-Basics about me-

Please try your best to speak up

!!Please add me to email chains!!

faithbates@students.usd305.com

-Things i like-

being professional, off time road maps, respecting everyone during the round, have your cameras on if you can and feel comfortable doing so (i will not count off points if you don't put your camera on).

-Things i dislike-

dont be rude. stay on topic :)

-While Debating-

theory- i recommend not running theory unless you can explain it well.

k's- make sure they are relevant and you know the argument well.

counter plans-- i love counter plans when explained thoroughly and effectively.

disadvantage's- i love disadvantage's when they are (again) relevant, explained well and creative.

cross x- i absolutely hate open cross x, just don't do it. i typically vote off whats being said and asked during cross ex.

rebuttals- i typically vote off whats being said during rebuttals as well, don't bring up new info.

Competition- Salina South High School (KS): 2018-22 (immigration, arms sales, criminal justice, water), Missouri Valley College 2022-2024 (NFA-LD elections, NDT/CEDA nukes)

Coaching- Rock Bridge High School (MO): 2022-2024 (NATO, fiscal redistribution)

I use she/her pronouns, but you can just call me Sage or judge, whichever you prefer

Yes email chain: sagecarterdb8@gmail.com

The Short Version:

Judges should adapt to the debaters and to what the debaters say. I don't like intervening and love when debaters clearly explain their route to the ballot. I decide the debate on the flow, giving me good taglines and soundbites to help my flow is appreciated and will help you. I enjoy just about any style of debate, but I do have some biases and things I default to with certain arguments, these are outlined in my paradigm and can easily be changed with good argumentation. Please ask me if you have any questions regarding anything before or after the debate.

General Misc. Things-

I love theory debates, but a lot of them that I have seen have been very fast and hard to keep up. If you are going for theory or on a theory argument, I encourage you to slow down just a bit. I'll try to be clear if I am not keeping up with you, so try to be looking for my expressions.

Doing impact work is incredibly important for me. I usually start my decision at the impact level, deciding what the biggest impact is in the round and then who solves it better. Starting there and working backwards is probably the best way to get my ballot in every 2AR/NR.

T/Theory-

Default to competing interps and no RVI's

I like to see T as if I am voting for the best model of debate. This means that you need to clearly explain what your interp looks like for debate, and why that is preferable.

Small school specific standards/impacts and bright lines are some of my favorite standards when debated well. I don't have a massive preference on your standards/voters so long as you warrant and impact them out

I don't think I have any real opinions on many of the T arguments on this topic, I do think many of them are a little aff leaning but if you can debate it well go for it. I might be a secret T-Subsets lover...

I vote neg on T when they establish that the affirmative does not fit their model of debate, and allowing affirmatives like that leads to a much worse debate outcome than not allowing it. I vote aff on T when they establish a better model of debate that includes at least their affirmative, if they meet the negative interpretation, or if the negatives model harms debate more.

T-FW-

I think these debates are fun, internal links are probably the thing that ends up being the tiebreaker here more often than not, do more weighing work with internal links as well just like offense.

I'll evaluate just about any impact as long as it is clearly articulated and warranted as to why the other sides interp causes it, weighing it makes it easier to vote for it.

Make sure you answer the aff at some level so they don't just get to outweigh you the entire debate

I like good aff counter-interps, clearly outlined standards make them even better

TVA's without evidence are probably an uphill battle, be able to defend it well

C/A the voting explanation from regular T

DAs-

I love when teams use the DA strategically across multiple sheets. Link turns solvency, internal link turns solvency, timeframe impact calc, use the DA to act as multiple arguments.

Do impact calc, the earlier the better

I vote neg on the DA if they explain to me how the DA creates a worse world than the status quo or if they avoid the DA through a different action. I vote aff on the DA if they show that it should have happened, it has happened, they don't link, they turn the DA, solve the DA themselves, or just outweigh.

Counter Plans-

Counter plans can have a little logical reasoning, as a treat. I like seeing specific solvency, but don't need it, though I would like an explanation on how your mechanism specifically solves for the aff.

I need offense with a counter plan, solving better isn't reason enough for me to vote for it.

Explain your perms and your answers to the perms and we will all be happier

I enjoy counterplan theory and think it needs to be utilized more. PICs and international fiat bad are some of my favs.

