maize '21, ku '25 (not debating)

assistant coach at de soto

jeanninealopez@gmail.com

i competed in policy for 4 years and almost solely ran policy arguments

i don't have many predispositions about particular arguments -- my preference for policy arguments over k's is not out of distaste but out of ignorance so if you want to run them, i will listen, but don't assume i'll know what you're talking about -- i primarily ran counterplan/disad strategies, so i know those best, but run what you know best

speed is fine only if you are clear

your speech is over once your timer goes off -- you can take a few words to finish a sentence, but anything else that you say isn't going to be on my flow

please ask questions if you have any

Former high school debater and forensicator, however not currently competing as a college student.

I'm still relatively new to LD, but as a debater I typically ran K's, so I have a competent understanding of value based/philosophical debate.

No speed preferences, go at the pace you deem appropriate

In my view, if you win that your contentions access the better framework you'll most likely win

Incorporating empirics in your criterion typically will sway my vote towards your side as a last resort, assuming both sides had an otherwise even debate

Not the biggest fan of broad values, make sure that value is clearly defined, measured, and backed in your criterion if you run it and want my vote

Don't be a bigot or you'll lose

I have been coaching debate since 2008, and debated 4 years in high school. I did not debate in college.

General things that grind my gears:

Don't be a jerk. Assertive is fine, but there is no need to mock or belittle anyone, or make things personal.

I cannot stand any kind of game playing around sharing evidence. I don't care if you disclose or not before the debate, but once you've read it, I can't think of a reason (that is flattering to you) why your opponent should not have access to it for the entire debate round. I will vote a team down for this practice if their opponent makes an argument about why it is a bad with an interp, violation, standards, and voters.

"New in the Two": to my mind, this argument makes the most sense when it is with regards to new OFF CASE. But, in any event, it's not a "rule", so run it as an arg with an interp, violation, standards, and voters, and debate it out, don't just cry foul.

POLICY DEBATE

Framework: I default to policy, but I am happy to adopt a different framework, as long as I am told how and why I should do that. I like framework debates.

I am evaluating the round based on impacts. You need offense to win. I will vote aff on the risk of solvency if there are no impacts on the negative. In a round where neither team has any impacts, I'm voting negative.

Flowing vs. Reading Evidence: Put me on the speech drop, but I keep a flow, and that's what I want to evaluate the round off of. I want you to read your evidence to me and tell me what it says and why it matters. Pull warrants rather than tell me to read the card for myself.

Speed - I don't prefer a very rapid rate of delivery, but in the context of an open, policy centered debate, I can keep up with a *fairly* rapid rate. If you are not familiar with your K literature well enough to teach it to someone within the time constraints of the round, don't run that arg. When it comes to something like your politics disad, or your topicality standards, speed away.

Theory - I love theory debates. Topicality and other theory debates are fun when they are centered on the standards part of the flow.

Any other questions, ask away.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

I believe that LD is a value debate, and I consider the value and value criterion to be paramount. I want you to tell me that you win the debate because the contentions prove that your side of the rez leads to your value, as measured by your criterion. In fact, if you wanted to give that analysis on the bottom of every contention flow, that would be pretty great.

I will evaluate the round based on the arguments made in the round, so if your idea of what LD is differs greatly from mine, you can still win the debate as long as you do a better job of justifying your framework. This doesn't seem like the easiest path to my ballot, but I don't aim to intervene.

Any other questions, ask away.

WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATE

Background: I have judged and coached this event over the last 6 years, however I only participate in 1 WSD tournament every year, at NSDA. I love this event, and I do not want you to make it a different event!  That said...

I do my best to adapt to the norms of the event, and I hope you do as well. WSD is scored holistically, so while my flow is important to the "Content" portion of the holistic rubric, it is not the be-all, end-all of the round. 

Consistency Down the Bench - The factors below are all to each speech, but also it is important that the side should have a consistent approach, telling the same "story" across the debate - this includes things like identifying key clash points, and may also include things like team lines and intros/conclusions, both within and across speeches. I love a good rhetorical device spread out across each speech. I should see consistency in terms of prioritization of key arguments.

Style (40%) - Speeches should be presented in a clear and engaging manner. Consultation of notes/prepared speeches are fine in my book, but care should be taken to look up and engage with the judge. Speech should have a natural flow. Rate of speaking may be somewhat faster (though this is certainly not an expectation) but should be clear. It should NOT sound like a fast policy round. Spreading is not the strategy for this event. Speeches should begin with an attention grabber and a roadmap. More on that under content.

Content (40%) - I do keep a flow, and I expect clear signposting of arguments, and an intro that gives me what I would call a "roadmap", but, see above. I am fine with debaters grouping arguments and not necessarily having a highly detailed line by line, but I do appreciate debaters who start at the top of the flow and work their way down. When you jump around, it makes it harder for me to see connections between arguments, and that is important to determining key points of clash. The organization of your speech should be clear and consistent. In third speeches, I generally expect there to be some line by line, but I also think this is where teams can begin to identify clash points/key questions. Reply speeches should narrow the debate down to key arguments - I really expect you to get away from a line by line here and crystallize the debate.

Strategy (20%) - Third substantive points should come out in the second speech, at the bottom of the order. They should be strategic, taking the debate into a somewhat different direction - the best third substantives throw a curve ball at it the other team. The handling of POIs is very important to the strategy score - when taking POIs, you are the boss of your speech! The default should be to ignore the POI until you get to the end of a sentence and refuse the POI. You should say no thank you more often than you say you'll take a POI (generally, you take 2). When offering POIs, be careful not to barrack (asking a POI EVERY 20 seconds), but I am all for offering at a time that is going to throw your opponent off. I like it when teams offer a lot of POIs, and they don't need to be questions.

I am a single diamond coach who has been coaching both officially and unofficially for the last 9 years. I was competitive in speach and debate in high school and attended 4 CFL National Tournaments and 1 NSDA National Tournament. I placed third in Expository at the 1996 NSDA National tournament, and I was a semifinalist in prose that same year. I am currently the assistant coach for Fort Scott High School in Fort Scott Kansas. Home of the Kansas 4A division state debate co-champion teams this year. I have been judging LD and other debate events for the last 15 years, and have judged about 10 rounds of LD this year.

In high school I was competitive in Original Oration and Lincoln Douglas Debate as well as Policy Debate and interp events. I have a Bachelors Degree in Social Work and a Master's Degree in Addiction Counseling. I am currently employed, outside of coaching, as a clinical addictions counselor for a county mental health center.

My paradigm for judging is as follows:

Speed: I find rapid delivery acceptable provided that enunciation, diction and pronunciation is clear and able to understand. Rule of thumb, if I am not flowing, it is a good indication that you should slow down. Rate of delivery does not weigh heavily on my decision unless I could not understand you throughout the round. I will vote against you if you do not respect my speed preferences.

Criterion: It may be a factor depending on it's use in the round. I do feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case

Voting issues should be ongoing throughout the round

Conduct in Round: I expect courtesy between competitors and mutual respect for each other's ideas and arguments, I have zero tolerance for rudeness or blatant refusal to share evidence or make relevant information available to both your competitor and myself as a judge.

I consider myself a Tabula Rasa judge and am willing to vote for anything that is supported, relevant, and applicable to the round at hand. I do not like generic arguments that do not seem to apply to anything specific.

I do not appreciate acronyms that are not defined in a round, keep in mind that coaching is my side job at this time and I may not be up to date on the latest acronyms that are being used for a certain topic. Regular debate jargon is acceptable however.

Final rebuttals should be giving me a line by line analysis as well as voting issues, and voting issues are absolutely necessary

My basis for decision is weighted between speaking ability, argumentation and validity of arguments

I do not need you to shake my hand before the round and especially not after the round, I also do not need you to call roll before each speech, meaning asking every single person in the room if they are "ready" the only person that needs to be ready is me, so if I am ready, go ahead and start.

I may ask to see things that were read in the round at the conclusion of the competition so please do not "pack up" during the final speech, so that my viewing of articles can be expedited.

If you have any further questions about my judging style, please ask before the beginning of the round for clarification.

If I am judging you, then I want your docs. Please set up an email chain and include me (bentonbajorek@gmail.com) or use speechdrop. AFF should have their 1AC ready to send at the start of the round. I will not keep up with time and I expect debaters to keep each other accountable for speech and prep time. I keep my flows, so any questions can be emailed to me.

COVID Online Debate

Issues with clarity and diction compound when listening to debates with headphones. I'm fine with spreading, but please slow down if you are saying something that isn't in your speech doc-- particularly theory and analytics. If they are in the doc you send me, I'll be good to go. Otherwise, I might miss them. I'm more than happy to vote for things like condo in the 2AR, but I likely won't feel comfortable doing it if I couldn't flow all the nuance because were spreading in the 2AC and didn't include your condo block in the speech doc.

Parli Update

I've grown accustomed to the convenience of speech docs, so please make sure you are slowing down for theory and analytics. You should be intentionally slow for any plantext, counterplan text, or K alt.

Weighing mechanisms/roll of the ballot/framework args are extremely important to me. I want to be told how I should evaluate the round, but I'm not inclined to default to whatever the GOV tells me. OPP can successfully challenge this like any theory argument.

Ask me about my preferences before the round starts if you don't find an answer to your question below.

Background

This is my eighth season judging college policy. I was the head coach at Bishop Seabury Academy from 2019-2021 and a coach at The University of Kansas from 2015-2021. As an undergrad, I competed for four years at Arkansas State University primarily in American Parli on the National Circuit. I also debated in Lincoln-Douglas, IPDA, and Team IPDA.

I'm familiar with the debate things, but I'm not paying as much attention to the content from year-to-year now that I'm no longer a coach. Particularly for early in the season, don't assume I know the specific warrants in your DAs and CPs as they pertain to this topic. 

Overview

I view debate as a medium of persuasion and judge accordingly. All too often, I feel debaters focus more on beating their opponent instead of trying to convince the judge on an advocacy position. I believe this model is narrow-minded and the most effective way to win my ballot is to use a combination of ethos, pathos, and logos.

I greatly appreciate if tag lines, plan and CP texts, K alts, theory blocks, and perms could be slowed down so I can get a chance to write them on my flow. If a debater becomes inarticulate, I will yell CLEAR and cross my arms if the speech continues in that manner. If I cannot hear you, then I cannot understand your arguments. If I cannot understand your arguments, then I cannot vote for you.

I will vote on any argument. I consider myself a tab judge and vote based on what arguments are made, not what arguments are stated. Just because you extend an author does not mean you have extended an argument. I have certain preferences and thresholds for arguments that I will do my best to articulate below, but clearly articulated warrants and analysis will make me vote against my predispositions.

2NRs/2ARs that have clear voters and impact calculus are preferred.

If you want to make a role of the ballot argument, I need you to articulate what that means and specifically state how I should view particular arguments under that lens. If you just assert that my job is to vote under a specific framework but fail to clearly articulate what that means, then I will default to my personal standpoint of voting for the team that did the better job debating.

I do not tolerate poor sportsmanship. Every debater puts too much time, effort, and energy to arrive at a round and be belittled by their opponent(s). I love a competitive round where teams don’t back down and are assertive, but keep a level of decorum and respect. Ad hominem attacks and condescending behavior will not be tolerated and I will significantly lower your speaker points.

Bonus**

References to the Clippers = 0.2 speaker points

References to the NBA in general = 0.1 speaker point

Theory

I view debate as a game with rules that can change from round to round. The rules for debate should foster fairness and/or educational gain. I do not particularly favor one over the other.

Teams should slow down and clearly articulate standards for why I should favor their arguments on framework/T/role of the ballot/condo/etc. I really dislike teams that read directly from their blocks and fail to clash with their opponents’ standards and it makes my job difficult if there is not a direct response to specific arguments. In other words, teams that directly respond to their opponents’ arguments on ground loss will fare better than teams that just assert an argument on ground and make me do the work for them.

I am rarely persuaded by potential abuse arguments. I am strongly persuaded by in-round abuse arguments.

Topicality

Topicality must have an interpretation, violation, standard, and voters. I really enjoy listening to T and I appreciate a good standard debate with specific and competitive reasons why your interpretation is better/superior to your opponent.

Voters are often overlooked but are the most important part of a topicality. NEG needs to stress why I should vote on this issue. Refer back to my theory section for this one. I have never voted on a topicality that did not have some sort of education, fairness, and/or jurisdiction voter.

Reverse voting issues are not persuasive. I view topicality as a test of the affirmative case and NEG has the right to make this argument. Do not waste your time trying to convince me otherwise. However, I will say that trying to bury the AFF by running 10+ topicality arguments that are not relevant to the round will make me think poorly of you and I will happily vote for a time-suck argument.

Disadvantages

Disadvantages need to have a clear uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact scenario. DA’s are arguments that I feel everyone knows how to run, but there are some specific things that I prefer to see.

I want advantage and disadvantage debates to come down to impact calculus. Measure out magnitude, timeframe, probability, etc. If your impact is more meaningful, then tell me why and compare it to other impacts in the round. Pull these arguments out in the 2AR/2NR.

I do not have an opinion on intrinsic perms, but I believe these arguments can be extremely abusive and AFFs choosing to run this will need to lay out some sort of explanation for me to consider it.

