Flay parent judge- adapt accordingly (don't spread)

Did forensics in high school

WSU '09

I majored in communication and taught public speaking for 5 years at the college level so good presentation and good etiquette is important to my ballot

I know the basis of a lot of policy oriented arguments on the circuit- but full explanation is key as always

DA's: great

CP's:great

on case: v v important

if you can't tell, my varsity debater child helped write this paradigm.

K's: I probably haven't read your literature but am up for the ideas behind kritiks. If it is necessary for a K to be ran in round it's in your best interest to run something easily digestible for an average parent judge with a lot of explanation on the link and what the alt does

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.

I would appreciate a clearly debated round. Don't gaslight each other, and don't gaslight me. I will take your general assertions as truth, and counter evidence needs to be obvious.

Treat me like a (hopefully) smart lay judge who is willing to bend if the actual speaking is good. K's are fine with me as long as there is not an obscene amount of legwork required to make your point worth making.

Lastly, I believe cordiality is important in round. Aggressiveness can work in making points, but not to the point of being snide or rude. Keep professional within the debate.

Policy Debate experience: Novice, JV, Varsity, for 2 years now start of my 3rd year,

Truth over Tech

Can't win on just defense for example: neg can't win on just solvency

Slow Spreading (I know that's a contradiction) is fine as I cant follow your 82 page K but I'm not a parent judge. If too fast or not clear speaking, I"ll say "clear".

If you throw out T in the begging of every 1NC in case they don't answer it, and they do answer just kick it otherwise you are wasting your time unless they are legitimately not topical.

Don't like K affs, but neg can have a K

Educational background:

Bachelor degree in rhetoric and communication with a focus on persuasive effectiveness (Kansas State University - Manhattan, KS)

Master degree in secondary education with a focus in English language arts (Western Oregon University - Monmouth, OR)

Specialist degree in literacy leadership and assessment (Walden University - Minnepolis, MN)

Profession:

My background has a plethora of experiences in various fields. I teach all levels of high school ELA classes at Newton High School and am an assistant debate coach. Also, I've taught undergraduate composition and speech courses at a variety of local community colleges and currently serve as a consultant for graduate-level business communication coursework at Wichita State University and Alamaba A&M University.

Judging Preferences:

At heart, I am a 'flow' judge. I expect clear and respectful speaking that addresses stock issues and does not attack an individual debater or team. (Poke holes in the argument instead.) I am not a fan of counter plans since this tactic usually does not address Aff's presented arguments. Communication skills and the resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance to me. I prefer a moderate contest rate so long as the presentation is clearly enunciated. Please provide real-world arguments and if addressing topicality, be sure to pair it with other major issues addressed in the round.

I debated for 4 years in high school.

I'm a Policy Maker. Ads and Disads are going to be very important. I am going to judge the whole round, but the advantages and disadvantages are very important.

I like to think that I am a fair judge. I will judge whatever you want to debate, but your arguments need to be clear and concise.

Topicality

T is possibly the most important argument a negative team has. You should know your topicality argument better than any other arguments you make in the round. If you don't think you will win on topicality, and you have other, stronger arguments, it is OK to concede T. You can still win a round without T. If you have arguments that you know are stronger and will win you the round, It is OK to not run T. (so many novices don't realize that T isn't the only way to win a round, and is often a very good way to lose a round on the neg.)

Remember, that everyone is going to have tech issues. please have patience with each other. I understand that there will be issues, so if you can see that the meeting has frozen, stop your time, wait until everything is working again, and continue your time. (Abusing this will result in a loss)

Debate still has rules. being in a different room doesn't suspend those rules.

The NSDA has a code of honour. I expect all participants to follow that code.

“As a member of the National Speech & Debate Association, I pledge to uphold the highest standards of integrity, humility, respect, leadership, and service in the pursuit of excellence.”

Microphones should be off when you aren't speaking.

Cameras should never be turned off.

I expect you to be respectful and polite.

Be smart, kind, and respectful and you will have a great experience.