Not super familiar with counterplan competition so you may want to avoid it but you do you

Love condo debates <3. I usually flow condo on the CP sheet, if you do not want me to do this make sure you tell me. I can be convinced that a team should not have any conditional advocacies, but that's pretty difficult. I don't really lean any side on condo, but if you read more than 4 conditional advocacies, the more I sympathize with the aff. I like arguments about why the certain number in the interpretation is necessary and time skew arguments.

I vote neg on the counterplan when the neg effectively shows me that the counterplan is mutually exclusive and they can solve for most of the affirmatives impacts and one of their own that the aff cannot solve. I vote aff on the counter plan when they show me the aff and CP can exist together, it has major solvency deficits, a DA of its own, or if you win the theory debate.

Ks-

I love the K and have gone for it in many 2NR's and judged that, I prefer line by line work to overviews but if you combine them be clear about the argument you are referencing. I love framework debates but they can often get muddy, clear framework debating goes a long way on my ballot. For literature bases I have read a lot and argued with, I am familiar with capitalism, biopolitics (Agamben specifically), queer/trans theory, settler colonialism, security/racial IR, militarism, and university/academy Ks. Not a huge Fem IR or psychoanalysis fan, I'll still vote on it, but I find arguments about how those fields of thought are transphobic or problematic in other ways very persuasive.

I'd like to think if I am not super familiar with a lit base I can catch on quick in a debate, but if your K is like super complex and hard to understand, you may want to put it up. Feel free to ask how I feel about your K lit base and how much I know.

Being clear about why the K comes first helps a lot

I think the aff needs to do more than throw their blocks of state good, policy making good, and extinction outweighs. Doesn't mean you can't read those arguments, I just like when teams make smart analysis on how you don't link or in line with the alternative.

Explaining what your alt does, looks like, and how that solves for the impacts throughout the debate will put you very far ahead.

I vote neg on the K when they win it's mutually exclusive their framework and a link (a note for this, just because you are the only side that presents a framework and they don't read a we meet doesn't mean an auto win. If they can win an impact turn on the K that makes it not fit the framework then I won't vote for it.), or when they show how the aff makes a bad thing much worse and they win a way to avoid that. I vote aff on the K when they win their model of debate, they show they don't link or link turn, they win an impact turn (that is not morally egregious), the alt is bad, or a permutation that makes sense and is explained well.

K Affs-

I'd prefer it if the aff defends something, it makes your life much easier, but if you are not going to then you better be ready to defend that.

It is probably a good thing if your aff is connected to the topic, and especially your mechanism, but if you want to not even mention the topic then go for it.

I like argument's related to the education of the topic and good impact work with those

Clear solvency is essential here, be ready to answer the what happens when the judge votes aff questions

Performance is cool, make sure to relate it to the topic and please attempt to garner offense off of it or include it in the rest of the debate in some capacity

I vote neg when they win an alternative model of debate is better and potentially includes the affirmative, the affirmative advocacy does not actually solve for their impacts, the aff advocacy creates more impacts than solvency, or if the neg wins a counter advocacy. I vote aff when they win their model of debate is preferable, the advocacy is able to create some solvency and not create impacts, or they win that they can exist with a counteradvocacy or that advocacy is not preferable.

LD-

I did some LD in high school, it was mostly trad value/criterion though so I am pretty inexperienced with circuit LD.

I am probably better for policy (y'all call it LARP?) and K arguments since that is my background. Phil seems interesting, but I have no experience with it or many of the arguments. I know some Rawls and Kant, but if your phil args are not super easy to understand you may want to read something else.

I don't entirely know what tricks are, if its just theory then great! I love theory debates. But, if it is more cheap shot, one line theory args or just silly args, I am not your judge and more than willing to hold the line on arguments I think are not pedagogically valuable.

I think the rest of my paradigm should answer most questions you may have, but if it does not, ask me anything! I don't really know what a good LD paradigm looks like so I def missed something. I am still super excited to judge your round!

