Debate Experience:
Current 4-year debater at Derby High School

Email: calebcarterdebate@gmail.com put me on the chain.

Speed: Clear>speed. if you're clear, go as fast as you can

CX: good CX gets good speaks. If you get an argument of CX EX: there is no link to a politics DA. PLEASE PUT IT IN THE SPEECH. Also, don't be mean :).

T

I default to competing interps. Please clash instead of just extending your argument. I will evaluate it based off of the debate and think it is a great way to secure links.

DA

They're cool obviously. if used with the CP clearly the debate moves more to if the cp solves the aff and how much compared to risk of the NB. Spec link are nice.

CP

aff should explain the perm and what it looks like if they go for it. NEG: The CP needs a net benefit, and it isn't we solve better. I'm lenient to aff when it comes to PIC, I'm open to all CP as long as it is competitive, this will probably change after I have enough bad CP.

K

I'm cool with the K, please don't say the K-word. Explain what that means. same goes for the alt, explain how it happens. well warranted links will go far.

K aff/FW

FW - As policy kiddo, I will probably lean closer to FW then I should however don't assume I will vote for you just because you say they aren't topical. you should clash with the aff. I need why topic edu is key and preferably, includes their edu (TVA, SSD, etc) or why their edu is bad.

K affs - they're okay, I prefer topical aff, but do what you do best and I will judge as fairly as I can.

for me to vote I need a reason for why topic edu is bad and/or what edu it causes to leave out. please explain the k words you use as I am small brain.

Theory

I think most theory except condo and T is good enough for rejecting the arg not the team.

Preferred pronouns are she/her but I won't make a fuss out of it. But if you don't give your opponents the respect of using their pronouns, then we may have an issue.

Experience: I've gone to nationals three times so far, have done debate since my freshman year. I understand debate terms, arguments, and how to utilize arguments. My favorite argument was always the cap k, and my least favorite argument is T, but I understand its utility and will vote on it if the argument is presented well enough.

If an argument is presented poorly and I can't understand where it stands on the flow, there is a good chance I just won't even consider it in the round. Literally just say, "Advantage one is ___" and I understand how to flow. Failing to do that will definitely result in poor speaker points. Or at the least share your documents with me so I can flow with you.

I like my debates to be fun with well-developed arguments. Have a good time and respect one another. That's all I really ask from you.

I have judged debate and forensics off and on for the last 7 years.

Debate is, first and foremost, a communication activity. Arguments should be clearly laid out in a way that allows me to understand, but also shows that the debaters have a firm grasp on their evidence and why it is being used. Pretend I know nothing. I am not a flow judge, but I do take notes in the round.

I don't ask to see speech docs. My decisions will be made off of what is said in the round.

I encourage you to speak at a conversational pace.

I did not debate in high school or college, but have served as a debate assistant for several years. I have judged about 10 rounds on this year's topic. I am policy maker or stock issue judge. I appreciate when teams listen to the evidence that the other team is reading and analyze it and check the warrants. I hate just reading blocks without explanation.

The Affirmative has the burden of proof to support the resolution. You will probably do better if you do not speed read to me.

Generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks are fine. Topicality is fine. Specific links are important. Explanation is important.

The last speakers should weight the round.

I will penalize rudeness. Just be nice to each other.

I competed in high school debate in a small 4A/3A school for four years in the late 80’s, was part of K-State’s CEDA national championship team in the 90’s. I coached for about 10 years before taking a break to raise kids and I am now in my 5th year back.

I know debate and my coach's heart is strong. . . but I am better at the older style of debate than the newer style of debate.

Important:

1. My most important rule is “Be Kind.” There is a reason this activity needs to be accessible to all. Don’t pollute the activity that I love.

2. I used to say speaking fast is fine. I am editing my paradigm now to say that the recent fast rounds that I have judged have not been articulated clearly enough for me to understand. In the end, this is still a communication activity. Additionally, mindless reading of blocks without clash is not good debate. Please flow and put your arguments on the flow. You shouldn't be able to speak from just a preloaded block on your computer. I enjoy line by line argumentation. I expect summarizing and explanation in between. I appreciate speed most when it is utilized to analyze and weigh responses and dislike when teams spread through unwarranted responses to attempt to overwhelm the other team.

3. I am probably closest to a policy-maker or a stock issues judge, but am willing to consider other paradigms if you want me to.