If you get to a certain point of disrespecting the other team, you will be ranked the lowest in the round.

Please add me to the email chain in advance: chrishouk20@gmail.com

let me know that I've been added to the chain in the meeting chat, please.

Debate is a competitive, educational activity that supports speech, argumentation and research skills. I expect you to address stock issues and have clear, well-connected and relevant off case arguments. I will vote primarily on the quality of evidence and argumentation and secondarily on the speech skills displayed. Whatever arguments you run, be organized on the flow, be clear on your arguments, and be persuasive in your speaking.

3rd year debater. Flow judge. Open to any types of arguments.

Add me to the email chain: alonso.pena91@gmail.com

***The big picture***

1. I have 17 years of involvement with debate. I debated in high school and in college at Garden City (2006-2010) and Kansas State (2011, 2014-2017), respectively. In high school I did "traditional" policy debate, and in college I did critical and performance style debate. I read poetry and talked about queer and trans people of color, Chicanx people, decolonial feminist studies, performance studies, etc. I coached high school debate in Kansas for the last 7 years, and this is my first year coaching at UTSA.

2. Debate is a persuasive activity, so your primary objective should be to persuade me to vote for you.

3. I try to be as open-minded as possible, and I will base my decision on the things that happen in the round. That being said, I embody a lived experience, and I will not pretend that I can separate myself from that. I am a queer chicanx man, and I acknowledge that my positionality influences how I move in the world.

4. Do "you" - Be yourself to the best degree possible, and I will be happy. I believe the beauty of debate is that students get power and control over how they express themselves through argumentation.

5. Please don't annoy me about these two things. Prep-stealing and evidence sharing. When you say you are done with prep, I expect you to be ready to give your roadmap and share evidence.

***The Details***

Disads

Disadvantages are very important and underutilized in debate. I love a good disad debate. To win a disad in front of me you will need (at least) a unique link and an impact. You should explain why the disadvantage turns and outweighs the case, and you should compare impacts. If you're reading politics, then you should know that I am NOT a news watcher, so you should be explaining your politics disad. Also, I generally dislike politics disads because their stories feel like pieced together lies. I'm not saying I won't vote for them, but it'll be an uphill battle for you.

Counterplans

Counterplans are cool. I am more likely to be persuaded by counterplans that do the following: (1) have text that is clear and understandable and/or well explained, (2) solves the affirmative, or at least enough of the affirmative to outweigh the aff impacts, (3) have a net benefit or external impact that only the counterplan can solve.

Process counterplans (such as executive orders CPs, courts CPs, etc.) are typically less persuasive to me, but I will vote for them if they solve the aff and have a net benefit.

PICS (Plan inclusive counterplans) are cool, but they should have some basic theoretical defense as to why PICing out of part of the aff is legitimate and good.

Critiques

I enjoy them. To win a K in front of me you will need to win a framing question, a link to the affirmative, and an impact or implication. You should read an alternative, but I am willing to consider voting for a K without an alternative if you tell me why I should. I have a pretty good foundation on critical literature, but you should not assume I have read your literature base. Dense theoretical concepts should be unpacked. Explain how the alt solves the links/impacts.

On the affirmative, if you don't answer the K's framework I will be less persuaded by the affirmative.

Topicality

I think topicality debates can be really good and fun to watch when they are done well. I am persuaded by the following: (1) A reasonable definition and interpretation (2) A well-defined violation, or an explanation of how the affirmative is outside of the resolution, (3) Standards, or defense of why your interpretation is the best way to determine what is topical/untopical. and (4) voters, or reasons why I should vote on topicality in this particular debate.

If the negative doesn't win standards and voters I am way less likely to be persuaded to vote negative on topicality.

Speed

I don't have the quickest ear any more. I need pen time and I need moments where you are speaking to me and not at me. Spreading on zoom doesn't work for me. I cannot keep up and I'm going to be fully honest about it.