Stolen Paradigm Lines I Agree With

"I want my opinion to come into play as little as possible during the round. I would like to be told how to vote and why, by the end of the rebuttals I will almost always pick the easiest simplest route to ballot possible. You can do this through Impact Calc, Framing debates, link directionality claims, etc. I don’t particularly care what the debate ends up being about, topical or in total rejection of the resolution I’ll be fine either way."- Nadya Steck (Her entire paradigm could just be mine)

"Impact framing is essential for all arguments, regardless of content/form. I almost always vote for the team who better frames "what is important" and explains how it interacts with other arguments. The magic words are "even if..." and "they say ... but". Winning 2NRs and 2ARs use these phrases to 'frame' the big picture of the debate."- Eric Lanning

"I think that I probably will hold the line on cheap shot arguments more often than not, typically one line arguments on a theory shell/solvency flow will not get my ballot. Generally the team that does the better link/impact analysis/comparison will win my ballot."- David Bowers

Experience: Head coach for 8 years at Wichita Northwest. Assistant coach for 3 years at Topeka High. Debated 4 years in high school. I have judged at nationals in debate/speech events 15+ years.

Speed: Okay with moderate to quick pace. Spreading okay on evidence BUT, I prefer slower and more deliberate pace with analysis.

Paradigm: I default to policymaker. Please tell me how YOU would like me to weigh the round.

Positions: I evaluate Topicality roughly on par with other issues in the round. I am fine with generic DA's as long as the links are explained clearly. CP’s and K’s are acceptable as long as text/links are well explained and maintain competition in the round. I evaluate the round pretty evenly between argumentation and communication skills. You have to have both the winning arguments and the ability to communicate them clearly and persuasively.

Novice Rounds: If this is a novice round, I expect to hear case debate and explanations. Please do more than read evidence. Explain what you are reading, what it relates to in the round, and how it advances your position. You should avoid arguing a disadvantage/counterplan/K if you have never read it before or haven't at least talked to your coach about what it means. Overall, I want to see clash and a debate about substantive issues rather than about how the other side debated. Focus on the arguments not on the opponents themselves.

I competed in HS during the 90's.

I coached at Shawnee Heights HS in KS for 11 years

I seldom think speed is a good idea

I am largely policy maker, at least in background

I do not mind debating debate, real world implication, politics, social issues or narratives

I want clash over just about anything else

I prefer argumentation over cards

it is possible I have become a grumpy old man

I will try to answer any questions and offer any support I can to help debate, debaters, and the round I am watching

I cannot stand teams that abuse their competition

I hate most everything about the K. I understand them, and know they are a thing and you may have them as a central part of you strat., so run them if you must. Just know that there is no such thing as tabula rasa, and my extreme bias will likely influence how I view things down the flow, even as I actively try to prevent it.

oddly I DO like a discussion of out of round impacts, role of the ballot, and real world impact of the activity/arguments

have never looked at cards-never will

In my final "get off my lawn" rant, I hate the time wasted between speeches dealing with or waiting on tech. I seriously don't care if it hasn't loaded before the speech begins. See---grumpy

As long as I am a judge, the rounds I judge will be a safe space. If there is any exclusionary language, evidence, or actions I will not hesitate to stop the round, vote you down, and talk to your coach. Hate has no space in debate.

Experience:

I am a student as Wichita State University, and I am a Political Science major; I love good discussions about Politics so doing so = good speaks.

I did policy debate all 4 years of high school, and I have competed at NCFL and NSDA (in pfd, so clown on me)

General Information:

-Roadmaps are off time

-Spreading is fine but make it clear when tags are being read and analysis/analytics need to be done while not spreading (I might not catch it = not weighing/flowing it)

-Please for the love of God, signpost or else I won't flow it or weigh it in the round

-You need to extend warrants as well as the credentials

---> Example: "Extend Roberts 19 which says that pineapple does not belong on pizza"

-I prefer Speechdrop.net to send evidence, but if that does not work, use this email for email chains:

---> ayleenescobedonats@gmail.com

-If a team asks for evidence, don't refuse to send it. If you case is that good you don't need to withhold it from the other team

-I will not keep track of your prep, but please announce when you cease prep and announce how much time you have left

-Sending evidence is off time unless it's obvious you're stealing prep then I will take time off your prep

-I would prefer if teams refer to each other as "the negative team", "the affirmative team", 1AC, etc. It prevents misgendering from happening

---> With this being said, I would prefer if teams don't ask for pronouns because I do not want someone to feel as if they have to come out in order to be included in this space.