4. I expect you to weigh the round and analyze the voting issues in the final rebuttals.

5. Please include me in any email chain or evidence sharing, but I will probably only look at the evidence if it's important to my decision and 1) someone asks me to or 2) I think it sounds misconstrued.

6. I will not evaluate any K's, or theory arguments unless you tell me how to approach the argument and how it weighs in the round. Don’t get me wrong, I am willing to listen to K's, although I have little experience reading or evaluating them. If you run these arguments, please avoid excessive jargon. You are going to have to be super clear.

7. Cross-ex is for questions not arguments. You will get a lot further with your argumentation if you save it for the speech. I don’t flow cross-ex and usually am working on the ballot during that time.

8. I will vote on topicality if necessary.

9. I will not vote on vagueness unless clarifying questions are asked of the affirmative in cross-examination AND their case becomes a moving target.
10. I will not vote on disclosure theory. Just debate the round.
11. I know that I am old school, but I believe that feeding your partner what to say during their speech or cross-ex makes that partner look weak. Trust your partners. They are smart people.
12. I hate rudeness and will penalize. Don’t put another person down and don’t try to make them look stupid . . . other than that, speaks are based on strategy/arguments, not style/speaking ability. I stick to 27 - 30 for speaker points unless you are rude, condescending, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

I am frustrated by excessive tech time (there is a reason that we added prep-time). Please keep a fair track of your time. I don’t want to have to worry about it. But don’t cheat on time.

If you have any questions, ask before the round. I will do my best to give you meaningful feedback about your strengths in the round and how I think you can improve on the ballot.

Best of luck! Have fun! Enjoy! Form connections . . . that’s what debate is all about!

I mostly base my decisions on good policy. I do mix in stock issues of they are applicable which is mostly topicality.

I prefer real-world arguments.

Good speech organization is always a positive foot forward.

Respect for each other is key. I do not like shouting matches or putting down of others.

Counterplans are acceptable if they are sound.

I am not a fan of Kritiks or Resolution Justification.

My preference on the pace of speech is the pace at which the common man can understand. In short, if you're gasping for breath, you're too fast.

Baylor University '25 (not debating)

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

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

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Basic Preferences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theory

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

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

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

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

Topicality

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

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

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

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

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

Disads

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

-PLEASE have warranted internal link chains that make sense

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

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

Counter Plans

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

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

-the better the solvency advocate, the better the counterplan

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

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

K

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

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

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

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

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

-Be prepared to answer the framework debate please!

K affs

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

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

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

LD

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

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

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

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

Speed

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

Topicality

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

Disads

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

Counterplans

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

Kritik

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

Conclusion

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

Cant wait to judge you,

Stephen

I am an old school "Get off my lawn" kind of judge. I have been an assistant debate coach for 18 years and I was a high school debater but not college. I prefer real world arguments with normal impacts nuke war and extinction really annoy me. I hate spreading and will stop listening if you word vomit on me. I can handle speed but double clutching and not clearly reading tags will be a problem. I am being forced to do an electronic ballot but that DOES NOT mean I want a flash of your stuff. I HATE KRITIKS but will vote on it if it is the only thing in the round. I prefer nontopical counterplans and will tolerate generic DAs if the links are specific. I like stock issues and policy impact calculus. I like quality analytical arguments. Teams who read good evidence not just camp and wiki stuff will get my vote.

I am a stock issues judge.

Basic practice preferences

If you want an email chain - msawyer@tps501.org

I will be flowing the round and that will be the largest decider in our round. Defend/debate all portions of an arguments and that will reflect well for you on the flow. I want to see ya'll interact with the arguments read - if you choose to discount an argument without just refutation, it'll be a yikes for all involved.

I will never vote on arguments which are discriminatory and encourage violence (racism good, ableism good, anti-queer literature, etc.) If you create spaces which encourage violence or are the source of abuse in the round in any way, you will lose this debate. I view my privilege in this round is to protect education and the safety of all debaters - in no way will I sit by and watch another team/debater be attacked for any identity they may possess. 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 would rather see ethical debaters than those who read awful arguments in hopes of gaining a winning edge. Be a better person than you are a debater at all times.

I am fine with any speed you choose, but I will hold you accountable for creating a safe and accessible space for the debate to occur. If the practice is used as a way to push a debater/team out of the round, that's a problem. I will not directly intervene in this case, but if the team/debater chooses to critique your process or read in-round abuse theory, I will prefer it.