Counter Plans

A counterplan must be mutually exclusive with the AFF. If you want to run a plan-plus, consult, push back 3 months CP, etc., then you will need to convince me why your modification of the AFF’s plan is severance, mutually exclusive, and/or has a competitive net benefit.

Kritiks

I ran K’s frequently when I competed and I am very familiar with them. However, when you run a K, do not assume that I know the literature. Do not stick to your cards and be prepared to break down what you are trying to argue with your position. I will not vote for a K if I have no idea what your alt does.

As for specifics, I believe K’s need to win framework or alt solvency for me to vote on them. This goes back to needing to know what the alt does. Understanding how your method is key or has the potential to work in the real world is important for me to vote on it.

I am rarely persuaded by links of omission. AFFs that read 1 card or make a smart analytical argument here are very likely to refute the link.

I prefer specific over generic links. Really prove the AFF team violated the ideas you are critiquing.

Performance in Debate/K AFF’s

I believe that AFFs that do not have a plan are untopical and should lose. I also believe that AFFs that run a plan text, but only garner impacts from their performance are extratopical and should lose.

That being said, I have voted for many K AFFs because they won on Framework and/or T. I do not have to be an auto-strike for you, but a framework block on how I should evaluate your position is necessary for you to win. If you fail to demonstrate and justify a framework for why the round should be seen through your performance then it is difficult for me to understand what my ballot should be doing. This allows me to hold you to a standard and have the other team either challenge you on that idea, or compete against you on it. Don’t be a moving target and state this clearly in your 1AC.

I think K AFFs that talk about the educational benefits of their position or justify the need of their AFF within the debate space to counter hegemonic practices are strong arguments that have potential to convince me to vote for you.

Final note: Any team that uses music in their performance can use it, but it needs to be turned down substantially during speeches and CX. I have trouble focusing with loud music/distractions and this is intended to create access for myself in the debate space and not to silence your performance.

I debated all four years in high school.

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

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

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

I've coached for three years.
I like well thought-out closing arguments.
Speak clearly and not too quickly, so I can understand you.

I'm looking out for good and well-mannered speakers.
I don't have a preference on arguments you use as long as you make sure to explain and interpret them well.

POLICY DEBATE PARADIGM

Name: Jamelle Brown

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

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

List types of arguments that you prefer to listen to.

1. I appreciate real world impacts.

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

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

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

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

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

2. Generic disadvantages without clear links to the AFF.

List stylistics items you like to watch other people do.

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

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

3. Let me see your personalities in CX.

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

5. I am excited about performance teams!

List stylistics items you do not like to watch.

1. I dislike unrecognizable speed.

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

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

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

I am a third-year debater at Olathe South and I attended the state tournament in early 2020. I generally lean policy-maker, but I will frame the round differently if presented valid arguments as to why that framework is effective. In terms of speed, I'm fine with any level assuming that you are clear. I can disregard most infractions relating to politeness, but I will count against you should you disparage the character of your opponent. Any argument types are fine; though, as with speaking pace, I expect that you have an adequate understanding of it, so, for example, don't run a K if you don't know what it means. I want to see clash in the round—you should be comparing impacts and directly refuting each other's arguments. Don't debate past one another. Additionally, I want to see organization: give roadmaps, apply to the flow directly, and move in a consistent order (don't jump back-and-forth between pages).

Flow judge: Prefer stock issues, but only use Topicality if the Aff is truly untopical.  Generic disads had better have really great specific links.

Hi, I’m Max DaMetz. I’m a three year debater. Usually when it comes to debates, I’ll watch everything and I’m open to hearing you out on your case as long as it isn’t completely stretched outside the realm of possibilities. I enjoy watching solid arguments as long as the team doesn’t leave the argument after the 1AC/1NC. I look forward to the debate. Good luck.

I debated at Blue Valley High School all four years and now I'm an assistant coach.

I'm open to any kind of argument. Debate how you want to debate, and if you want me to evaluate the round in a certain way make sure to tell me why.

Kritiks: If you run a K that's not generic don't expect me to know everything and make sure to spend time explaining the link and alt.

Topicality: Your standards and voters should justify spending time here.

Speed: Speed is fine. I can flow fast. I'll clear if I can't understand you.

Email: julia.denny@ku.edu

My Philosophy on Judging High School Debate

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” (1:149)

I have been judging high school debate since 1974 because of my strong belief that debate, when properly done, is one of the best ways to expel the ignorance that Thomas Jefferson warns is an anathema to freedom. High school debate is one of the best ways of achieving the goals of public education as outlined by Mortimer J. Adler in the Paideia Program (2:282). It must be judged by a criteria that upholds those principles, which is why I judge rounds on the paradigm of Civic Discourse, as explained in part by Dr. Wende Vyborney. (3)

The Civic Discourse model of judging helps to bring high school debate back to a real world scenario, rather than the disconnect that has taken place since college debate camps have become prevalent training ground for high school debaters. It builds upon the very principles that ought to be the foundation of all public high school education, especially that of preparing all young people to be able to function well as full citizens in a democratic society. Those who have been trained in this manner will be able to debate well the issues that they will face at home, at work, and in the political and social arenas. The Civic Discourse paradigm returns debate back to a persuasive, civil, rational, and logical manner of speaking and arguing issues, rather than the extreme style that has developed and serves no real purpose other than preparation for the equally obscure college level debate.

What does this mean in terms of the style of debate, and the questions that are asked of judges who will judge the NFL tournament?

First, in delivery, it means low speed, consistent with public addresses, not the vomiting of words that has become predominant in many rounds today. The students must always remember that they are in communication with their audience, even if it is a single judge. The audience seldom knows the case as well as the debaters, and so it must be clearly presented (4:15). The arguments and information need to be understood and comprehended by the audience. Speed does not achieve this. Rather, it obfuscates the information, as emphasis on the important words is lost in the rush to present, diminishing any clear expression of the ideas that may be present. I often quote from I, Claudius, AAs for speaking, again, it is true, I have an impediment. But isn=t what a man says more important than how long he takes to say it?@

Second, the argumentation and ideas are more important than the evidence. Today, many students rely on presenting long quotes to support their position, and then leaving the rest to the audience to decide. The argument being made is what matters, as it shows the ability to think and reach conclusions. The evidence is used to support the conclusion. It is not meant to be the argument. This is why the use of the word “card” is inappropriate; it is a quote from an expert or information about the argument. Sources can be indicted when it is appropriate. This is more easily realized when debater use the correct words for the quote. It is the argument that needs to be at the center of the round, not the quotes. Evidence supports, it does not stand alone.

Which brings us to the third point: the impacts of the arguments and quotes need to be made clear to the audience (judge). Too often we have the spewing of information at the expense of explanation. “When even the slightest chance exists that the meaning or pertinence of a fact or reference may not be grasped, debaters should clarify it.” (5:68). It is the responsibility of the debaters to make clear what the effect of their arguments are on the opposition’s case and on their own issues, rather than for the judge to reach the epiphany of the argument that many students now expect. I was taught, “Tell them what you are going to say, say it, and tell them what you said and why.”

Further, debate jargon does not make an argument. Use of the phrases such as “We turn,” is not a response to an argument unless a clear explanation has been presented demonstrating why the response to the argument makes a turn. Without that, then we descend into the chaos of specialization that Jose Garcia Ortega warns about in The Revolt of the Masses. Too many debaters rely on these catch phrases, and the audience’s perceived ability to see the results, rather than the actual demonstration of their own ability to clearly communicate the complete argument and its impacts to the audience. Debaters must make clear that they understand and know what they are arguing, and to make it clear to those listening. It is not the responsibility of the audience to complete the argument.

There is an aspect of tabula rasa in the round, in that the issues that are raised within the round are the issues on which I will decide; not whether or not certain issues have been presented, and failure to do so means a loss. If topicality is raised as an issue in the round, only then will it be considered and the argumentation evaluated. If a plan is non-topical and the issue is not raised by the Negative, then a comment may be made on the ballot, but it will not be a basis for a decision. It means that common sense rules, and when an argument fails that test, more supporting evidence is required to help me accept the position. Bizarre arguments do not need to be met point for point, only the flaw in logic needs to be exposed for the collapse of the scenario.

This is why it is not a matter of responding to every point with a counter point. Realize what are the most important issues and arguments in the round, clarifying them for the audience, tell why you are winning on those issues, and finally explain what it means to the decision. This demonstrates an ability to analyze the arguments, prioritize them and reach logical conclusions.

As for counter plans, and kritiks, those may be argued, but they must be consistent with all the other issues that Negative is presenting. However, because the resolution is what we really ought to be arguing, and the plan presented by the Affirmative as a solution to the resolution, I would prefer that one argues that rather than trying to create a diversion. There is usually plenty of ground for Negative to argue the Affirmative plan without reason for bizarre off-case arguments that usually waste time and diminish the value of debate.

Because this is so late in the season, and habits have been formed, I am still capable of making fair decisions in rounds that violate every one of these ideas. I will not be happy with what I witness, as it not what we need to be emphasizing at this level of education. If debate is to be reduced to a game, then it needs to be removed from the school curriculum and made an extra curriculum activity. As long as it is part of education, then it must be judged by standards that advance the purpose of education, which is why my ballots on those rounds will be so critical of the gamesmanship at the expense of education.

Debate, as practice for civic argument can be defined, in large part, through common sense. If an intelligent, informed community member can follow what’s going on, then we’re on the right track. If arguments are sufficiently well-formed to classify the speaker as “informed citizen” rather than “dangerous extremist,” then we’re on the right track. If arguments and evidence would pass muster in a term paper, then we’re on the right track (3)

And if those are accomplished, then we are on the right track for educating the youth through debate, and making sure that democracy is capable of surviving another generation.

Bibliography

1. Thomas Jefferson on Democracy edited by Saul K. Padover, Mentor Book, The New American Library, New York, New York, 1939.

2. Reforming Education: The Opening of the American Mind by Mortimer J. Adler, MacMillan Publishing Company, New York, New York, 1988.

3. A New Day for Policy Debate by Dr. Wende Vyborney from the internet, 1997.

4. Mastering Competitive Debate by Dana Hensley and Diana Carlin, Clark Publishing, Inc, Topeka, Kansas, 1994.

5. Decision by Debate, Second Edition by Douglas Ehninger and Wayne Brockriede, Harper and Row Publishers, New York, New York, 1978.

Former assistant coach for Lawrence High for two years. Debated at Olathe South for 4 years.

Updated 12/8/23

Please add me to the email chain. (dorrell.kathryn@gmail.com)

General Preferences

Do what you do best. There are very few arguments that I hate on a deep level or am in love with. I'm usually more comfortable with policy arguments but am familiar with K literature.

I've only judged sporadically this season, so starting off a under your top speed and working up to it would be helpful.

For me, your first priority should be on ensuring you have solid analysis in the debate. You can have the best evidence and arguments that could truly be deciding factors, but if the rebuttals consist of you just extending a bunch of cards or shallow one-line summaries of analytics from the constructives, you're not going to win. Tell me how the argument functions and why it's true. Without this work, that argument doesn't really exist on the flow to me.

More than anything please be nice. Snarkiness is awesome but there's a line between funny and just mean. Mistakes happen and I believe this is a fantastic space to educate each other. However, blatant sexism, racism, and any other -isms will not be tolerated. If in doubt, don't say it in the round, and let's have a conversation after.

Case: To me, case is the most important part of the debate. If it's a fundamentally bad case, off-case can matter very little. On the flip side, if you have an amazing case that you pull through and defend you can afford to risk linking to a DA. That doesn't mean don't run any off-case or feel free to undercover a DA, but having a great case debate can be very beneficial.

DAs: DAs are great. If they're generic, that's fine. If they're case specific, even better. That being said, explain your internal link chain. Don't just spend every speech telling me why extinction is awful.

CPs: I think CPs are fun, but they do have to be competitive. I won't do the work for the aff, but if they perm it and it's very clearly not competitive, it'll be hard for you to come back from that.

Ks: Like I said, I don't have a super in-depth knowledge of specific kritiks but I do have a decent background in a good portion of philosophy. If you explain the basic thesis of the K, we should be good. That's not an excuse to use a bunch of weirdly long words that sound "kritiky" and then assume I know what you meant. Just like any other argument, give me warrants and analysis. Please tell me what the alt does! I'm all for unique alternatives, but I need to understand exactly what is going to happen.

K Affs/ Non-traditional Affs: I'm definitely open to non-traditional affirmatives, but I do tend to believe the affirmative has to be in the direction of the topic and have some kind of plan/ advocacy statement. What exactly that looks like is up to you, I just need to understand what exactly you're advocating for. If you aren't in the direction of the topic/ you reject the resolution, I'll definitely listen and keep an open mind. However, it tends to be pretty easy for negative teams to win on framework.

I haven't judged many of non-traditional affs so I can't tell you if I lean more towards framework or the aff, but I like both so you have a good shot either way. For framework, you can definitely argue that they have to relate to the topic or have a stated advocacy, but saying they should be excluded entirely is not going to go over well.

Theory: Not my favorite thing, but I'll always listen to it. It gets really annoying when seven different blippy theory arguments are read and then because the aff didn't respond to the sixth standard on you fifth theory argument that you blew through at the speed of light the entire round ends up coming down to that argument. A couple are totally fine, but more than that gets confusing.