-Read trigger warnings for triggering content. A failure to do so will make you on my bad side, and I will probably vote you down.

---> This can be done off time

---> If the other team is not okay with triggering content, I expect you to be able to accommodate

TELL ME HOW TO VOTE. DO THE WORK. THIS ALSO MEANS YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN ARGUMENTS

Framework:

-Framework is really important. I hope to see framework outlined in the 1AC, but if there is none, I hope the 1NC will read some

-I will vote on Framework debates

Topicality:

-Don't read T unless the other team is clearly untopical

-If it comes down to competing definitions, I will probably just consider the T debate a wash and not vote on it

Counterplans:

-Counterplans need to be mutually exclusive and have net bens

-I don't like delay CPs or CPs that are pretty much the same thing as the aff [this includes different actor CPs]

DAs:

-Please extend the WHOLE DA and not just link cards or impact cards

-I usually don't like Politics DAs or Economy DAs, but if that's all you have (because resolutions can be dumb sometimes) feel free to read them

Kritiks:

-Dawg, I love Ks, so don't shy away from them but explain them THOROUGHLY

-Make sure the alt actually has solvency

---> Reject the aff is not an alt

-If you cannot explain the theory in your K or how your alt solves better than the aff, don't read it

-I don't appreciate when white individuals read anti-blackness or settler colonialism for obvious reasons

Theory:

-I won't vote on Condo bad theory unless you can show me clear abuse

-Any SPEC argument I generally won't vote on

-Trigger warning theory is valid

-I will not vote for "Generic DAs are bad" theory (generally)

-Don't even bother reading abuse theory if the neg split the block/do basic neg things, but call them out if they read new offense in the 2NC

On Case:

-Don't read "No inherency" or "No harms/significance" unless there is a clear violation

-ANSWER THE FRAMEWORK IF THERE IS FW:EITHER READ NEW FW OR DE FACTO TO THE AFF FW

-Solvency arguments have a special place in my heart

-Actually answer the 1AC, please <3

Impacts:

-I prefer structural impacts instead of existential ones, but I understand if you read them

---> If teams get into a debate over structural FW vs. existential FW I will 100% weigh the structural FW over existential

-Do impact calc please

If you have any questions, feel free to ask! :))

Francisco Guardado [He/Him]

Email: fguardado163@gmail.com

Experience: I debated for four years at Salina South High School, mostly KDC, but I did dabble in DCI.

TL;DR: Do whatever you want, just do it well and don’t be racist/homophobic/sexist. I’ll do my best to adapt to your style. Be clean on the flow and explain things that need explaining, I.E. don’t assume I’m a cybernetics fanatic. Cool with speed if your opponents are.

Topicality/Theory

Personally, I believe that topicality is an a priori and will judge it first before examining the case. I judge topicality on whether you can prove in-round abuse. Same with other theory arguments.

Disadvantages

Yes please, I love disads. This goes for all arguments, but please do impact calc - if you don’t it’s going to make my decision frustrating.

Counterplans

Not a fan of counterplans, but you can run them if they have a net benefit. I believe counterplans are conditional, but don’t abuse that.

Kritiks

Not well versed on many K’s. I am familiar with cap, queer, set col, and feminism. Anything else, please take some time to explain. Must have a framework to tell me how to weigh the K vs. Case.

Framework / Kritik Affirmatives

If I’m your judge in a clash debate, both teams are going to be unhappy. I’ll try my best to evaluate both arguments as fairly as possible. I tend to be 50/50.

I am a Kansas HS assistant debate coach. I am a science teacher that values logic and scientific fact. My background is not in debate however, I have been coaching for 4 years. I have judged for high school debates for 36 years. I believe that most anything is debatable however some styles of argument work better for me than others. I am more of a CP/DA Case debate kind of judge. Speed of my flow is far lower than what I would call fast. Clear tags/authors and quicker on text is fine. Also please tell where things go and how they apply. I enjoy most debates but not a fan of T debates. If the aff is not topical run it. If the aff is center of the topic then do not run T. IF they are off topic, I am easily swayed on T. Theory debates are kinda like T for me. Rather not see it unless there is a legitimate violation. I do not penalize teams for style choices. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I need to be able to understand the words. If you speak for your partner during their speech or tell them what to say during their speech, you will lose. If you get up and take your laptop to your partner during their constructive or rebuttal speech and have them read what you wrote for them to say, you will lose.