Argument breakdown

Framework: I will flow what you want from me to either change my evaluation of the round or use it as a critique of debater methods. This can be important at the end of the round if you make it to be. I will evaluate the round as your framework dictates if you give me the solid reasoning as why it should be preferred over default consequentialism. I want to see your ability to interact with the framework throughout the round, not just a one-time read at the end of an aff or at the start of a neg argument. If you are willing to read it, work with it during our time.

Author debates are tedious and boring. Do the work. Do the analysis. Disprove the argument written and presented rather than count on me to judge whether a piece of evidence should be included. Again, I want to see you engage with the evidence as read rather than dismiss it.

Topicality: I love it. A good T debate is my favorite debate to judge and was my favorite argument to run. By default, the aff needs to win the interpretation and work through the standards/voters. Don't discount the argument and make sure to prove T through thorough argumentation.

Counterplans: Always a fun time! As the neg, I feel this gives you automatic offense which can lead you away from the "the aff is still better than the SQ" debates. The thing that will irritate me quickest is the aff simply saying the perm to be argued rather than adding a simple line or two to analyze how that perm performs its abilities within the round and in the world of the aff. Do the work! In my opinion and practice, condo bad can help guard importance analysis space. Go for it! Other theory arguments are chill with me if you provide adequate analysis for how it negatively/positively shapes the round.

Criticisms/Performances: As a debater, I ran a few K arguments and have coached students through lit bases. There is a high chance I will be familiar with the base you are pulling from, but if I am not, I am sure I can understand the argument through the flashed evidence! Any K read should be an advocacy. This means that I want to see these arguments function as something you/the team truly believes and truly are a part of the community the literature bases itself within. Running literature from a community of which you are not a member runs the line of commodification which is bad for many reasons! I am willing to hear any K and will rely on the you to prove link and solvency clearly.

BOTTOM LINE

Debate is about education and learning how to interact with arguments on great topics. I want to see your work, your passions, and your way of debating. Make this activity fit you and your teammate, not the other way around! With as much as I value education, I want you to value and safeguard that education for all involved. This is why I will never vote up a team which places that in jeopardy for the round. As I tell my team: be better people than you are debaters. Never sacrifice parts of yourself for arguments that may seem competitive. Be a part of the reason this community is becoming safer for its members, not a reason people dread the activity.

Experience: I am an experienced debate judge and past competitor. I have judged > 7 tournaments, including State; I competed in State 2-speaker Novice and Open.

Speech Terminology & Speed Preferences: I am comfortable with either lay or technical terminology. I prefer articulated speaking; speak as fast as you want, but be sure your speech is understandable and appropriately expressed in terms of your speaking abilities. I appreciate argumentative and stylistic skills equally - a team must understand and be able to explain their arguments thoroughly. It is very important to understand what you are bringing to the debate. I highly value summaries of arguments at the end of speeches that connect the evidence and points together.

Flow: I keep a flow focusing on key arguments and sources. I value quick roadmaps (<10 sec) that list the order in which you address your points. Cross-Examination is not included in my consideration on the ballot, but a point in which teams can clarify points and/or raise questions for them to address in a proper speech.

Specific Decisive Critieria: Your overall understanding of the issues within the Debate, realistic implications, and defense/offense with the competing team aid in my decision of the round. I value Impact Calculus - Magnitude, Probability, Timeframe - in my decision. Stock Issues - Inherency, Solvency, Plan, Harms/Advantage - must be maintained by the Affirmative as per the Burden of Proof, just as the Negative must effectively argue against the Affirmative as per the Burden of Rejoinder.

Negative Strategy: I prefer that the Negative team, if they are inclined to run off-case, does so in the 1NC. With the priorities that Off-Case arguments uphold (i.e. Topicality, Disadvantages, Counter-plans, Kritiks), it is most appropriate for the Negative to run these arguments first, if at all.

Be kind to each other and value the education of debate and respect the discussions within. Understand that these are real-world issues and what the implications of your arguments are.

*Disclaimer*: I'm a parent judge. I know what I am doing but I am not an expert at debate by any means and this paradigm is being written with assistance from my son.

I default to policymaker, but will become tabula rasa if framework is presented to me.

You can speak quickly, but I have to be able to understand what you are saying for me to listen. If I can't understand you I don't care about what you are saying.