Put me on the chain: jppiazza3@gmail.com

Topicality

I like good T debates, but they can get messy pretty easily, so clean line by line here is important. Competing interps are probably good. I am most persuaded by predictable limits in that it shapes prep and probably is the best internal link to clash filled debates and education.

Counterplans

CPs specific to the aff are always preferred. Condo is probably good, but if there is in round abuse story, theory can be convincing. Otherwise, I'm fine with cheating process counterplans, but they should probably have solvency advocates/a lit base.

Disads

Read them! I love politics disads, but anything case specific is probably better. I think each part of the disad can be reduced to zero percent. Smart analytics can beat cards. Do impact calc.

Kritiks

I'm familiar with most of the basic Ks (cap, security, fem...). I'm fine with high theory stuff, as long as you make it clear what you are critiquing and the impact to that. Weighing the aff is probably good, so I err aff on framework, but I'll try to stay as unbiased as possible. Good/specific link analysis is a must ! I will defualt to plan focus.

Planless Affirmatives

If you don't read a plan, make your method or advocacy clear in how it functions and what a world post aff looks like. You can weigh the aff against framework. I will be more persuaded to vote for you if the aff is in the direction of the topic, in the case of immigration you advocate less restrictions on immigration, however if you go the other way that's fine as well.

I am old-school. I have been competing, coaching, and/or judging for about 30 years. I am looking for a series of good, persuasive speeches with a lot of clash. I can keep up with quality speed, but I am not interested in judging a speed-mumbling competition. If I cannot understand you (for whatever reason), I will NOT give you the benefit of the doubt.

I will consider everything said in CX as part of the round, so ask aggressively and answer carefully.

I will flow the round. If you do not signpost, I will not guess where your arguments go, and will consider them dropped. As for arguments, I want them brought-up in Constructives only. Rebuttals are for extra evidence and responses.

Analytical arguments are great, but I will judge their logic harshly.

If you're not speaking, you are using prep-time. The exception is if you're uploading your speech/evidence for the other team.

I will judge you on your speaking and professionalism.

CONGRESS:

I want to see actual debate. Clash with previous speakers, bring evidence and personality. I judge personality pretty heavily, so if you're just reading canned speeches with no humor, no pathos, no clash, your scores will be low. I expect good questions and evidence that you understand procedure.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS:

This is my favorite event. I want the arguments to be clear and everything needs to relate back to your values - contentions, attacks, CX, rebuttals, all of it.

Tell me why your value is superior; tell me why voting for you upholds your value; tell me why your opponent's side will diminish your superior value. Convince me of these things, and you will win the round.

I err to the practical, so if you use real-world examples and your opponent only debates in the theoretical, you'll be more likely to win.

This is the best, truest form of debate we have. Keep it that way.

POLICY DEBATE:

I abhor pre-made, canned speeches (except the 1AC).

I am not a fan of unnecessary abbreviations. "L-WOP," for example. I know it is more of a pet peeve than a paradigm, but if you say that, you'll annoy me.

I will judge on Stock Issues, and weigh Solvency heavier than the others. As such, if your Aff plan is weak (no enforcement, funding, details, etc.) and the Neg argues Solvency, I will consider Aff officially Up A Creek Without A Paddle.

I will also judge on the primary burdens of each team: Aff's Burden of Proof and Neg's Burden of Rejoinder. If you do not meet your burden, you will lose.

I do not like counter-plans or Kritiks. I want actual clash, I do not want you to dodge the Aff's arguments because you are not prepared.

Generic DAs are great, as we are voting on the resolution, not just the Aff plan.

Debate experience:
4 years nat circ / varsity policy at Derby High School in Derby, KS ????Formerly known as Jack Sallman

A little LD, world schools at nationals twice, basic understanding of PFD

MY PRONOUNS ARE HE/HIM

Put me on the email chain. Send docs before the speech, not after. Jacksallmandebate@gmail.com

Always feel free to email me with questions or feedback !

open cx is fine, off time flashing and road maps are fine idc

A few things:

Debate however you feel comfortable. I enjoy many different styles of argumentation and debate. If you're critical or policy, TOC or KDC, or literally any style of debating, my job as the judge is to adapt to your style.

