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.

Hi!

They/them

If you are comfortable feel free to share your pronouns with me.

Freshman at UNL. I have experience debating open and one year of varsity debate. I also competed in student congress during forensics season. Your args need warrants. Racism, sexism, ableism, and queerphobia aren’t acceptable. If I see any of these you will get the four (or 25) and lose the round.

Please give content warnings if what you are going to say could be triggering.

SIGN POST. PLEASE. Tell me what card you are referencing and read your tags and authors.

Please don't spread.

Your args need warrants.

New cards are acceptable thru the 1ar.

K's: acceptable if you can explain them to me, but I have never been a K debater and I am not very familiar with Ks and K literature, so please keep that in mind.

CP: Needs a net benefit

DA: needs to have a link

Overall, think of me as a flay policymaker judge. (also don't call me judge. Call me August.)

Have a good round and I don't care if you swear but don't over do it and don't be mean.

Put me on the email chain: augustfritton@gmail.com

If you do not make an argument in good faith then I likely will not weigh it heavily in the round. I will vote on an argument if you make it compelling enough to vote for. I always default back to policymaker. I will not flow spreading. There is a way to go about debate in a cordial way; if you cannot find a way to do that it will be hard to win my vote.

Ana-Sofia Lahovary (she/they)

KU'25

Assistant Coach for Shawnee Mission East High School

lahovarya@gmail.com add me to the chain:)

About me: Currently a freshman at KU Honors majoring in Political Science and Global&International Studies and coaching for Shawnee Mission East High School. I debated at SME for four years and three on the TOC circuit. As for my argumentative history, I read both kritikal (Abolition, afro-pess, cap) and and big stick policy affirmatives in high school and look forward to judge debates in both areas.

Evaluating Debates: Be kind to each other! Without having a long paragraph on theory, I think condo and pics are generally good and think theory based arguments are a reason to reject the argument, not the team. Detailed impact calc is very important, contextualize it to the round. I value well-explained internal link chains and efficient speeches. Judge instruction is important and use cross x to your advantage.

- disclosure is good

- tech > truth

- I won't vote on things that happen outside the round

- keep track of your own prep

- clipping/cheating/bigotry will guarantee a loss

- evidence comparison and ethos are good and will be rewarded

- I'm moderately familiar with the water topic but pls explain acronyms

have fun !

Hey, I'm rea!! I'm a sophomore at Kansas state. I did 4 years Policy in HS at Piper and another year in college at KSU.

That being said, I'm very familiar with the debate space, so run whatever you'd like. I love Ks, I'm fine with theory as long as it's truly applicable, and any other sort of argument is good with me (including petty T). I tend to veer more towards realistic impacts as opposed to extinction, but it isn't a ballot breaker for me.

K affs are great, but if you are doing a performance K aff, be sure you keep with that performance.

For any argument you run, be sure you're aware of who you are, and who those in the room with you are. Please don't speak over people's lived experiences, and don't run Ks that don't pertain to you unless they absolutely link. (i.e, if you're straight, don't run a queer K unless the aff is legitimately homophobic)

I respect being assertive and sticking to your guns, but there is a line. If you're being openly racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic you will lose and it will make the ballot. if you're being unreasonably rude to your competition, you will lose, it'll make the ballot. I don't play those games in rounds and I won't play them while judging either. Be a decent person.

that being said, make it interesting. I want a good round, not some cookie-cutter.

My email is montgomery.reagan282@gmail.com -Pls add me to the email chain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I judge more on policy than stock.

I like a good debate so don't spread your opp out of the round, that is not the goal.

Speed- moderate is good. If I put down my pen (yes, I am old school that way) you are going too fast. I am old(er) and my hearing isn't what it used to be.

Road maps are important, tell me where you are going and where I should be putting your arguments.

I debated in high school and have judge many rounds since so this isn't my first rodeo.

I did debate for four years. If you run a K or T, I really hope you know what you’re doing, same goes if your impact is nuke war or mass rioting.

hello, i’m a student at Saint Louis University majoring in social work with two minors in political science and women and gender studies. i use she/her pronouns. i competed in policy for four years in high school. i’m pretty tabula rasa when it comes to judging. i will not tolerate any bigoted, discriminatory, or violent arguments + behaviors.

speed
speed is okay but if you are going to spread please be courteous and let me + your opponents know ahead of time. with that being said, if a team asks for you not to spread please make the accommodation, or else i might reconsider your speaks. slow down on authors & tags if you do spread.

topicality

i will vote based on the team w/ the best voters. aff, provide a we-meet and counter interpretation. evidence comparison and impact calc are extremely important here. not a huge fan of using t as a time suck that gets kicked in the 2nc.

k

i’m open to listening to any k’s including language, performance, and narrative. for the most part, i’m into feminism, anti-capitalist, social & environmental justice theory args, but do not run these just to run them. please know your lit and explain the k’s relation to the aff. i like hearing about the alt’s impact more than anything, but that might just be me lol.

cp

explain to me how the CP competes with the aff’s plan. i have no preference on kicking CPs or running condo CPs & i am all ears if you bring up theory in response to those types of strats. please have a clear net benefit.

da

pretty simple here. the more specific your link is the better, but generic links & da’s work just as fine. i think da’s are fun with cp’s too.

impact calc

extremely important to be weighing your args, especially in the 1ar. i need to know why your impacts outweigh your opponents…or else i’m left with making decisions that may not be in your favor.

misc

please give a roadmap & signpost

extendddd your arguments

warrants>

clash is always good

make FULL arguments

i will not be flowing cx so if you want to make an argument about something that happened in it, bring it up in the following constructive.

do not clip evidence or i will vote against you

tag-teaming and open cx is fine if the tournament allows & if your opponents are okay with it, but i will not flow anything your partner says

new in the 2 is fine as long as the new ev isn’t being spread

don’t worry about eye contact that much with me…it can feel a little awkward on my part.

Shawnee Mission East ‘22

Junior at Shawnee Mission East debating at the Varsity TOC level

Pronouns: he/him

Please put me on the email chain: ibrahim.sufi.debate@gmail.com

I will put as much effort into judging as I feel you put into debating/prepping

Disclosure is good

Tech over truth (a dropped argument is a true one as long as it contains a claim and a warrant)

I will not vote on anything that happened outside the round

For Novices I’m fine with Speed but only if both teams are okay with it

I am a 4th-year debater from Piper High School

Send me your case. My email is elizabethvaughan@piperschools.us I cannot overemphasize the necessity of doing this – it will help keep me focused, and generally just make me happier. (Please and thank you!)

I'm not going to keep time so, you probably should.

Arguments that are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, Anti-Semitic, etc. are not OK. (Read: you will lose if you run them.)

Signpost please It helps me so much to know what you're running before you talk about it.

Also! please explain your arguments well. Don't assume I know what you're talking about, even if you think I might know already.

Stock Issues are the most important aspect for me. If the affirmative can win all of their stock issues they'll probably win the round unless the negative team brings up impact calc.

I Flow the round. But it's still important for you to emphasize if the other team dropped something from the flow (otherwise, I might forget!)

I really just want you to explain your arguments well and sound like you know what you're talking about. Especially in novice debate, I fully believe confidence is key. You got this!