Topicality: I like T, especially when it plays in with other arguments. It's always a voter, never a reverse-voter.

Framing: It seems like it's becoming more and more common to have pretty extensive impact framing debates. That's totally cool and I think it's a really interesting debate to be had. However, just reading a card that says probability first or extinction first doesn't make it true. Just like any other argument, give me the warrant and analysis.

Overall, run what you're good at and what you like. Make it the kind of round you want to have and I'll do my best to conform to it. With the exception of a few things, most of the stuff on here is pretty flexible if you explain a different perspective. Please ask me any other questions you have!

Email for questions or email chain: bcdunn7@gmail.com

Background

Formal high school policy debater (4 years) and spent most of my time in the upper-open/lower-dci realm (no KDC at that time). No college debate. I also did LD and some parli and have judged policy about once a year since I graduated.

Overview

I don't have a strong aversion or affinity to pretty much any type of argument, I try to leave that up to you and for you to defend on the flow. I'm more familiar with policy stuff (T, CPs, DAs, etc.) but I'm happy to hear other theory, framework, kritiks, or the like just make sure you go at 80% speed and explain what's going on. Regarding speed in general, I can keep up pretty well but if you're used to spreading at break-neck speeds maybe pull it back just a hair. Especially on taglines, authors, and analysis slow down so I can hear you and then blitz through the card if you want. If I don't hear or understand your point it doesn't get flowed and you probably wasted minute or two reading that card, so make sure I know why your reading a card and where it goes on the flow. Signposting and good flow management will easily help you win the round since I can follow your argument. Happy to answer specific questions before round.

Policymaker

This is the realm I am most familiar with and where I spent most of my time debating. Happy to hear DAs, CPs, Topicality, etc. DAs are obviously better the more specific they are but if you want to run a super generic DA, more than welcome to, but you'll have to do some specific analysis to win it at some point. CPs of any variety are great just convince me why it's better than the Aff obviously and then especially why the Aff can't PERM in any way and garner all the benefits. Love topicality debates, either as short 'just one more' arguments or as long super in-depth theory debates. Probably will not treat T as a reverse voter though unless there seems to be a good situation for it. If T is a short throw away argument I will generally default to reasonability but if the Neg wants to hammer down on T I will need to see the Aff defend well.

Other Framework and Kritiks

I know policy, so I can judge it well. But I'm happy to see the debate go in a different direction (kritiks, K affs, dense framework or theory); just make sure if the round heads this way that we slow down to 80% so I get a bit more time to follow the logic. Also more analysis and explaining how the arguments work will be helpful as opposed to just blitzing through massive card blocks.

I'm not super familiar with niche K lit. If you want to run cap/fem/anthro etc. I should be able to follow pretty well. But if it's a more new, unique K - I'm happy to hear it, but will just need more explanation and analysis of what it is and how it fits in the round.

Evaluating the Round

Ultimately it's best if you tell me how to evaluate the round so that I'm not voting on my own preferences. Tell me what has to be evaluated first (esp. if there are kritiks, frameworks, theory heavily in the round). Tell me why the ballot has to vote a certain way and how it functions in the round. If we're doing a lot of policymaker stuff, do the impact calc, tell me why your timeframe or probability or whatever wins.

And 2Ns and 2As just make it clear what you are or are not going for in your final speeches. Don't half-heartedly answer everything but pick the arguments that you'll win on, tell me that, and prove it to me.

He/Him

ctdunn7@gmail.com

I debated four years at Lawrence HS. I did KDC, DCI and a little Nat Cir. Now I'm a journalism and political science student at KU, not debating.

Feel free to ask any questions.

Update for LHS 2023 Tournament:

It has now been two years since I've debated a round and my only exposure to the activity in the meantime has been a couple rounds judged. Here is what that means for you:

1. I'm a rusty flow. You can absolutely still spread but maybe take it down a beat and signpost. If I look really lost, I'm probably lost. Use some awareness.
2. I have a better understanding of politics/current events/public policy/etc. than I did in high school. I'm not super worried about getting lost during this facet of the debate. Where I might get lost is in the theory/technicality parts of the debate (perms/condo/framework/etc.) Be mindful of that. Reading a politics disad? Fire away. Debating the competitiveness of a CP? slow down a bit.

This info is to ensure that I can give you the best decision possible. I understand how much it sucks to feel like you got screwed by a judge and I hope to avoid giving anyone that feeling. If you follow the advice above, I will do my best to evaluate whatever debate you want to have. Everything below is still true.

Important Stuff:

1. Please just run what you like. The best way to enjoy this activity is to run the arguments you like. I will always evaluate them to the best of my abilities. And if you end up losing but ran what you enjoy that's better than running something you hate just to win. Have fun and be nice.

2. Arguments that explicitly support or defend racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia/ableism are not cool. You will lose.

3. Tech over truth, but the truth of an argument changes the technical threshold for adequately responding to it.

4. I am comfortable evaluating and flowing fast debates. Do your best to be clear and slow down on analytics like always. Speed is a tool to increase the quality and content of a debate, not to make your opponents scared and uncomfortable. This is especially true for junior varsity and novice debate but it goes for higher levels too.

5. I REALLY appreciate people that look up from their computer and/or give final rebuttals only off the flow. It shows me a level of skill and technicality that reading blocks off a laptop does not. It will not affect W/L but it will significantly improve your speaks.

My personal thoughts on different arguments if you want them:

Kritiks/K affs

Yup, they’re cool. I only really ran cap and some basic topic Ks during my time debating but I went against everything. Assume I don’t know your lit unless it's pretty basic, but I can catch on to stuff quickly, especially if you’re good.

Links are the hardest part of the K to convince me on usually. I’m much more persuaded by contextualization and good link work in the block than shotgunning 6 generic link cards and hoping the 1AR drops one.

I will evaluate the links and framework of a K prior to the alternative.

I don’t have experience running a K aff that doesn’t defend a plan. But my teammates ran them, so I'm familiar with and enjoy them. You just have to do the work. Affs that can kick out of the plan are cool.

I really dislike lazy T-USFG debates where both teams shotgun non-competitive offense and make me figure it out. Typically the team which is more specific with their framework offense will win the debate. Affirmatives should define the role of the negative.

CP/DA

This is the strat I ran the most. Fire away.

Turns are cool and underutilized.

The Politics DA was my entire 1NR almost every neg round my senior year and almost always our 2NR strat. It’s the argument I love the most and am best at, but that also means I get really frustrated when people are bad at it.

CPs should be competitive, solve at least some of the aff, and have a net benefit. Other than that I’m neutral on most things.

I will be persuaded by complex framing work rather than just “extinction bad” vs. “extinction not real.”

Warrants really matter. If the neg card says "Manchin votes no because of inflation" and the aff reads a card that says "Manchin will vote yes" but is not talking about inflation then the aff did not answer the argument and Manchin votes no. But it’s you're job to do this work, not mine. I won't vote on things I don't hear.

T

Aside from politics, this is the argument I know best.

I love a good T debate and I’m not someone who minds a stupid or sneaky interp and violation as long as it’s well thought out and complete.

I’ve heard the NATO topic has terrible T debates which is so sad.

I believe the best method for evaluating the topicality of an aff is by using competing interps.

Please impact out T, SO MANY bad debates where people don't do impact work on T. This means both reading offense, responding to your opponent's offense, and most importantly giving a big picture of how all of the offense interacts. The team that gives me the best way to articulate why their model of debate is better will probably win.

I want to hear debates about whether an aff should be considered topical not whether it technically is topical.

Theory/Condo

I think testing the aff from multiple advocacies is good. But as a former 2A, I'm sympathetic to condo in extreme circumstances. 3 off with a K and CP? You're fine. 10 off with 2 Ks and 4 CPs? Run condo.

I tend to agree with 1As being upset about new stuff in the block. Gotta stand up for the 1As of the world (shoutout T-Lush and Zimney)

I'm inclined to reject the argument not the team in most instances. Obviously, there are exceptions for bigoted arguments or condo and such.

I don't have an issue with post-rounding as long as you're decently respectful. Also, I know emotions get high in debates so feel free to email me after the tourney if you want. I vote based on what I'm given. If there is something that I missed that is so consequential that it changes the outcome of the debate, you probably should have made a bigger deal out of it. This is a game of persuasion and even if you're "correct" you still have to persuade me of that.

I like these things, so if you bring them up cleverly in a speech I will smile and probably bump your speaks +0.1: Canada, Aidan Zimney, funk and soul music, KU sports.

"Why does a shark have teeth? A shark has teeth to eat! And why does a whale have feet? Well...I....don't know?" - Jack Stratton (this is the quote I live by)

Tabula rasa. Tell me how I should vote in the round. If not I’ll defer to stock issues. Also, link off-case arguments.

I Debated at Johnson County Community College from 2017-2019, and all 4 years of high school.

I'd like to be on the e-mail chain- farris.louis15@gmail.com

If I leave the room, please send the e-mail. It will signal I need to come back to the room. People should just not open the doc until I get back.

My litmus test for what I can vote for is solely based upon the ability to take what you said while debating and regurgitate it back to the other team as a reason why they lost.

I believe the most important part of debate is impacts. If left with no argumentation about impacts or how to evaluate them I will generally default to look for the biggest impact presented. I appreciate debate that engages in what the biggest impact means, and/or if probability and timeframe are more important. This does not simply mean “policy impacts”, it means any argument that has a link and impact. You could easily win that the language used in the round has an impact, and matters more than the impacts of plan passage. All framing questions concerning what comes first have impacts to them, and therefore need to be justified. The point is, whether you are running a Kritik, or are more policy based, there are impacts to the assumptions held, and the way you engage in politics (plan passage governmental politics, or personal politics). Those impacts need to be evaluated

I also prefer that teams explain their arguments so that a macro level of the argument is explained (Meaning a cohesive story about the uniqueness, link, or link and alternative are also necessary). This means piecing together arguments across flows and explaining how they interact with one another. My threshold for the possibility for me to vote on your argument is determined by whether or not I can explain why the other team lost.

Kritiks- I do not enjoy Kritiks, in my final year I was a K team so I have a little understanding, but I prefer policy. Be aware of my threshold for being able to explain to the other team why they lost. This means it is always safer to assume I’ve never read your literature base and have no idea what you are talking about. The best way to ensure that I’m understanding your argument is to explain them with a situations that will exemplify your theory AND to apply those situations and theories to the affirmative.

Framework- I will evaluate framework in an offense defense paradigm. Solely impacting or impact turning framework will rarely win you the debate. You will need offense & defense to win framework debates in front of me. Its an issue that I believe should be debated out and the impact calculus on the framework debate should determine who I vote for. When aff I believe that framework is a non starter. Defending the assumptions of the affirmative is a much more persuasive argument. For the negative, a lot of the discussion will revolve around the topical version of the aff and/or why doing it on the neg is best and solves all the affirmatives offense. I do generally feel as though framework should be THE option against critical teams. Framework on the negative for me is also can have and act like a counter advocacy that the problems isolated by the affirmative can be helped by engaging the state. Topical version help prove how engaging the state can create better and meaningful changes in the world. There should also be historical and/or carded explanations as to why engaging the state can help with the problems of the 1ac.

Topicality - Go for it if you want I will listen to it and evaluate it. There needs to be a very detailed explanation as to why T o/w case and the impacts. Just saying buzzwords will not be enough. Something that is very helpful in me resolving T is if you attack the other team's definition or counter definition and why yours is better for debate and should be voted for.

Policy args - I am much more experienced in policy and believe you need to do work on the impact level, explaining why your impacts o/w the other team's. You also need to win a link to access your impacts. Just saying x is the link and moving on is not enough link work. I know in debate there aren't perfect links, but it is your job to explain the link and give that analysis.

I will probably read the evidence and if you ask me to read something I will.

What you say in cross x is binding, with that said you can win/lose the debate in cross x so make sure you are setting arguments up and not just hanging out.

I am okay and love to see passion in debates just don't take it to the next level where it gets personal.

Overview:

My name is Andrew Fewins and I am an ex KDC debater who debater thorough-out high school and am from Shawnee Mission Northwest. I am a flow judge, so I tie the vote less to your speaking skills and more to the argumentation presented in the round. It's more important to get 4th speaker and win than get 1st speaker and lose.

Argumentation:

I was a stock debater in high school and am a primarily stock judge. Will prefer stock issues over theory argumentation. Not saying running a K or leaning heavily into topicality will result in an immediate loss just that policy in the round for me is more convincing.

Topicality is encouraged as a last resort check on un-topical affirmatives.

K's if they are the last thing on the flow will still win a round for a team.

Discloser argumentation for me is a no go. As someone whose team did not have a wiki and who personally did not disclose until speech was shared for the 1AC I feel no sympathy if the team did not disclose before hand. It is your job as a debater to adjust on the fly and going it without copious amount of prep before hand all the better.

K affirmative's will be a quick ballot for the neg if a single solid policy issue is presented.

Speed:

Speed: spreading is okay as long as I have your evidence and signposting is done well. It is necessary to discernible language when presenting if you want arguments to go on my flow.