Email chains/flashing: If I (or the other team) ask you to flash/share your speech doc and you refuse, speaker points will face consequences.

Post-rounding: I don't mind providing feedback or answering questions. Any post rounding that gets out of hand/aggressive, I will shut down though. It's a genuine trigger for me, and I also feel like blowing up on your judge is not productive.

Speed: Go as fast as you want, but please be clear. With me, I don't care if you're slow or fast, because I think efficiency is more important than speed.

I start speaks at 28 and work my way up or down.

Manners? : I think being assertive is good. If you're a jerk though, I'll drop your speaks. Don't be a bigot.

T

Competing interps is probably better than reasonability, but you've got to do your work. Please do your impacts and standards work or I'll die on the inside. Crafty we meets are awesome. Tell me why I prefer your interp. Shot gun T isn't one of my favorites, but I'll still listen to it.

DA

I love DA debates, as long as the DA isn't entirely horrible or you can do the work for it (Flashback to no DA ground on CJR topic). I default more to magnitude and probability debates. Brink arguments can be important. Aff, turn the DA. Neg, explain WHY the DA outweighs and turns the case. Specific links are great. I don't default automatically to util or deontology, I will evaluate with the lenses that wins on the framing debate. I LOVE DAs for K affs or on FW.

CP

POST the cp, but I wouldn't spend too much time on theory unless if you're going for condo. I tend to lean towards reject arg not team unless if the aff proves I should reject the team. The CP needs a net benefit. Aff, explain the perm. DON'T FORGET TO PUT OFFENSE ON THE CP!!!! Neg, I won't judge kick the cp unless explicitly told to and I feel it is right. Also if you can prove the CP links to the net bens, mwah!!! Do it! Ngl tho, cp debate isn't my favorite but don't let that discourage you! I will still vote on CPs.

K

Hell yeah. I've run Queer Theory, Capitalism, Derrida, Militarism, Security, Abolition, Anthro, Disability, Biopower, Set Col, etc. Basically, I love K debate. Performance K's, Rep K's, Academic approach K's, etc. are all fine with me. I am not strongly familiar with Baudrillard or Deleuze, however. If you want to attempt that route, feel free, but buckle down to explain more than a judge who is a Baudrillard hack. TBH most K's I can grasp fairly quickly. If you have any questions about this or if I know anything about a specific area of literature, either shoot me an email or ask me before the round.

K aff/FW

FW - I think clash is the important part here. Prob should read state inev, convince me why your interp o/w. TBH I don't think Affs need a w/m here, just a counter interp. I think if you find crafty ways to turn the DAs the aff will inevitably put on FW, DO IT. On a side note, Affs, put good DAs on FW. Side note.... FW doesn't only have to be T-USFG...

K affs -hell yeah. I read a queer anarchism academia aff my senior year, if that says anything, and my teammates read a Foucault Will of the Sovereign k aff. If you can effectively explain your case and win FW, you're good. I don't care if your aff does or doesn't have an advocacy, but be prepared to have that debate. Also read "K" header for more info literature wise. I think that preempting FW and other args in the 1AC is smart, and while I don't require it with my approach, topic specific affs are good. If you're not topic specific, that's still aight. I'll listen to most things -- but be ready for that debate with the neg.

Theory

I think most theory except condo is good enough for rejecting the arg not the team. This doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't attempt theory debate -- go for it if that's your heart's desire. Please don't be blippy on these theory debates and sending those blocks could be good. Even the best flow out there won't catch all of your arguments if you spread full speed through theory blocks.

It's a Great Day to be a Panther

Truman '22

Wichita State '26

Assistant Coach at Maize HS

(He/Him)

Email- aydebate22@gmail.com

Former 2A, reformed 2N

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

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

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

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

Most of my debate influence comes from Parker Hopkins.