Experience: I am a 4th year (senior) debater at Salina South High School. The main tournament format I have debated in is DCI/Varsity.

From my experience with debate so far this is how I judge (Preface: I am still constantly learning new things about debate, so how I judge has the possibility of changing at any time):

Criminal Justice Reform specifics- I will never vote on a no racial bias argument. Even if the other team drops it, I do not consider it in the debate. If you don't spend significant time explaining what the world of the alternative looks like on abolition, I won't vote on the alt (I'll consider other aspects of the K). Affirmatives on this topic are sometimes touchy so please be respectful and read arguments that are well thought out.

Case: I am comfortable with policy affs, as those are what I have had the most experience with. I believe that an aff must have advantages that have clear Internal Link scenarios and Framing (mainly telling me what to prioritize in the round- Extinction, dehumanization, etc).

Disadvantages- I will listen to every generic disadvantage you throw at me, but there needs to be a clear explanation of the Internal Link scenario, plus a specific link. I am willing to vote on a disad that does not have a specific link as long as it is explained well.

CP- Condo is good unless you give me a reason to believe otherwise (Another preface: If you are going for Conditionality it will be very hard for me to vote on it, unless you spend enough time explaining it in the 2AR). I never think that specific counterplans (Agent, Conditions, etc) are reasons to vote down the team, only to reject the argument. In summation, I'll listen to every CP you read.

Kritiks- I am not familiar with most Kritikal literature, but I am able to pick up on most pretty quick, as long as there are full explanations of Links and the Alt. My main knowledge is abolition, biopower, anti-blackness, security, and capitalism. Any other K will require you to give me some explanation.

Topicality- I enjoy topicality a lot. If you go for this argument it has to be all of the 2NR. T is not a reverse voting issue (however there is a chance I can be convinced otherwise). I default to competing interpretations. Neg- Flesh out the Standards in the block to help me evaluate it. I buy reasonability if fleshed out by the aff.

Email: tianamarion7@gmail.com

Debate Experience:

Three years of Varsity HS Policy in Kansas

Currently in my third year of college PF

Important Stuff:

I actually genuinely really care about debate as an educational activity. I believe part of this is being a good person, if you're rude or bigoted in any way you will lose my ballot. Everyone in this room deserves to feel safe and you won't be rewarded for impeding that. This will always be my biggest voter.

With a policy background, I default to being a policy judge unless you tell me I should be voting on something else. I'll listen to what y'all decide the framework of the round should be. I can follow most arguments, but if you want to know something specific please don't hesitate to ask! I'm more than willing to elaborate on any part of my paradigm for you before the round begins :)

Policy maker/Hypothesis tester Judge, did debate in high school, 1 year of college debate, 5th year of judging. I value clarity and well thought out responses about the impacts of arguments, this includes how likely the impact is to occur. I've actually done academic research on this topic, do not intentionally misrepresent your sources.

T is not an issue unless you make it one, don't feel like you need to run a topicality argument just to run one. Counterplans are generally fine, conditional counterplans are abusive, don't run a K unless it is a really, really good K.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask.

I am stock issues judge, but vote using standards and voters provided by the teams in the round. If neither stock issues or a voting paradigm are established by the competing teams I will utilize a policy maker paradigm.

Structure and labelling is very important to me in my evaluation of arguments. Topicality and disadvantages should be structured and labelled for me to give weight to them. I expect at minimum a definition, standards, and voters for topicality; and a link, brink, and an impact for a disadvantage argument.

Please emphasize the tagline, source, and date of your evidence so that the point you are making is clear.

I do not mind counterplans or Kritiks , but they must be ran properly and not treated as throw-away arguments or I will vote against you.

I am a third year, open division debater. In general, all types of arguments are okay; however, if you run something, I want explanations. If you can show me that you know the material, I will be more likely to vote for you. In addition, clear speaking is an absolute must; spreading is fine, I just need to be able to make out taglines, authors, and get a general idea of the argument. Lastly, before every speech, I want a roadmap so I can accurately flow.

I'm pretty chill on judging but, I really enjoy when there are roadmaps given before so I can flow easier.