Fairness and Abuse:

Open cross-x or alternative speaker order needs to be okayed before the start of the round. Manipulation of the round is seen as major violation of fairness and will result in immediate vote for the other team. If a team commits and Ad Homonym fallacy you will get one warning. If it occurs a second time it will be an immediate vote against the team that commits the fallacy. Also cross-x should be civilized and focused around questioning your opponent. It should not contain monologues by the questioning team or be a shouting match.

As an open debater, I get how important it is to win the round and try to vote on argumentation issues and not punish you harshly for minor errors or missteps. Have fun and good luck.

Hopefully, this paradigm has been useful, and I look forward to judging you in the round.

Debated through high school and for one year at the University of Kansas.

I would say that I'm a hybrid stock issues/policy maker but with a strong policy-maker lean. However, I'm also there to arbitrate your arguments, so if you want me to apply another paradigm, as long as you can cogently argue it and convince me why I should change, I'm flexible and willing to change for the round.

I will accept the K, provided you capably understand it and can demonstrate that understanding to me and translate your understanding to a compelling rationale for voting for it. I tend to flow Kritikal arguments similarly to disads. Seriously. Spoon feed me the K and I will happily vote on it, but you should assume my understanding is, um, "not advanced." Here is where I blatantly steal a line from the paradigm of Jeff Plinsky: My policy maker lens is difficult for me to put down here, so you had better be able to tell me how your advocacy can actually solve something. In a K v K debate, this still applies - you need to prove you actually solve something.

I will accept generic disads, but try to have them link. Specific disads are always better and with what seems like functionally all affs available via wiki, there's no reason not to do the research to find a specific link. In evaluating disads, my natural inclination (which you can overcome) is to prefer realistic impacts even if they are small, to enormous but highly attenuated impacts such as multiple extinction events/cannibalism/nuke wars/etc. I don't like to count who has the highest number of nuclear exchanges at the end of the round, but if I have to, I will.

I am a dinosaur and, as such, value topicality. I will almost certainly not make topicality a "reverse voter" and give the aff a win if the only thing they've accomplished is to beat neg's T arguments. However, I will vote neg on T only, assuming neg wins it. In line with my feelings on T, before you run a PIC, ask if the aff is topical. Please note: I am not telling negative teams that I want them to run topicality. That is your decision. I am just telling you that I will vote on it if you win it.

Speed is fine and I can usually follow and flow very fast debaters. If I am holding a pen, even if I'm not writing at any given moment, I am following you. If I have put down my pen, it means you've lost me and should probably back up or make some other effort to get me back. I greatly prefer closed cross; my view is that you should be able to spend three minutes defending the speech you just delivered. While speed is fine, in my position as a dinosaur, I still value rhetoric and persuasion. If you're a compelling speaker, let that shine. Group the other side's arguments and go slower and compel me to vote for you.

Again indulging my prerogative: I not only accept, I encourage new in the two. It's called a "constructive" speech for a reason. Go ahead and construct. Similarly, I will accept add-on advantages from the aff and internally inconsistent arguments from the neg as long as they have kicked out of whatever makes them inconsistent and still allows the affirmative a chance to respond by the end of the round. Do not abuse this. If I think that you're purposely spreading them with inconsistent arguments just to force them into a time suck and not running the argument in good faith, I will not be happy about it and you will bear the consequences of my unhappiness. For example: I once watched a team run the thinnest of topicality shells in the 1NC. They basically did little more than say "topicality" and read one definition and that was it. No voters, no standards, no warrants. That forced the aff to answer in the 2AC and left the neg in a position to have forced the timesuck or blow up topicality in the 2NC. That, to me, was faithless argumentation by the neg. Don't do that.

As befitting a Gen X'er, I value courtesy and think you can absolutely hammer someone and not be a d**k about it. Play nice. Being a jerk probably won't earn you the loss, but I will punish you on speaks if your conduct warrants it. This is intended to be a very strong warning against racism, ableism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia. Engaging in those things will get you an L even if you might have otherwise won the round. My politics lean left, but I consciously try to monitor and check my biases. If your best argument is something that I would not support in real life, you can run it and know that I will make every effort to fairly consider the argument, the way you argue it and its merits in the debate.

On vagueness and topicality: I have noticed a trend where the aff's plan text is essentially the text of the resolution but with a specific "whatever" (country, program, etc.,) stated within the "plan." This is not a plan. It is vague and if the aff is not willing to specify what they are or are not doing/curtailing/removing/adding/replacing, then I will absolutely be open to the argument that they are unfairly claiming and denying territory necessary to allow a fair debate. I won't vote on this if no one brings it up, but I think it's fair to expect an affirmative case to actually specify what it will do. Edited to add: I REALLY MEAN THIS ONE. I find it very frustrating when an aff not only doesn't say in the 1AC what it is exactly that they're doing, but then refuse to answer (or not know the answer) when asked about it on cross. Affs should not do this and negs should beat the snot out of any aff that tries this.

Thoughts on the email chain: I do not want to be on it. This is still a verbal activity. If you say something clearly and intelligibly enough for me to hear it, I will hear it and flow it. From time to time I might ask you (during prep, for example) to give me your tag or the name of the person cited. But if you say something so unintelligible that I can't understand it, I won't credit you for having said it and the fact that it might be on the email chain isn't going to change my mind. I might ask you to show me a card or cards at the end of the round so that I can make sure it says what I think it says or what you say it says. But I don't like the notion of crediting a verbal statement because I read it in an email.

Bottom line: I'm the arbiter of your arguments. While the above is a statement of my preferences, I'm more than happy to judge a debate outside those boundaries and you should feel free to argue your best stuff if I'm your only judge. If you find me on your panel, you should consider going for the other judges as I consider myself to be highly adaptable and can judge a round geared for lay judges and I can also judge one geared to impress college judges.

Thank you for allowing me the privilege of watching and judging your debate.

Please include me in the email chain: lisacarlos@sbcglobal.net

Back in the day, I was a high school debater (Hutchinson Trinity Catholic). More recently, I coached high school debate (also at TC) for five years. I prefer the classic style of debating with weight given to speaking style and elegantly developed arguments with direct clash. I appreciate courteous manners.

I would categorize myself as a policymaker judge with expectations that all stock issues will be met.

I am a flow judge. I am ok with fast talking, but if I can't flow it is too fast (I will try to indicate this through the camera).

I don't like kritiks, so if you run one, please have a good reason and explain it well.

Stock issues are important to me, but not necessarily the sole issue of my ballot (BUT if something is glaring, I will vote on it).

I am fine with a good Topicality argument. I am ok with counterplans if they are run well and carefully explained.

I will not do any of the work for you. If there is an obvious contradiction, but it is not pointed out. I won't consider it.

I love a good disadvantage with a direct link to the affirmative case.

In rebuttals, I greatly appreciate impact calculus and weighing the round.

Things I don't like: redundancy, claiming that the other team "lied" about something, condescending remarks, generic arguments used as a timesuck.

I consider it an honor to be judging -- thank you for choosing to debate!

Please add me to the email chain for all speeches/ev, and email with any questions: hilary.griggs@yale.edu

For KSHSAA state- PLEASE do not go over time. I have had to interrupt debaters in every round I have judged about going over time in CX and in speeches and it is frustrating :)

Background:

I debated policy all through high school in KS and now coach parli to high schoolers in a UDL.

Speed:

I’m comfortable with whatever, as long as you signpost and are clear with tag lines, plans, and other particularly important bits (CP texts, theory, perms, etc.). I think that effective debate can happen at any speed, but don’t push it.

General:

I spent a lot of time in high school being annoyed by my judges. I don’t want to be one of those judges, and so I keep my paradigm short. I think that, at its core, debate is about persuasion and cleverness, and I am open to anything from both teams. More than anything, I value clarity, good argumentation, and impact turns.

Other fun facts (for my policy debaters):

T:

I will vote on T. I agree with most standard T rules like: run interpretation, violation, standards, voters; T is not a reverse voting issue, it is a priori, etc. But, again, I need aff/neg to make these args in-round.

DA’s:

Please, for the love of god, run your DA’s right. UQ, link, internal link, impact. I genuinely do not care if your DA is the most generic thing alive; if you have a good link card, I’m in. Argue that.

CP’s:

I love counterplans. I think they are a great way to be creative in a round and really push the aff, but they do need to meet the minimum requirements of mutual exclusivity, net benefit, etc. I think debating against a CP can be fun for the aff, too… perm do both.

K’s:

If you run a K or a K aff in the Kansas open circuit, you already get points for bravery. I’ve read my fair share of theory, and I think that k debates can be really interesting and productive. That said, if you run a K, I expect you to know your lit and to argue it effectively. I am not inherently impressed by K args, so it’s entirely up to you whether or not running a K is effective. That being said, framework is incredibly important in this case. A generic policy aff will beat the world’s most beautiful Cap K if they win on framework.

Respect for your opponents and the activity is most important.

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

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

Not a big fan of spreading.

My pronouns are he/him.

I am currently a sophomore attending Lawrence High School, in my second year of High School Policy Debate.

Please add me to the email chain: felixguo2004@gmail.com

Be polite and kind to everyone! If you decide to be abusive and call the other team racist or homophobic/transphobic names, I will automatically vote for the opposing team.

I am fine with speed, but slow down when you are talking about analytics. I will be flowing; make sure you extend your arguments past just the author and title. Explain how that argument helps your side, and how it impacts the round.

You can run anything, but make the arguments clear and explain them. If you are the Negative, have some offcase but cover everything on case. I would rather hear you cover 8 minutes of purely oncase rather than 8 minutes of fully offcase.

If you type your roadmap or remaining prep time in the chat, I will know that you have read my paradigm.

Experience:

Former Policy Debater, Shawnee Mission East

Former University of Kansas Mock Trial Competitor

Former Policy and Mock Trial Coach, Shawnee Mission East

Former Policy and Mock Trial Coach, Blue Valley Northwest

Former Policy, LD, PF and Mock Trial Coach, Olathe North

Former Policy, LD, and PF Coach, Louisburg

Current Policy, LD, and PF Coach, Piper

POLICY

Style Preferences:

I have no speed preferences, debate to the style you are best at. I have heard only a few people too fast for me to understand, but if you choose to spread and you are unclear I will stop flowing.

A few tips to prevent this from happening:

Slowing down on tags, dates, authors, important lines in evidence and important analysis. Higher speed is more appropriate for cards and less so for analysis and theory. If you speed through your 8 one-line points on condo I probably won't get them all (this also happens a lot on perm theory). If it's super important it's worth slowing down. It is you and your partner's responsibility to make sure I am following what's happening. If you're stumbling, slow down and then speed back up when you're back on track instead of trying to push through, which just makes everything messy.

Open CX, flashing, off-time roadmaps (this is much prefered for me to flow) are all fine if both teams are ok with it.

There is a line you can cross of disrespect. What you say and how you say it matters. Although I do not consider this a voting issue unless the other teams argues that it should be, it's harder for me to vote for you if I think you're a jerk. Wit is great, rudeness is not.

Argumentation Preferences for Policy:

I'm fine with any and all forms of argumentation. Just justify why I should vote on it. Be the better debaters in the round and you will win. I vote on what I hear in the round and what is persuasive. Substance is much more important than style.

I generally default policy maker and will need offense to vote, however, if you argue framework and win it I am happy to change the roll of the ballot. Please do not leave it up to me what impacts are most important, if you don't weigh the round for me it is at your own peril.

K debate is fine, but do not assume I have read the philosopher/theorist you are using in depth. It's your responsibility to explain the theory to me. I am much more persuaded by alts that solve the K or have real world impacts.

CP debate is fine, topical CPs are a very very hard sell for me, but if the other team doesn't tell me it's abusive and should be rejected or does not effectively answer Topical CPs good theory I will still vote for it. Generally advocating for the CP is severance and abusive (although I'm open to being persuaded otherwise), but again I need to hear the argument and be told it's a voting issue to vote on it.

I generally view T as an abuse check. If there's no in-round abuse I will rarely vote on it, however if it's answered poorly I'll vote on the better augmentation. Again if you argue that I should change my evaluation to competing interp, etc. and win that argument I will vote accordingly.

Realistic impacts are more effective. I don't mind long chain link stories to get there as long as they are well explained.

New in the 2 is only abusive if teams are spreading

I've tried to cover everything here, but if there is something else you would like to know or need clarification please ask before the round.

LD

Please don't lose focus of the round being about a position on a moral issue. While policy and realistic results of a moral position are important for showing the impact of the value, this is not a policy round. Please choose a value and criterion that you can explain and that work well with your contentions.

The line by line argumentation is important, but don't get so caught up in it that you lose sight of your overriding position. One dropped point won't lose you the round if you access the value the best.

I don't need you to win the value to win the round, but you do need to access the winning value best to win the round.

Please please please engage with the other team's arguments. Don't just say it didn't make sense or didn't apply or that your previous card answers it. Explain why what they say is incorrect. Substance is much more important than style.

PF

You need to have a warrant that supports your claims effectively. Pretty talking will not be enough to win my ballot. The team that best utilizes empirical examples, logic, and (most effectively) evidence to support their claims is typically the winner. At the same time, reading a bunch of cards and providing no analysis will also not serve you well. I'm not a huge fan of emotional personal examples, because they cannot be verified they feel manipulative so I would avoid them.