General Scales

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case Debate

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

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

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

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

DA

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

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

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

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

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

CP

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

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

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

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

K

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

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

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

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

K Affs

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

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

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

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

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

Topicality/Procedurals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paradigm for Anish Srivastava:

Email chains acceptable, anishsrivastavaks@gmail.com

Relevant Background:

Debate at ON from 2016-2020 (I did DCI like twice and hated it, KDC forever)

Forensics at ON from 2016-2020 (Congress [nationals breaks], IX/DX [nationals], IMP2 [state])

For the Negative:

Topicality is not a real thing. Running it in an invitational is nearly a guaranteed loss. Running T in Regionals/State is more acceptable but it MUST be carried to the 2NR. If it isn't it is a loss.

Because of how much I hate Topicality I tend to accept more generic links for DA's

For Both teams:

I am a mix between Stock Issues and Tabula Rasa (mostly because I haven't done this in years).

Notes:

Ask me anything, I am an open book while judging

I have run 1K (Cap I think) one time, If you run a K I don't know what alts, agents, SetCol is.

I haven't done debate in years, so I can't catch your spreading. If I can't hear it I won't flow it.

I have been an assistant coach for around 12 years.

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

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

Hey y'all!

LHS '22

Two years open + two years DCI

KU '26 - Econ + Mandarin - not currently debating

23-24 Topic : I have not judged any rounds on this topic yet but am familiar with the concepts it outlines

Add me to the email chain or ask questions @ Hviloria71@gmail.com

or give me the code if you're using speechdrop

GENERAL INFO:

I will listen and vote on anything if you can convince me, literally!

Run what you feel most comfortable with, idc if thats a simulation K or 50 states, I'll do my best to adapt ;)

Don't be rude! Don't say anything problematic, but that should go without saying.

Just have fun and do whatever you want, EXCEPT run 8 off

I definitely feel like I was one of those people who got too caught up in the round and didn't have as much fun as I should've, so please make jokes and have fun, I promise you it's not that deep!!

Tech > truth

I want to try and prevent judge intervention as much as possible, so judge instruction is rlly nice!

MORE SPECIFIC THINGS:

Speed:

I'm okay with speed, but I'd rather have you be clear than to go fast so just make sure you are aware of what is articulate and what is not(I'll clear you if I think its absolutely necessary but I don't like to lol).

slow down on tags

If you're going to spreading a pre-written block or something- either go slowww or send out your analytics, spreading your opponents out of the room isnt cool!

that being said also make sure if you are gonna spread/go faster than normal plz check with the opposing team so we're all on the same page

T : I can't say I am terribly good at T debates but I understand the basic mechanics

• default to competing interps
• I really enjoy when people impact out standards and voters
• Against a K aff, TVA's are super helpful!

Ks: These are probably what I'm most familiar with and what I love to see! I mainly worked with cap, set col, abolition, undercommons, and a small amount of queer theory. However, I'm not entirely sure what k ground looks like for this topic so don't assume I already know the lit lol.

• the MOST important thing for K's is the link and impact! Generic links are ok but need to be well articulated, that means you're pulling lines from the aff's case, using in-round reps, etc to be the most specific - if there isnt a lot of link work it'll make the K debate a lot harder for everyone involved. Also make sure to impact out everything, explain why the aff is bad for debate, bad for the world, and plz say what the role of the ballot/role of the judge is!
• I don't think the alt neeeedsss to solve, but still do work on it - I think conceding the alt can be strategic in some rounds(like in a situation where you believe the link and impact substantially o/w the case) but you should be prepared to defend your methodology - basically I see kicking the alt as a last resort.
• LINE BY LINE <3
• win framework = win k debate
• If you do not plan on going for the K, kick it *first thing* in the 2nc. Don't go all in on certain advocacies and representations if you don't plan on defending them for the whole round.

Planes offs/kicking the plan text : I have no problem with it. Just be thorough and explain your methodology/praxis(ie why is not having a plan text critical to your methodology, how is it better for debate, what’s the impact in and out of this round, etc.)