Make sure you don't say "Uh" or "Um" it makes it unprofessional.

Make sure to explain or summarize everything after you're reading so I can take catch what you're trying to justify.

More of a policy maker if you give me good reasons to vote and answer all the advantages.

As a former forensics competitor and coach, I pay a good deal of attention to delivery (you need to speak at a rate such that I can understand you!). Just rattling off info without emphasis or proper inflection damages your credibility for me. Logical arguments are important. Finally, professional and courteous conduct is always appreciated!

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.

Hello, I am Ava, and I am very excited to be judging your round!

I debated for 4 years at Salina South high school (KS) doing mostly traditional policy. I also am an assistant coach at Manhattan High School (KS).

I use she/her pronouns, but you can just call me Ava or judge, whichever you prefer.

Would love to be on the email chain: ava.m.williamson05@gmail.com

Awards:

4 year state qualifier in debate

Top 10 @state debate in 2023, 2022 and 2021

Won KDC in 2022

2 year state qualifier in forensics

National qualifier in info and extemp

The Short Version:

I am here for whatever you want to do. I love debate because of the freedom you have with your arguments, and I do not wish to stifle that in any way. So long as you are clean on the flow and explaining things clearly to me, I do not care what you do so long as it is appropriate. If you break that by being racist, sexist, homophobic, overly aggressive, or making the space unsafe, you will not be happy. I like debaters that have fun, laugh, and smile during a debate. I am also fine with speed only if your opponents are, I'm probably a 7/10 for speed on a bad day, 8.5/10 on a good day. I do prefer tags and author to be read at normal speed and the rest you can spread. For the rest of the paradigm, like all judges, I have some biases with arguments and deficiencies in some areas, this paradigm will hopefully be able to answer a majority of your questions, but if I am unclear or you want more clarification on something, please ask me!

T/Theory-

You're going to want to slow down here, especially if you are going down the line by line.

I like to see T as if I am voting for the best model of debate. This means that you need to clearly explain what your interp looks like for debate, and why that is preferable. I really like impact work on T, sure exploding limits is bad for debate, but why? Doing that work for me puts you way ahead.

I've debated at small schools all my career, so I love those impacts especially and I am a huge fan of brightlines. Other than those, I don't have a massive preference on your standards/voters so long as you explain them.

I don't know what the popular T arguments are or what T debates look like on this topic, so if it's a really weird interp or something like that, probably explain it a bit more than you would for me.

I vote neg on T when they establish that the affirmative does not fit their model of debate, and allowing affirmatives like that leads to a much worse debate outcome than not allowing it. I vote aff on T when they establish a better model of debate that includes at least their affirmative, if they meet the negative interpretation, or if the negatives model harms debate more.

T-FW-

I don't have much experience with this debate personally, but I can still evaluate it well, I just don't read it personally.

Much like regular T, don't have many preferences here, just do the impact work and show why your model is the best.

For the aff, I like counter-interps and impact turns. For the neg I like TVAs and SSD. This doesn't mean these are the only arguments I like or the only things you should be going for in the 2NR/AR, just that I like these arguments.

I'll evaluate just about any impact as long as it is clearly articulated and warranted as to why the other sides interp causes it.

C/A the voting explanation from regular T

DAs-

I love when teams use the DA strategically across multiple sheets. Link turns solvency, internal link turns solvency, timeframe impact calc, use the DA to act as multiple arguments.

Do impact calc, the earlier the better

I vote neg on the DA if they explain to me how the DA creates a worse world than the status quo or if they avoid the DA through a different action. I vote aff on the DA if they show that it should have happened, it has happened, they don't link, they turn the DA, solve the DA themselves, or just outweigh.

Counter Plans-

Counter plans can have a little logical reasoning, as a treat. I like seeing specific solvency, but don't need it, though I would like an explanation on how your mechanism specifically solves for the aff.

I need offense with a counter plan, solving better isn't reason enough for me to vote for it.

Explain your perms and your answers to the perms and we will all be happier.

I enjoy counterplan theory and think it needs to be utilized more. PICs and international fiat bad are some of my favs.