In my experience sometimes PF rounds get a little snarky. There is a line, and like I said above your demeanor is not a determining factor unless the other team argues that it should be and justifies why you should lose the round over it. But because I am a person, it's hard for me to vote for you if you're a jerk. Wit is appreciated, rudeness is not.

She/her pronouns.

Pronounced Naa-Naa-Co

Email: nanako.hallier.03@gmail.com

I debated for four years at Olathe Northwest (education, immigration, arms sales, criminal justice). I competed primarily in open/KDC for policy and did Congress, extemp, and interp events for forensics. I am pretty well-versed in most things policy (minus Ks), so run what you'd like, but keep in mind I value knowledge of what you are speaking about over anything, so be able to explain your arguments in depth. I won't vote for something I don't understand, so be sure to explain your points clearly and concisely. This should go without saying, but any homophobia, racism, sexism, ableism, etc. will absolutely NOT be tolerated in any round that I am judging.

tl;dr: If you tell me a riddle that I cannot solve you get +1 speaker point. I default policymaker, but I'll view the round however you want me to. It's easy to get my vote if you bring good impacts into the debate. Try not to leave anything uncontested; I will take note of unanswered arguments. Tech>truth unless it's a bad argument. Again, no racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism good args. I will automatically vote against you. K's aren't super encouraged unless you are absolutely confident that you can explain it to a judge who knows little to nothing about them.

Pace: Please don't spread unless it is ABSOLUTELY critical for you to do so. If you choose to do so, please make a point to send me your evidence through an email chain; I will not be able to keep up with you otherwise. Slow down for tags if you choose to spread, I will dock you speaker points if you don't.

Topicality: Topicality is probably my favorite negative argument but I am picky about some T arguments (T substantial can get messy depending on the argument, ex. if affirmative plan saves lives and the argument is T sub, I probably won't like that very much). T is a voting issue, so make sure you're making aff violations CLEAR. FRAMING!! If you don't continue T through the entire round, then I won't vote on it. Neg; if aff drops T or doesn't address it at all, it is your job to carry it on throughout the round. Just acknowledging that they dropped T doesn't automatically equal a win for you. Carry it into every speech and you give yourself a good chance to win my ballot.

Roadmap: Off time roadmaps please, for all speeches! Tell me the order you want me to flow in.

Kritiks: I am a rarity in the debate community in that I participated in 4 years of policy and never hit or ran a K. And yes, I got through the criminal justice topic without hitting abolition. As of judging novice state, I have now judged one (1) K. I know absolutely nothing about K's, but I'll tolerate them if you walk me through them. (Note: when I say I know nothing about kritiks, I am VERY serious about not knowing anything.) K affs aren't something I'm familiar with, but again, if you feel that you can explain your case well, go for it.

Flow: I will flow normally, but if you're addressing something that you've mentioned in a speech, please be specific!! Saying "circumvention" means nothing if you don't tell me if it's in regard to solvency, advantages, etc. Just be specific! Jumping all over the flow also isn't encouraged, especially if you want me to keep up.

Disadvantages: I'll listen to anything you bring in if you can find a link. Politics DAs are fun to listen to when they are relevant. Don't be that team that brings me something politics related that is 7 months old.

CPs: For the 2020-21 season (criminal justice), there were very few rounds that I didn't run a CP as the negative team. With that being said, you run a major risk of strengthening the aff argument via perm. Make sure your CP is mutually exclusive and competitive, you're only going to shoot yourself in the foot if you have to kick the CP after the aff perms. I won't vote against you solely for kicking the CP, but when I ran a CP it was always a huge part of my argument on neg, so make sure you have a different winning argument to fall back on.

Other: I typically believe the affirmative always holds the right to fiat, and its going to take a lot of convincing to make me not believe that.

Most importantly, I want debate to be a fun experience for everyone. Be kind and we will have a fun round!

I have been judging debate for two years.

I prefer to see arguments related to generic/specific disadvantages/advantages as opposed to topicality arguments, otherwise I do not much preference as to how the debaters construct their arguments.

This is my first year judging Piper High School Debates. I am a quick study and understand a wealth of knowledg. I have judged many events in times past and in a variety of different arenas. I guess you can say, I am a lay judge, but don't underestimate me. I understand the subject matter and the context of the this year's debate. I do not fully understand spreading or progressive arguments.

Some tips that you might want to take into consideration as you prepare:

1. Being agressive is fine, just make sure you don't say or do anything that is offensive to others.

2. Confidence is very important to me whether you are PRO or CON.

2. I like a great Cross-Examination.

3. Having good evidence comparison is really good, don't just take into account that evidence is right on face value.

4. Framework debate is good, but I don't understand complex philosophies, so you will have to explain it very well

Overall, have fun, it's your debate.

I've only judged one tournament, but my child is in debate and he has helped me understand the basics. I don't have any prejudices for or against particular arguments. Because I am a newcomer, if you speak too quickly I may not catch all your points. I will be taking notes to refer back to when making my decisions.

Email: donnasjalosjos@gmail.com

Debated for 4 years at Washburn Rural High School (Class of '22) largely as a 2A, now an assistant for Greenhill and occaisionally coach for Carrollton.

Currently Undergraduate Class of '26 at the University of Pennsylvania (Wharton School of Business)

I am not super familiar with the high school debate topic, so please make sure you explain your arguments to me without using topic jargon and debate with the assumption that I have not done the weeks of background research that you have.

Most familiar with policy-style arguments and affs with a plan text. My partner and I started running kritiks in our later years of high school debate, so I am familiar with Cap and Set Col. Other kritiks I will need a higher level of explanation on to understand your argument. For high level, complicated theory debates I am less confident about, so keep that in mind. By no means does this mean you can't go for topicality in front of me, it just means you need to simplify the argument and tell me explicitly why it outweighs the other team's standards.

There should be a warrant attached to each claim/argument that you make. If you extend an argument but only make a claim, I will not flow it as an argument in the round, because the argument is incomplete.

I tend to be persuaded by strong internal link chains and a good quality of evidence over very large impacts with weak internal link chains, especially if successfully exploited by the other team. I'm willing to vote for a structural violence impact over nuclear war if a team wins the framing that I should prefer it. I don't think it's enough to win an impact just by claiming that you have a larger one, as you still need to be able to explain to me why your impact will happen as supported by evidence.

Do not be rude. It does not make you look better to me by being rude to the other team in cross-ex or making personal attacks to your opponents. For some reason it's the cool new debate culture to be rude to the other team in order to look better to judges and maximize your chances of winning. It's really not cool. Your speaker points will suffer, and I'm not afraid to vote a team down if they are being offensive and creating an unsafe environment. Be polite and respectful. Yes, it is possible to win a debate round that way.

Hello. I am an English teacher at Lansing High School. I have no debate experience. It's important respectful and use evidence to support claims not just opinions. I need it to be clear and slow.

Email: sjkhan@bluevalleyk12.net

Debated for 4 years at LHS between 2014-2018, but haven't touched policy since then so it's been a minute.

Put me on the email chain chisato.kimura1@gmail.com

If y'all are rude/racist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist/sexist etc. I consider that a reason to vote against you. Additionally, trauma/violence/other issues that need a content warning should have a content warning. If y'all don't read one, I will vote you down.

Overall: Tabula rasa, default policymaker. It's been a while since I've debated/judged, so I'd prefer you go at a moderate speed and slow for tags. If you don't slow down for tags or signpost, I won't get it on my flow and it won't be a part of the ballot.

I am not familiar with the topic at all so please take that into account.

I understand the basics of Ks and some of ideologies, but again, haven't touched debate in several years so I may not be the best K judge. If you slow down and explain it more that would help win my ballot.

*When it comes to issues that relate to racism/incarceration/sexual assault, I'm truth over args/tech.*

I adored debate in high school and I'm excited to judge the round, but please keep in mind I've been removed from the debate world for a bit and am not familiar with the topic/literature at all. Let's have a good time y'all.

Please do not speed debate. If I cannot understand what you say, there is little chance that I will vote in favor of your side. :-)

Make sure that your arguments are clearly stated and backed up with evidence. My favorite debates to listen to are the ones that have good direct evidence on both sides.

Topicality and DAs should clearly link to the case.

I rarely, if ever, will vote based on a K.

I'm a lay judge. My daughter is a debater at Lawrence High.

- I understand some (but not all) types of arguments. (I know what solvency and topicality is for example, but not Kritiks), but if you link and explain everything well I am willing to vote for it.

- I can't keep up with high talking speeds, but if you intend to talk quick, please share your speech docs with me.

- Please don't be queerphobic, racist, ablest, sexist, etc. Or else I will likely vote you down. All in all, please be civil.

4 years of debate (KDC) at Lansing High (2017-2021)

Assistant Coaching at Lansing High School, Debate sponsor at Lansing Middle School

I'm down for speech drop or email whichever works best for you. christopherlapeedebate@gmail.com

Updated for BVSW 2023

Top level things:

Prompting– I will only flow prompting from partners based off what the speaker actually repeats/says. ie if we're in the 2ar and the 1a is making a bunch of arguments prompting the 2a ill only flow what comes out of the 2a's mouth. (This doesn't mean that an 1ac/1nc that requires both partners reading/speaking is bad. I think the opposite in that instance bc that isn't prompting)

Speaker points– speaker points to me are incredibly arbitrary, they vary dramatically based off format, style, and the community in debate. I plan to do my best to adjust, although that likely means lower speaks. (ie: I've been known to give very high speaker points in past years/tournaments, that will change)

SPEED– Slow down on analytics even if they're on the doc. You shouldn't be reading analytics at card speed.(bumping this bc it was a problem at waru) with that being said I wont doc you for it if the other team doesnt make an arg/do something about it (saying speed/clear). But speaker points will reflect that.

TLDR: I've learned that as I judge more the more I realize I don't particularly care for certain arguments over others. Rather, I care more about debaters doing what they're good at and maximizing their talents. Granted to whereas I'm ok with you reading whatever, do keep in mind that the experience I've had with debate/arguments might not make me the best decision maker in the back of the room for that round. So if you get me in the back of the room read what you want but be mindful it might need a little explanation in the Rebuttals.

LD– All of the stuff below applies if you wanna read a plan and have a policy debate do it idc its your debate have fun!

More in depth version of how I evaluate

Top level:I default tech over truth. The only time I'll use truth as a means of decision making is to break a tie in an argument which usually will only happen if the debate is very messy.

T: On T I'll default to competing Interps unless I get a good reason to favor reasonability or if reasonability goes conceded. I think T is a debate about models of a hypothetical community agreement to what the the topic should look like, in this I think the debate comes down to the internal links like who controls limits and ground and who's limits/ground is best for education and fairness. I don't think you need proven abuse but if there is you should point that out.

CP: I think CP's can be a good test of solvency mechanisms of the aff I wont vote on a cp unless it has a net benefit. I think the CP is a reason why 1% risk of the DA means I should probably vote neg if the CP solves, even if case outweighs. I don't think the CP alone is a reason to vote neg, just because there is another way to solve the aff doesn't mean I shouldn't give it a try.

Condo: I tend to think condo is good unless the neg is just trying to time suck by reading like 5 CP's and then just going for whichever you cant get to in time

DA's: I have quite a bit of experience with these but not a lot to say on them, I think a DA being non uq means no risk. I think no Link means the same, I think the I/L strat is commonly underrated if the link doesn't actually trigger the mpx then there is probably no risk, MPX turning a DA is underrated too. If you go for the DA in front of me focus on the story of the DA and form a coherent story and focus on the internals if I understand how the plan actually causes the MPX I'm more likely to vote for the DA.

Spec: If you go for spec go for it just like you would T. I'll listen to 5 mins of spec and vote on it. Same thing as T I view it as a models debate and you should focus on the internals because that tends to show who actually controls the mpx debate.

The K: On the link level first. I think the links to the k page operate in the same way as links to the Disad. What I mean by this is that the more specific the better. Just vaguely describing "the apocalyptic rhetoric of the 1ac" seems like a very generic link which is prolly not that hard for a turn and or no link argument.

On the impact debate. I think you need to be weighing the impact of the kritik in the round I find that a lot of debaters get jumbled up in line by line and forget to actually weigh the impact. Just extending it and saying "they cause xyz" isn't good because it isn't developed and lacks the warranting of why that matters and why I should vote neg because they cause that.

On the alt debate. It's a common stereotype of K debaters that we can't explain the alt. What does the alt look like? Why is that good? And so on so forth. I think that while I hate this stereotype I dislike even more that in the rounds I've watched debaters have tended to just read their tag line of the alt solvency and the alt whenever asked in cx what does the alt look like, and or do that to extend the alt in later speeches. This is not a good way to debate and doesn't help you convince anyone your alt is good, you should be able to articulate the method of your alt whatever that may be and how that changes the debate space or the world. I don't think this means you need to be able to tell me exactly what goes on at every waking point of the day.

K aff:

On the case debate– I think k affs should link to the topic/debate in some way shape or form otherwise they feel very generic. specificity >>>>>>>> generics (on every arg tho). There should be a clear impact/impacts to the aff. I think where the aff falls short is in the method/advocacy debate I think that I should be able to understand the method and how it is able to resolve the impact in some way shape or form. I think the rob/roj should be clearly identified (the earlier in the round the better). That way I understand how I should evaluate the rest of the debate and process through things (I think in close debates both teams wind up winning different parts of the flow, I need to understand why your flow comes first). I think that performance K affs lose the performance aspect which sucks, I think that applying the performance throughout the rest of the debate is >>>>>> rather than losing it after the 1ac.