Disads and CPs : I don't have a strong preference towards either of them. Specific links and impact calc :)

Theory: I like theory - vulnerable to voting on condo when it's warranted/if you can convince me it's warranted - in most cases I will reject the argument not the team unless instructed otherwise

I probably left some things out so PLZ do not hesitate to ask questions!!

4 year debater WEHS and NWHS, debated DCI/TOC for first 3 years, and chilled for the 4th year.

Email chain always: war.camden@gmail.com

Tabula Rasa - Tech>Truth - Policy Maker (unless you con).

Speed good

My 3 favorite things: Theory, Impact Calc, and Evidence Clash

K's/K-aff's:

- Will always listen to it, even better if I can experience a performance

- Trix are for kids, and also policy debaters! Feel free to be tricky or strategically drop parts of the K so long as you're clear about what you're doing.

Theory:
- Love it, go for it.

- 5 minutes of theory in rebuttals is dope, just don't beat around the bush.

- Theory that comes up mid-round due to circumstance is cool, just make sure to touch on procedurals and give clear impacts

Things that will dock you speaks:
- Being mean in round

- Inappropriate or inconsiderate behavior in round

- Incomprehensible spreading

- Over-aggressive CX and yelling over your opponent

More paradigm = Click here - (ctrl+click)

email chain - AiriyannahWashington1@gmail.com

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

*IF VIRTUAL*

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

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

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

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

Things You shouldn't do

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

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

Be weird about giving your evidence to your opponents.

Policy -

I vote on flow not speaking ability.

I will more likely than not vote on solvency.

Disads

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

Cps

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

Topicality

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

kritiks

(novice running k's? okay)

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

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

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

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Williams%2C+David+J.

Name David J. WIlliams
School; Newton HS Kansas
# of years debated in HS_0 What School NOPE
# of years debated in College_0 What College/UniversityNope
Currently a (check all that apply) xHead HS Coach _Asst. HS Coach
College Coach _College Debater
Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate
# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic _10_
What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?
_xPolicy Maker _Stock Issues _Tabula Rasa
_Games Player _Hypothesis Tester ___Other (Explain)
What do you think the Aff burdens should be?
I think the aff should affirm the resolution and be topical and have the basic INH/PLAN/ADV/S structure.or something similar. I am willing to listen to any aff position but I am mainly a policy guy but a K aff is fine if you can explain it well enough. I won’t pretend to understand your position, aff or neg, so please prepare a presentation that balances a quicker than normal speech but not spewing and wheezing. Don’t speed through your 1ac and quit with 90 seconds to go.

What do you think the Neg burdens should be?
I think the neg may choose to debate the case or go with a generic position but I am going to vote on offense. I hate topicality and most theory arguments mainly because I hate flowing it. IF the aff is topical, even a little, then don’t run T. I wont flow it the way you want me to and I will default more to reasonability. If is reasonable then I wont vote against them on T. If the aff is not topical then run T. I will punish affirmatives who are non-topical. IF the aff is unreasonable then Neg will win even if I am terrible flowing the T.
How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?
Slow tags/authors and quicker on card content. If I cannot understand you I will say clear. I prefer a slower style of debate that still uses the flow. My flow will be accurate(if you let me) with a slower round. Faster rounds will be my best guess. I would say slow down and be persuasive and signpost for me.
How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?
Generics with good links are fine. I need to know the story of your arguments. If I cannot remember the story then I can’t voter for it.
How I feel about case debates?
I LOVE A GOOD CASE DEBATE…but I don’t require it.

Flashing is prep time. Flashing is not moving all your cards to a speech doc. THIS IS PREP TIME AND SPEECH PREP> IF you jump a speech to the other team please do so quickly. I believe the last step of every speech should be the flash. Once the flash drive is given to the other team..Prep starts for other team if the non speaking team wants to hold up speech to see if it is on jump drive. Prep is over for the non speaking team when they indicate they are ready. IF the speech did not make it or if the format is difficult to use. I will grant a grace period of 1 mintue to resolve the issue. Laptops are normal for me. I don’t want your face buried in your screen.

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!