes it's the most strategic option, but just know it might be more of an uphill battle with me than other arguments would be.

Make the flow clean, explain your impacts, and be clear on what your interp includes and excludes and why that is a good thing. Case lists are a good idea on both sides.

I default to competing interps. I'm generally not a big fan of reasonability and think it's usually a waste of time unless you give convincing reasons as to why I should vote on it.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Good luck and have fun!

I've been coaching speech and debate at SME for 20 years (15 as head coach and 5 as an assistant). I debated open at SME, where I also went to high school.

I tend to evaluate debates from a policy-making paradigm, but I'm open to other frameworks. I'm also open to any arguments as long as adequate analysis is given and the argument's relevance to the debate and issues being discussed is made clear. I'm not extremely familiar with K lit so I'd be cautious to read a K in front of me, but I'm open.

I like to see clash and connecting your arguments to the claims made by your opponents. I want your evidence to be strong in terms of having clear warrants that match your claims, but you need to do the work in terms of pointing out key warrants, as well as scrutinizing your opponent's evidence.

When it comes to analysis, I prefer genuine, conversational delivery and explanations as opposed to spewing pre-written blocks.

I prefer speed at a moderate to quick pace as long as you're clear.

I want clear link stories and strong impact calc! I prefer the debate to funnel down to essential issues.

Please sign-post clearly when transitioning between cards and arguments.

Ethos is important so please be respectful and kind to each other, and present yourselves in a convincing, persuasive manner!