V FW– I tend to think debate is a game that shapes subjectivity – Ie y'all wanna win rounds and fairness is good, and also the arguments we make/debate shapes who we become as advocates. I will technically sway based off args made in the round (ie debate doesn't shape subjectivity/debate isn't a game) I think from the neg I need a clear interp with a brightline for what affs are and are not topical extended throughout the debate. I need a clear violation extended throughout the debate. I think standards act as internal links to the impacts of fairness and education. I think you should be able to win that your fairness is better than the affs fairness and that it outweighs their education. for the aff I also think you need a clear interp for what affs are and are not allowed under your model of debate extended throughout the debate. If you go for a we meet I think that the we meet should be clear and makes sense and also be throughout the debate. I think the aff should win that the TVA doesn't resolve your offense/education, that your fairness is just as good or better than the neg's model of fairness. And that your education outweighs. I think top level impact turns to t/fw are good. And use the rob/roj against the T debate (remember it all comes down to filtering what arguments are most important and come first)

KvK– uhhhhhhh I tend to get a little lost in these debates sometimes tbh bc I think its tough to evaluate and weigh two methods against each other especially if they aren't necessarily competitive with each other. I think in these debate the fw debate including the rob/roj is most important, and judge instruction is likely how you'd pick me up if I'm in the back of the room. If you don't tell me how to evaluate arguments and what they mean in context to the round we'll all prolly wind up frustrated at the end of the round bc I'll intervene or make a bad choice. (I'm not perfect and make mistakes so judge instruction is crucial to make sure I don't make them)

Speed: I'm okay with speed if I cant catch what you're putting down I'll say CLEAR if you're unclear. I'll say SPEED if you're just going too fast... I'll say clear/speed three times before I stop flowing. Slow down on analytics even if they're on the doc. You shouldn't be reading analytics at card speed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I competed in high school policy, public forum, and student congress debate for 3 years. That was well over a decade ago, however it is still a foundation that I have. I have continued to judge debate and forensics over the past 5 years. I am a social worker/educator and believe learning and growing in every round. I am who I am today because of debate and forensics. I believe that debate at its core is a speaking competition. I want high quality speeches when it comes to style and performance as well as content. Tell what to vote on and why I should vote that way. I love judging and happy to be here with you!

Things to consider:

*Clarity over speed

*Respect over arrogance

*You're being judged the moment you walk into the room/zoom

*Debate should be fun (sometime obscure and absurd arguments are fun)

*Cross X is your time, I will not listen or take notes on it unless there is something egregious

Background

I am a 2nd year law student at Emory University School of Law and an experienced NSDA oralist. During my high school career I participated in varsity policy debate, international extemporaneous speaking, and congressional debate. I am a two time NSDA national congressional debate competitor for the 2014 and 2015 competitions. I have returned to judge rounds in debate and forensics multiple times in person and virtually since I graduated high school.

Since my time being a NSDA high school competitor I have participated in Model UN at Coe College during my undergrad, I am a member of Emory Law's competitive arbitration team, I am a member of Emory Law International Criminal Court moot court team, and I am the new Director in Chief of Emory Law Moot Court Society 2021-2022. This year, 2021, my ICC team competed at the Pace University Americas regional ICC competition. We qualified for international rounds hosted by the Hague in June and I received awards for best government oralist and best overall oralist.

I am familiar with the process of judging and I enjoy paying it forward to an activity which sparked a career.

Paradigms specifics: Debate

I am a flow judge, help me out and keep your organization clear about where you are in your argument.

I prefer policy arguments over K's.

I have voted on T before however this is not a stand out argument for my decision making.

I can keep up with just about any speed but I won't hesitate to stop you lose me.

Paradigm specifics: Forensics

I have seen a plethora of speaking and presentations styles on my journey to become a lawyer. What I have noticed is the more concise, clean, and clear your message is the more effective you are as an oralist. As a judge I assume you know what you are talking about. I am open to as many citations and references as you want me to hear but do not lose the point you are trying to make for the sake of sounding well researched.

Forensics encompasses so many events that it is hard to provide too many specifics so please just ask me before the round and I would be more than happy to elaborate on my preferences.

As a lay judge, my views are simplistic. I'm accustomed to (and open-minded about) a range of Topicality, Solvency, Inherency and Theory approaches. I'm okay with K's and see why they can be necessary, but if they feel like a gratuitous exercise in avoiding the core resolution, my patience may wane. If you raise ableist, racial or sexist contentions, you'd best plan to argue fairly why your competitors deserve to be penalized for your preconditions.

I'm familiar with basic standards in Policy Debate, Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas, but competitors can assume that I'm probably not versed in nuanced protocols. I'm happy to be enlightened on those during the debate. I'll listen carefully to rule interpretations from both sides, and will generally slant toward whoever is most persuasive, rather than whoever is truly correct.

As far as my RFD criteria, I try to be mostly substance-oriented and get into point-counterpoint tallies in reasonable detail, and watch for dropped arguments. I have no problem with kicks, as long as the kick is clear (say the word 'kick') and doesn't undercut your own core premise. I can't flow a really fast round, but hold my own pretty well with the average open or KDC round, and I can often pick out when your card doesn't say what you claim it does. And, yes, I'm a sucker for good diction and delivery; I'll often comment on style, though I generally try to keep it out of my decisions.

Finally, I always prefer that competitors be inherently respectful to each other. Respecting others is a great way to get ahead in life, long after your Debate career is done.

4th year debater. Best debater in Kansas. Be weary...

just have a good debate and don't be mean, debate how you like I will vote on anything. Make sure you answer arguments clearly and talk clearly.

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

Head coach at Shawnee Heights High School in Topeka, Kansas. Assistant coached for Lawrence High School and Seaman High School. I'm a flay judge who errs on the side of a policymaker. I listen to most args, but if we're going to talk about T, please don't claim unfairness/education with the most common aff of the season. Also, I tend to think that delay CPs are cheating 99% of the time.

Parker Mitchell

[unaffiliated]

Updated for: DSDS 2 - Feb '24 - Link to old paradigm (it's still true, but it's too much. This is a shorter version, hopefully less ranty. If you have a specific question, it's likely answered in the linked doc.)

Email: park.ben.mitchell@gmail.com

He/They/She are all fine.

General Opinions

I view debate as a strategic game with a wide range of stylistic and tactical variance. I am accepting (and appreciative of) nearly all strategies within that variance. Although I do try to avoid as much ideological bias as possible, this starting point does color how I view a few things:

First, fairness is an impact, but: Economic collapse is also an impact yet I'm willing to vote DDev, the same holds here. I view Ks and K Affs as a legitimate, but contestable, strategy for winning a ballot. In other words, I will vote for K affs and I will vote for framework and my record is fairly even.

Second, outside of egregiously offensive positions such as Racism, Sexism and Homophobia good, I have very few limitations on what I consider "acceptable" argumentation. Reading arguments on the fringes is exciting and interesting to me. However, explicit slurs (exception - when you are the one affected by that slur) and repeated problematic language is unacceptable.

Third, it affects my views on ethos. I assume most debaters don't buy in 100% to the arguments they make. This is not to say that debate "doesn't shape subjectivity," but it is to say that I assume there is some distance between your words and your being. In other words: There is a distant yet extant relationship between ontology and epistemology.

I find I have an above average stylistic bias to teams that embrace this concept. In other words, teams that aggressively posture (unless they are particularly good and precise about it) tend to alienate me and teams that appear somewhat disaffected tend to have my attention. This is not absolute or inevitable. This operates on the ethos and style level and not on the substance/argumentative level.

Fourth, I will attempt to take very precise notes. My handwriting is awful, but I can read it. I will flow on paper. I will flow straight down and I will not use multiple sheets for one argument (I'm talking Ks too, this isn't parli). I will not follow along with the doc. I will say "clear" if you are unclear during evidence, but not during analytics, that's a you problem. Clarity means I can distinguish each word in the text of the evidence. Cards that continue to be unclear after reminders will be struck from my flow. I flow CX on paper but will stop when the timer does. I will not listen during flex prep, I don't care if you take it.

Experience

13 years of experience in debate. I'm currently working in the legal technology world, not teaching or coaching for the moment. I have been volunteering to assist for Wichita East in a very limited capacity this year, while judging for SME on occasion.

Formerly: 6 years assisting at Shawnee Mission East (KS, 2015-2021), 2 years as Director of Debate and Forensics at Wichita East (KS, 2021-2023). 4 years as a debater for Shawnee Mission East (KS, 2010-2015), 5 years for the University of Missouri-Kansas City (MO - NDT/CEDA, 2015-2020). I have worked intermittently with DEBATE-Kansas City (DKC, MO/KS), Asian Debate League (aka. ADL, Chinese Taipei, 2019-2021), Truman (MO, 2021) and Turner (KS, 2019). 2 years leading labs at UMKC-SDI.

Topic Experience (HS)

19 rounds. Did not coach at a camp and I am not actively coaching, so my experience is middling. I think I have decent familiarity with the topic concepts due to personal interest and participation in past topics, but I'm not exactly up to date. I think my knowledge is rather limited on social security affirmatives. I feel that most teams are broadly misinterpreting the topic and that topicality is quite a good option against most affirmatives.

Topic Experience (College):

Basically 0. I know some NFU stuff from the prez powers topic.

Topic Specific Notes

This is a rant that you should probably take with a grain of salt pre-debate or during prefs, I just think aff strategic choice has suffered this year and can improve.

Outside of K affs, I've been thoroughly unimpressed by most affirmatives on the topic. I think they are largely vulnerable to some easy negative argumentation. I do not think this is because the topic is "biased," but because affirmative teams have been simultaneously uncreative and, when creative, counterproductive. I think the best way of reading a plan aff is by digging in your heels in the topic area and strongly defending redistribution. I think the ways of skirting around to initiate other plan based debates often introduce far more significant strategic issues for the aff than they solve. There seems to be this presumption that winning a dense econ debate is impossible so you have to find a different topic, which to me is both dangerous and lazy. I have actually 0 problem with being lazy, only with the fact that these alternative topics seem to be way worse for the aff than the existing one. See the following paragraph for my earlier rant about this that illustrates one example, however it is not the only example I have seen:

If you read the carbon tax aff - cool, it's not like I'm auto-dropping you but my god, this cannot be the biggest aff on the topic. I'm not sure I've ever seen the biggest aff on the topic stumble into so many (irrelevant and non-topic germane!) weaknesses while revealing so few strengths. Have we all forgotten about basic debate strategy? Trust me, no one is forcing you to read a warming advantage and lose! At some point, this is your own fault. Typically on climate topics judges are prone to give a little leeway to the aff on timeframe just so the topic is debatable - but make no mistake - you will not get that leeway here.

Argument Specific Notes

T - my favorite. Competing interps are best. Precision is less important than debate-ability. "T-USFG" will be flowed as "T-Framework." No "but"s. It's an essential neg strat, but I'm equally willing to evaluate impact turns to framework.

CPs - Condo and "cheating" counterplans are good, unless you win they're bad. Affs should be more offensive on CP theory and focus less on competition minutiae. Don't overthink it.

DAs - low risk of a link = low risk of my ballot. Be careful with these if your case defense/cp isn't great, you can easily be crushed by a good 2AR. I find I have sat or been close to in certain situations where the disad was particularly bad, even if the answers were mostly defense.

Ks - I feel very comfortable in K debates and I think these are where I give the most comments. Recently, I've noticed some K teams shrink away from the strongest version of their argument to hide within the realm of uncertainty. I think this is a mistake. (sidenote - "they answered the wrong argument" is not a "pathologization link", but don't worry, you're probably ahead) (other sidenote - everyone needs a reminder of what "ontology" means)

Etc - My exact speaks thoughts are in the old paradigm, but a sidenote that is relevant for argumentation: my decision is solely based on arguments in the debate (rfd), my speaks arise from the feedback section of my ballot - I will not disclose speaks and I won't give specific speaks based on argument ("don't drop the team, tank my speaks instead" "give us 30s for [insert reason]") I'm much more concerned with your performance in the debate for speaks, argumentation only has a direct impact on my vote and not other parts of my ballot.

****************************************************

that should be all you need before a debate. there are more things in the doc linked at the top including opinions on speaks, disclosure, ethics as well as appendices for online debates and other events.

I did POI.

1) Did you debate in high school?

No

2) Did you debate in college?

No

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

none

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

4-5

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

I. Which best describes your priorities in judging debates?

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

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

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

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

b. Moderate contest rate (e.g. – extemp) faster speed discouraged.