I also enjoy condo debates! I usually flow condo on the CP sheet, if you do not want me to do this make sure you tell me. I can be convinced that a team should not have any conditional advocacies, but that's pretty difficult. I don't really lean any side on condo, but if you read more than 5 conditional advocacies, the more I sympathize with the aff. I like arguments about why the certain number in the interpretation is necessary and time skew arguments.

I vote neg on the counterplan when the neg effectively shows me that the counterplan is mutually exclusive and they can solve for most of the affirmatives impacts and one of their own that the aff cannot solve. I vote aff on the counter plan when they show me the aff and CP can exist together, it has major solvency deficits, a DA of its own, or if you win the theory debate.

Ks-

I personally didn't run many K's but I am well informed over most lit. The lit bases I know strongly are queer/trans theory, capitalism, biopolitics, academy/university, and militarism/security. Lit bases I know but maybe not as much as you are Baudrillard, Set Col, and anti-blackness. Not a huge Fem IR or psychoanalysis fan, I'll still vote on it, but I find arguments about how those fields of thought are transphobic or problematic in other ways very persuasive.

I'd like to think if I am not super familiar with a lit base I can catch on quick in a debate, but if your K is like super complex and hard to understand, you may want to put it up. Feel free to ask how I feel about your K lit base and how much I know.

I like when the K is used as a way to make the 1AC irrelevant, whether it be through FW, impacts, or serial policy failure, making it so your alternative is the only option in the debate is what you should be trying to do.

I think the aff needs to do more than throw their blocks of state good, policy making good, and extinction outweighs. Doesn't mean you can't read those arguments, I just like when teams make smart analysis on how you don't link or in line with the alternative.

Explaining what your alt does, looks like, and how that solves for the impacts throughout the debate will put you very far ahead.

I vote neg on the K when they win it's mutually exclusive their framework and a link (a note for this, just because you are the only side that presents a framework and they don't read a we meet doesn't mean an auto win. If they can win an impact turn on the K that makes it not fit the framework then I won't vote for it.), or when they show how the aff makes a bad thing much worse and they win a way to avoid that. I vote aff on the K when they win their model of debate, they show they don't link or link turn, they win an impact turn (that is not morally egregious), the alt is bad, or a permutation that makes sense and is explained well.

K Affs-

I'd prefer it if the aff defends something, it makes your life much easier, but if you are not going to then you better be ready to defend that.

It is probably a good thing if your aff is connected to the topic, and especially your mechanism, but if you want to not even mention the topic then go for it.

I'm a big fan of presumption arguments, being able to take out solvency and turn the case is very good.

I really enjoy seeing the cap K against K Affs as I think most often it is the most important discussion, but also variety is cool. I think academy Ks are neat, or any other K you feel, just be confident with it. You should probably be saying "no perms in a methods debate" also.

I vote neg when they win an alternative model of debate is better and potentially includes the affirmative, the affirmative advocacy does not actually solve for their impacts, the aff advocacy creates more impacts than solvency, or if the neg wins a counter advocacy. I vote aff when they win their model of debate is preferable, the advocacy is able to create some solvency and not create impacts, or they win that they can exist with a counter advocacy or that advocacy is not preferable.

General Notes-

I will be flowing, and it is where most of my decisions will be based. So, line by line will be greatly appreciated!! It makes it easier for not only me but everyone in the debate understands what you are responding to.

I strongly believe in extensions. So, extend you affs, off cases, and any card you want to carry though the round. The extensions don't have to be elaborate just a quick author and date will do for me (you can even group them together). If the card is not brought up in your teams next speech, I will assume it has been dropped. You read the cards for reason, please use them throughout the debate and not just during one speech.

In the 2NR/2AR everything should be getting wrapped up and telling me why I should vote for you. Any loose ends I see as an incomplete job on either side. And may affect my decision. Note: if I have to do the work for you in the end of any debate is not good.

If you have any further questions feel free to ask! :)

Hello! My name is Eric and I will be your judge today. I'm excited that in spite of the insanity that is 2020, we've found a way to compete today. I have high school debate experience, including attending Policy Nationals in 1996 where my partner and I placed 5th. I have been judging debate for the past 3 years. I fall under the "games player" paradigm and thoroughly enjoy the battle between both teams. I do not like spreading (speed reading) nor do I like rudeness between teams. Other than that, I look forward to well presented cases and wish you the best of luck!!