In regards to Disadvantages, I don't like impacts that are unrealistic. I rarely listen to nuke war impacts. I'd rather you use realistic impacts that are highly likely. Other than that, specific links are preferred but not absolutely necessary.

In rebuttals you need to tell me why I should vote for you and why I should not vote for the other team. If you don't lay out a reason I should vote for you, I most likely won't do so.

I will rarely vote on topicality so don't run it unless the aff is ridiculously untopical.

Do not run a counterplan unless you are very good at them. If you run it wrong it will just confuse me and I probably will not vote for you in that case.

I will listen to theory, but you have to explain it very well.

I don't like kritiks so don't run them.

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

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

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

More in depth version of how I evaluate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have been judging debate for several years. I am primarily a stock issues judge and will be basing my decision mostly on successful arguments of stock issues. I expect to hear clearly cited evidence that pertains to the debate round. Since debate is also about speaking, I will also be looking for speeches that are constructed well and competitors with good speaking abilities. I do not care for Kritiques. Stick to the stock issues. Counter plans should be thorough, well constructed and presented if used, but I am not really a huge fan of most counter plans either.

Cliff notes: I am a closeted K-Hack (meaning they aren’t my fav, but a well poised one is nice) posing as a policy maker. On that note, spreading for the purpose of outspreading the other team is no different than word vomit. I am okay with speed if args (and your tags) are EXTREMELY clear and well developed, I am not okay with speed when it is solely for out-reading the other team. Tell me where to flow, how to vote, and why it is important. If you’re going so fast I can’t flow, I won’t.

For Email chains: kutt@usd266.com, however, I prefer the tabroom created doc drops to keep rounds moving. It wastes so much time waiting for emails.

PSA: Preflow means you flow before you get into round. I should not have to wait to start the round because you need to flow your own case. Even in PFD. You should have several preflowed copies of your pro and con cases so you're prepared for either side.

I am basically a policy maker judge. However, I also consider stock issues.

Things I dislike:

Generic arguments unless they can be directly linked to case.

Speed. I'm an English teacher, and I can take notes. If I can't keep up, you're going too fast. And no, I don't want a copy of your speech. I am judging the round based on the speeches, not the written notes and cards. Your responsibility is to get the information into the round--verbally. That's what I judge.

*Counterplans: Debate the affirmative case! Unless the aff case is totally non-topical, then engage with them. Offering your own plan (which you had ready before the aff ever spoke) defeats the purpose of a debate round, in my opinion, and is actually dodging the responsibility of the negative.

* I know this year's topic is one that spawns counterplans, so I'm not going to give you the loss JUST because you offered a counterplan. I also understand how a counterplan with a Kritique could be effective. However, my basic philosophy is that you should debate the affirmative plan, not offer your own and ursurp the round.

Position on the following:

Topicality: Rarely do I award the win based on topicality. Unless it's blatantly non-topical, it's topical. I do understand though that running topicality arguments gives your partner more time to prepare their speech; just know that your splitting hairs over definitions isn't going to affect my decision.

Kriitiques: I haven't judged a round where a kritique is offered. However, I understand the concept and would expect it to be presented and explained as a Kritique, and an alternative solution/plan should be presented with it.

Pronouns: She/her

Lansing '22

4 Years Lansing HS Debate & Forensics

Lansing HS Assistant Coach

KU '

i don't really care what you run as long as you are clear about it, if i don't know what you're saying then i probably won't vote for you. i have a pretty good understanding of debate and basic arguments, if you run something confusing then EXPLAIN IT, jargon should also be explained if it's not a fairly common term just in case i don't know what you're getting at. i would rather you focus on fewer good arguments than try to run 9 off and not know how to explain any of it. if you wanna run a k or anything like that i don't care but i would prefer for it to be something you can clearly convince me of, your k should basically be an alternate reality and if i'm not convinced it can exist then i won't vote for it. win me on basic stock issues before you try to win me on some off the wall argument that is only vaguely relevant to the current debate. as for speed i'm not a huge stickler about speed but i do ask that whatever speed you go that you are clear. if i am left in the dust, cannot understand you, or it's unclear of what's going on i'll probably just stop listening and i'm guess you probably don't want that. if i am judging you then i definitely want to be a part of the document sharing however that may be done, if there's an email chain that's cool: alexa.ymker@gmail.com. i also believe that the 1AC should be able to send the speech out as soon as the round starts so please make sure you are able to do that