IV. Counterplans are:

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

V. Topicality is:

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

VI. I find generic disadvantages:

b. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

VII. I find kritiks:

b. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

Hi, I'm Frances Parker (any pronouns)

I debated at Lawrence High School for 4 years, and I am debating at KU now

I'm really excited to be judging, I love debate so much, and I really am trying my best to be a good and educational judge!

add me to the email chain francesesparker@gmail.com

How to pref me:

1- KvK, KvPolicy Aff, KvFW, Soft or Hard Left Impact and Case turns,

2- T v Policy aff,

3- Multi plank cp,

4- racism, homophobia, sexism, ableism etc,

General things:

truth=tech

speed is fine but send out your speeches and slow on tags and analytics a bit, not sending out analytics usually feels a little ableist. I want you to feel confident enough as a debater that you dont need to do little tricks to scare the other people (and me)

run whatever you love, I'll pretty much vote on anything. I love k's and k affs- just be in the direction of the topic. I am most familiar with ableism, imperialism, anti-blackness, queer k, and a little cap

please have fun, smile, and i love a joke but I also like people who don't sacrifice offensiveness in their ethos

if you do speeches well off the flow and off the dome I'll hype your speaks up.

I am pre-med and majoring in molecular biology and math which really influences who I am.

I think ethos, confidence, and speech cadence is one of the most important things and that is so much forgotten. Give me that amazing judge instruction that I can't disagree with.

At the end of the day, my opinions only mean so much, I will adjudicate based on what you want me to think is the most important, and I will vote for what is

K specific:

Super great!! I love to see specific links and really good case specificity. I think that I am in general a big fan of big picture k's that display how this case in particular feeds into structures that negatively harm the world. Having a good alt and a good alt articulation I think is really powerful. If you make an alt really seem like a net ben to the aff that they can't solve because of their links, I think that is really compelling. K's v K affs are good too. I

have fun:~)

Policy: 

I did four years of policy debate in high school and now am doing NFA-LD (basically one-person policy) at the collegiate level. So you can use all the lingo. I am primarily a policymaker and stock issues judge. 

I like DA's a lot. Especially if the impacts can be both realistic and terminal. Impact calc is important. I also value uniqueness it has towards aff directly. Generic DAs are fine if you are going to throw it or just need more on the flow. 

Love CPs and theory. I'm down for any theory debates as long as it does not take away from education in round or stray too far away from the topic/valid abuse claims. Any CP debates are fine with me. If aff claims abuse with certain CP conditions they really have to prove it. 

Not the biggest fan of K Affs but you can run them. Ks themselves I can vibe with as long as they have a solid link and alt. If the alt can still happen in an aff world and be permed, aff gets the vote just based on real-world impacts. 

I am good with speed but just make sure signposting is clear and send out your speech if your gonna do it. 

LD: 

I am a policy debater at heart but not all policy practices are acceptable for LD. It's important to break down your case, voters, frame, and criterion clearly, especially during rebuttals. Be respectful during round.

If it comes down to value vs value you need to give me voters on why yours should be preferred. 

I did high school debate all 4 years at Washburn Rural. I qualified for Nationals in Policy debate my junior year in 2005.

I also coached for Washburn Rural for two years while I was in college.

I personally preferred debate in a policy making paradigm but feel free to run whatever arguments you'd like.

I can also handle speed but I have never judged via Zoom so be aware that I can only flow if I am able to hear through the computer audio.

I really miss debate and look forward to whatever you would like to run today.

Hey yall!

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

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

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

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

I competed in policy debate for 3 years in high school and this is my 6th year coaching policy.

Language matters to me. I will dock your speaker points or vote you down for racism, sexism, ableism, etc. regardless of the outcome of the round. I don't tolerate rudeness and am not impressed by competitors who attempt to humiliate others. Be kind.

Give me a content warning if you are going to read domestic/sexual violence content - if you don't, you risk disrupting my ability to focus on your arguments.

I am a tab ras judge but probably default to policymaker if I'm not given framework to evaluate the round. If you don't answer framework, you will probably lose. I'll evaluate the round the way you tell me to.

I will listen to pretty much anything you want, and can handle moderate to high speed. If you are worried about speed, slow your tags and things will probably be fine. Don't spread to push the other team out - that's bad for debate and it's also just rude.

I'm fine listening to the K or critical AFFs, but if you can't explain it I probably won't vote on it - I may or may not be familiar with your lit ahead of time. Assume I'm not, and give strong analysis. If you are running the K only as a "gotcha" I will not be impressed and probably won't vote on it. Don't co-opt others' narratives in order to win debates.

I like theory args but I won't vote on theory based on strictly reading some blocks. Do the work.

I like specific links on disads and specific solvency on CPs but I will listen to generic args. Don't neglect the impact debate. It would take a lot (basically proven, in-round abuse) to get me to vote on condo bad.

T is my favorite argument of all time and I love love love a good T debate. I really hate voting on reasonability (but I have) and will default to competing interpretations. That said, I will listen to everything and make a careful decision, so do the work on the flow. The standards debate is especially key for me.

In general, I am not a fan of teams that try to bludgeon their opponents. If you are winning, I will know that. It is never necessary to treat others poorly to win.

Questions? Ask!

Hello! My name is Chase. I am debate coach in southeast Kansas.

I use a tabula rasa ("clean slate") paradigm, so it is important to teach me your framework. Tell me how to evaluate the round. I do believe stock issues and comparative advantages are equally important. Counterplans and kritiks are acceptable if they are well-structured and thoroughly-explained. As for theoretical arguments, such as topicality or specification arguments, I think they're important, too, and I will resolve them before weighing other arguments in the round.

I am most attentive during roadmaps, signposts, taglines, emphasized words, summaries of evidence, and points of analysis. I sometimes lose interest while you are reading cards. I prefer relevant arguments that you can articulate and explain. Your arguments should have strong links, internal links, and probable impacts. I don't think debate is a "game." I think it is a search for truth.

As for speed, I prefer a moderate pace. Communicate.

gwrevaredebate@gmail.com

Put me on the chain.

He/them.

SME HS '20. KU '24.

My job is to adjudicate the flow with minimal intervention. Optimal debate involves organization, impact calc, judge instruction, line-by-line, and evidence comparison. Few things that I've listed below are immutable, and my attitude towards most positions can be reversed by persuasive debating. Do your thing.

10 minutes before the round version:

---Send me a card doc. I care about evidence quality and will assign much more weight to cards highlighted to make arguments.

---Generally, neg-ish on theory.

---Will evaluate re-highlightings until someone contests it, which they should.

---I flow CX. "What cards did you read?" is a CX question. "Where did you mark this card?" is not.

---Don't cut undergrads. Or high schoolers. I'll evaluate these cards as analytics.

---Don't be a bigot, obviously.

---Lenient with new 1AR arguments ONLY if the 1NC is big or positions change substantially in the block.

---Addressing me by name during a speech is jarring.

---I will not vote on things that happened outside of the debate. I have no way of verifying them, and I am not comfortable rendering judgement on the moral character of a high schooler.

Practices that will have a negative impact on your speaks:

---re-reading constructive blocks in rebuttals

---deliberately avoiding line-by-line

---spreading your blocks at full speed

---demanding a 30

Practices that will have a positive impact on your speaks:

---word economy

---vertical argument development

---flowability

Pet peeves that bother me but will have no impact on my decision/your speaker points:

---"default to"

---"run" to refer to reading an argument

---the letter abbreviation of CP ("see pee")

Longer version:

Here are my general leanings:

1---Tech over truth. My role is to adjudicate the debate with minimal intervention. I am flow-centric and will vote for arguments I think are bad.

2---Aff: I believe affs should have a solvency advocate, and the absence of one will dramatically lower the threshold for negative evidence quality.

Well developed/highlighted advantages >impact spam.

3---DAs: The more they clash with the affirmative, the better.

Politics debates can be really great. Given the high school topic committee's tendency to pick resolutions that leave the negative with exclusively neg ground written by racists---or no neg ground at all---they are crucial counterweights. But when your neg strat begins to revolve around power-tagged cards from cryptic articles about the Secretary of Defense, you'll begin to lose me.

4---Kritiks.

I am good for technical K debaters.

You are most likely to be successful if you develop 2-4 diverse links and consistently articulate your theory of power. Reading links to the plan, drawing lines from the 1AC, and articulating turns case analysis will substantially increase your speaks and likelihood of winning.

Please do not use rhetoric in your tags or blocks that isn't in your literature base.

I am least experienced with method debates. My only requirement is that you negate the desirability of something in the 1AC---I will be extremely skeptical of negative strategies that generate offense off of omission.

5---Topicality: My thoughts here are mostly conventional, except:

---More aff-leaning than most. T is not like other arguments; it's escape hatch from substance.

---I probably value ground over limits. Bounded topics are only good if they give the neg something to say, and strong generics help functionally narrow the scope of viable affirmatives.

Reasonability is the argument that the substance crowd-out created by going topicality outweighs the number of affirmatives excluded by the neg's interp. I think of this as, if nothing else, impact framing; it requires you have a C/I that you meet.

6---CPs:

Comparative solvency advocates are the gold standard.

Having a topic-relevant solvency advocate will make me more sympathetic to CPs that derive competition from immediacy/certainty. I understand that sometimes topics are massive and that the high school resolution commonly leaves the neg without ground. Process hence becomes a reluctant but necessary backstop.

I am highly inclined to judge competition by mandate. Spill-up or spillover arguments do not render a CP non-competitive.

PICing out of something in the plantext is good.

7---Case: No aff solves. The fact neg teams are often reluctant to prove that is a critical mistake. Good case debating wins debates and will lead me to boost your speaks.

Soft-left affs: Framing debates are frequently superficial. Good framing debates (oxymoron) involve comparison of your model of ethics---the advantages and disadvantages to each.

8---Planless or kritikal affirmatives:

I'll vote for you. Your best angle against topicality involves a C/I, a defense of a clearly-articulated model of debate, and one to three central points of well-impacted offense.

I consider K affs that defend impact-turnable positions more persuasive on T.

Topicality is not a "reverse-voting issue" if the neg kicks it.

9---Framework: Go for whichever impact you prefer, though my personal take is that skills impacts are inferior to fairness standards. I find presumption compelling.

T could be different from framework, but any conceptual distinction between the two seems difficult to maintain given their colloquial interchangeability.

10---CX: I flow it. Weaponize CX to lower the threshold for CP solvency, stick the aff to debating impact turns, etc. Doing so will boost your speaks.

11---I will reward speaker points for evidence and warrant comparison, ethos, not lying, and being funny.

12---Clipping, claiming to have read cards you didn't, etc---will guarantee a loss. I'm not a stickler about certain things; accidentally skipping a word or two happens sometimes. That is distinct from bypassing entire lines or passages. That is premeditated cheating, which will not be tolerated.

Have fun. Judging is a privilege.

Amanda Reynolds

She/her pronouns

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough"

-Albert Einstein

Mill Valley '21

Yes email chain: reynoama000@usd232.org

I am a paper flow debater.

I am more of a policy debater than I am a K/theory debater, so plan accordingly. I would usually run CP's and DA's but I can appreciate a good K/theory argument. K's are not cheaty to me so know that argument will not work. Use whatever you can to your advantage in a debate round.

Tech < Truth

General/Misc things:

-If you are going to go for extinction good arguments, then you will be at a disadvantage.

-Spreading; Do it if you want to, but make sure that if you want me to flow it, slow it down.

-I like teams that flash. Not flashing seems rude to me, especially if you are a spreader. It won't cause you to lose, but it will cause a loss in speaker points.

-Please give a verbal indication when you are going onto your next card, especially if you have not flashed the doc so that I know when there is another card and I can keep watch on the doc.

-Reading your ev; I love when people get into their arguments. Use emotion and show me that you believe that you are right. Will get you more speaker points.

-CX; Do not be rude and don't look aggressive. Try to get at their evidence. Make sure you try and bring things from CX into the arg because it shows that you are listening.

-Please watch your language, especially with certain arguments.

-Explaining arguments in simple terms during CX, the rebuttals, and/or impact calc will earn you extra speaker points.

-If you are using the phone as a timer please do not use the alarm one.

-Don't steal prep. Easiest way to end up with low speaks.

-Clipping cards will also lose you speaker points if not disqualify you immediately.

-Flow; Flow everything. Shows me that you are taking this seriously.

Argument overviews:

K: Don't totally understand these, but if time is taken to explain then you will be good to go. Explain perms and framework, especially your epistemology and ontology. If you do not know how to beat a K because you don't understand it, then use your aff to explain how you beat the K because you should know this, I will vote if you can explain how the aff solves the K, or outweighs the K.

CP: Love these things. I will not vote to disbar the team unless I truly feel that the CP is cheating, whether I already feel that or the aff does a good job convincing me, but I will most likely only disregard the argument if it is conceded. On certain perms, you may need to explain how the perm works and do that in the one where you introduce the perms.

DA: I run these things all the dang time. Please give impact calc, that will be the MAIN thing that I will vote on if I have not been convinced by cards. Timeframe and magnitude=timeframe and probability>probability and magnitude, unless you can successfully convince me that you are more probable and way worse. If you can successfully prove that you outweigh on at least two of the three, then I will most likely flow the arg your way, this also goes for K's.

Case: Please defend your case! Do not forget about your case! If you can extend your case to the neg's arguments, DO THAT! Arguments should not just be the stuff introduced to that argument. I will vote neg if I feel the neg can destroy any part of the 5 stock issues. Case turns should be used a lot by the aff.

Topicality: Point out what context their def is in. I will vote for the most relevant def in the round, if you can prove that to me. Neg team, please have standards and voters, along with a violation, when you introduce a T arg. Aff team, you also need standards and voters when you argue T. If the neg brings up a T arg in the 2NC, then I will most likely disregard it because Topicality should have been introduced in the 1NC if you felt that there was a T violation. Here is my T def line up on authors: Supreme Court decision defs>Regulation codes/government codes>District courts>Dictionary defs (unless proven that the Supreme Court uses this which would be the first one). Do not make an argument about how big your school is, I find that to be whiny and I will NOT vote for you on that basis and I WILL dock speaks if that argument is EVER given seriously.

K affs: I can understand these, especially if I have seen them before, but make sure that you know and can explain your aff because if you can not explain the aff, that is not going to end well for you.

I debated in HS a million years ago. So long ago, you should consider me a lay judge. I'm not impressed with technical talk, but you do need to follow the basic rules of debate. Affirmative: you need to make a prima facie case. Negative: you need to tell me why the Affirmative did not make its prima facie case.

Above all, Debate is an exercise in 2 things: communication and persuasion. Do both of those things. The side that wins will ultimately be the one that is the most effective at communicating and persuading me.

Turn off #1: Talking too fast. I can flow pretty fast. I went to college and took notes in class before laptops which means I took them BY HAND. If you see that I have stopped writing, that means you are talking too fast and I am not going to give myself a hand cramp trying to keep up

Turn Off #2: Please use all of your time for all speeches and all CX! It is your time! It is INSANE to not use all of it!

Turn Off #3: Racism, sexism, cursing, and unkindness. I am a mom. Do not come at me with any of this nonsense. I mean it.

Turn Off #4: Mispronouncing words. Read through your evidence. If you do not know how to pronounce a word, work that out before you say it in a round. It is easy to do, just show it to your parent or your coach and say "how do you pronounce this". Saying a word incorrectly tells me that you do not know your evidence very well. If you do not know your evidence, then you do not even understand your own argument so you can not expect me to either. Capeesh?

Aside from the above turn offs, you can not go wrong in my book. I am a mom through and through which means I look at all of you and think you hung the moon that very day. By merely getting up this morning and showing up for this debate makes you a superstar in my book. Have fun and good luck!

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

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

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

I 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.

Me Questions

My debate experience is that I debated all four years of high school at Lawrence High School. After graduating I went on to compete at the college level in CEDA Debate. I went to two Ceda national Tournaments and at both, I went to deep out rounds. I have judged in both the Kansas School District debates and Debate KC leagues.

Policy Questions

Now onto the part you really care about. I have seen maybe not all of the arguments, but most, run anything in front of me, I will flow it. I love debate, and the great things that we get to read while competing, so go for it! My one thing is Please, don't make me listen to an entire round talking about topicality unless you have a very good reason as to why the aff isn't topical under the resolution. I will follow it, but I won't be the happiest. I also really enjoy impact calc, if you have the ability to tell me the impact of your side and outweigh it to the other teams, I will be a happy camper.

Fairness Questions

Please do not off time prep in front of me. As both a competitor and a judge, it irritates me, I will come after your speaker points, you have been warned.

Please when you are using prep time, that included drafting the doc that you send in the email chain or file drop. Don't waste the already backed up and long rounds because you want to take extra prep, that's cheating.

Other things

Please keep road maps short, their job is to just tell me what order to get my papers in. You do not have to tell the judges what arguments you are making on any of the pages.

update for post LHS tournament:

If I judged you at the LHS tournament and told you you could reach out to me for questions about taxes and run DA's and counterplans past me to see if they make sense, please feel free to email me at amyjsand @ gmail.com

Please introduce yourselves and tell me your school and speaker positions but let's skip the handshakes and fist bumps, k? :)

Debate paradigm:

• I feel like this season, I should disclose I’m an enrolled agent (certified by the IRS) and prepare business and personal taxes for a living. I know a lot about taxes. :-)

First of all, I'm what I'd consider an experienced lay judge, so if you speak too fast and lose me, you're in trouble. My daughter debated 4 years at Lawrence High and is now on the Kansas State debate team, so I'm not completely inexperienced, but I'm not an expert by any means. I try to flow as best I can so be clear and signpost and give me your analytics. I'm a Truth over Tech judge.

Please add me to your email chain: amyjsand @ gmail.com (or if you do speech drop please give me the code)

I like soft left impacts I can understand like racism, but since I work as an accountant... I really like policy impact, especially economic. Give me some good impact calc!

If you think you are winning an argument, explain to me WHY you are winning. It's especially helpful if you can explain things to me in an innovative way, it shows me that you really understand and believe in your argument.

The main thing for me? Don't be rude. I enjoy judging debate and I like hearing a good argument. Convince me you're right, make me think, and make my decision difficult. Good luck and most of all have fun!

Hello!

I've judged Debate for about 6 years, and have been an assistant Debate coach for the last 3 seasons. Although I did not Debate in high school, I consider myself a fairly experienced judge.

I prefer to judge based on Policy Making (the Legislative Model). In other words, I weigh the affirmative and negative arguments against each other and make my decision based on the comparison of pros and cons presented in the round. Common solvency arguments (impracticability, insufficiency, counterproductivity, etc.) dis-ads, and inherency arguments all play a role in this comparison.

In evaluating topicality, the impact calculus of the round plays a large factor in my decision, but can be overruled by debatability and fairness. In other words, if you are providing an argument that does not give the opposing team a fair opportunity to debate and reap the educational rewards of the round, it will count against you in my ballot.

In terms of speed, I am comfortable with rapid speech, but (and I cannot stress this enough) it MUST BE COMPREHENSIBLE. If you are spreading so fast that you're stumbling over words, mumbling, not enunciating clearly, or anything else that does not allow me to understand your argument, it will certainly count against you in the ballot.

I am not comfortable giving oral feedback at the end of rounds or revealing the results of a round. All feedback will be included in my ballots.

If you have any other questions about my paradigm or require any clarification, you are more than welcome to ask me before the start of the round. Good luck, and most importantly, have fun!

Email: bradleyschrock@ku.edu

I know nothing about this topic so you'll have to bear with me sorry everybody!

I did debate at Lawrence high for 4 years, rumor has it that I may have even won a tournament one time and was probably part of one of the most okay KDC teams LHS ever had. I can hopefully still flow alright so as long as you aren't super fast we'll probably be okay.

I've copied the relevant portions of my old paradigm below but I will reiterate that you probably shouldn't run a K unless it's very simple.

Okay also one last thing if you're doing something tricky to try to trip up the other team remember that I am probably also going to be confused and/or annoyed (not giving out speech docs, reading your tags weird, if you have to ask don't do it). Like everything there's probably a line but I think you should be nice in debates is all.

- tech>truth (this is probably mostly true I just said it because everyone else does)

-CPs need a text (in the doc please) and I think perms do too (I'll still listen to it if it doesn't have a text but I think it's annoying and bad). This is primarily so that everyone has one set statement to go back to when debating about the logistics of perms and CPs later in the round, it holds each team to an advocacy position.

-If your disad doesn't have an impact I don't care about it.

-If you're running a k we probably both don't understand what's going on.

-I won't do extension work for you because I don't debate anymore that means I don't have to and you are therefore cursed with that burden. This means that I will vote on arguments that might have been weak but went unanswered. EXTEND YOUR IMPACTS

-As someone that ran lots of sneaky affs that were usually effects or extratopical, I usually have sort of a high bar for these to be really that abusive. They definitely can be but you'll have to convince me more than just saying that they are.

Experienced debater and judge. Anything goes. If you win it, I'll vote for it. Ok with speed, but it's been a few years so a little rusty.

I am currently an elected official, 16 years as County Clerk/County Election Official, and have over 20 years experience in politics and policy. I work at the state and national level on elections policy and legislation. My background is in Speech and Forensics, have judged Forensics and Congress but new to judging Policy Debate, so clarity and sign posting can be helpful. Working at levels of government, I am extremely familiar with policy, legislative processes and political issues. I appreciate logical well researched arguments presented professionally and look forward to teams using those tools to persuade me. Ad hominem, insulting or demeaning arguments don't work for me. Because of my background, presentation does play into speaker points, be sure I can understand you so extensively spreading not appreciated. Cross-X and clash are vital part of the debate round, if used sucessfully it can strategically set-up your position and also give the judge reasons for voting against the other ballot.

Last update September 2023 in an attempt to majorly condense down to what you actually want to know.

Yes email chain (I like Speechdrop or Tabroom Share even better but will defer to what y'all want) - eskoglund@gmail.com

POLICY DEBATE

Background

Olathe South 2001, 1 year at KU

Head coach, Olathe Northwest HS, Kansas (assistant 2006-2016, head 2016-present)

90%+ of my judging is on a local circuit with varying norms for speed, argumentation, etc.

1) My most confident decisions happen in policymaker-framed rounds. I will do my best to follow you to other places where the debate takes us.

2) If your aff doesn't advocate a topical plan text, the burden is on you to ensure that I understand your advocacy and framework. If you don't make at least an attempt to relate to the resolution, it's going to be very hard for you.

3) I flow what I hear but I will follow speech docs to watch for clipping. Egregious clipping will lead me to decide the round even if a formal challenge is not filed.

4) Whether you've got a plan, an advocacy statement, or whatever - much of the work coming out of camps is so vague as to be pointless. You don't need a six plank plan or a minute of clarification, but a plan should be more than the resolution plus a three word mission statement. I will err neg on most questions of links and/or theory when affirmatives ignore this.

5) I don't judge kick unless given explicit instruction to that effect. Conditional 2NRs are gross.

6) Flow the debate, not the speech doc.

7) Anytime you're saying words you want on my flow, those need to not be at 400 wpm please.

8) On T, I primarily look for a competing interpretation framework. "Reasonability" to me just means that I can find more than one interpretation acceptable, not that you don't have to meet an interp. My understanding of T is more "old school" than a lot of the rest of arguments; a T debate that talks a lot about offense/defense and not a lot about interpretations/violations is less likely to be something I comprehend in the way you want.

9) Long pre-written overviews in rebuttals are neither helpful nor persuasive.

10) I will not lie to your coach about the argumentation that is presented in the round. I will not tolerate the debate space being used to bully, insult, or harass fellow competitors. I will not evaluate personal disputes between debaters.

11) I think disclosure probably ought to be reciprocal. If you mined the aff's case from the wiki then I certainly hope you are disclosing negative positions. My expectations for disclosure are dependent on the division and tournament, and can be subject to theory which is argued in the round. DCI debaters in Kansas should be participating in robust disclosure, at a minimum after arguments have been presented in any round of a tournament.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

First and foremost, this is a debate event. Any speech after the authorship/sponsorship speech should be making direct, meaningful reference to prior speakers in the debate. Simply repeating or rehashing old points is not an effective use of your, or my, time. Several speeches in a row on the same side is almost always bad debate, so you should be prepared to speak on both sides of most legislation.

The fastest path to standing out in most chambers is to make it clear that you're debating the actual content of the legislation, not just some vague idea of the title. Could I get your speech by just Googling a couple of words in the topic, or have you actually gotten into the specific components of the legislation before you?

I come from the policy debate planet originally but that doesn't mean I want you to speed. We have different events for a reason.

Role playing is generally good, particularly if we're at a circuit or national tournament where your constituents might be different from others in your chamber.

I notice and appreciate effective presiding officers who know the rules and work efficiently, and will rank you highly if your performance is exemplary.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE

Speed is fine but I will not clear you (see longer discussion in policy below). I come from a fairly traditional LD circuit, so while I can understand policy type argumentation, my decision calculus may be a bit unpredictable if you just make this a 1 on 1 CX round with too-short speech times.

I am watching for clipping and will directly intervene against you if you clip cards in a way that I judge to be egregious, even if the issue is not raised in the round.

My default way of evaluating an LD round is to compare the impacts presented by both sides through the lens of each side's value and criterion, if presented. If you want me to do something different please run a clear role of the ballot or framework argument and proactively defend why your approach is predictable enough to create fair debate.

Your last 1-2 minutes, at least, should be spent on the big picture writing my reason for decision. Typically the debater who does this more clearly and effectively will win my ballot.

PUBLIC FORUM

Clash is super important to all forms of debate and is most often lacking in PF. You need to be comparing arguments and helping me weigh impacts.

Pointing at evidence is not incorporating it into the round. If you don't actually read evidence I won't give it any more weight than if you had just asserted the claim yourself. Smaller quotations are fine, but the practice of "this is true and we say this from Source X, Source Y, and the Source Z study" is anti-educational.

Click here for Keiv Spare's Lincoln-Douglas paradigm.

Quick Summary of my paradigm if you don't have time to read the entire thing:
The team with the smarter arguments and the smarter strategy is going to win my ballot. Speed is okay. Classic policy maker / stock issues judge.

Debate Experience: 4 years at Parsons High School (Kansas). Debated at champ level (a.k.a. varsity or DCI division), won medals and trophies, won a lot more rounds than lost. Qualified to NFL nationals in forensics. Was member of numerous state champion teams in debate and forensics, and was quarterfinalist at nationals in expository. I attended camp at Emporia State University and Fort Hays State University and was coached by NFL hall of fame coaches and CEDA national champions.

Have helped with camps at Kansas State University and The University of Kansas, and have assistant coached and sponsored for high school teams for coaches that I am friends with, including coaching two cx teams at NSDA nationals in Kansas City in 2010, a cx team at NSDA nationals in Florida in 2018, and

2011 321A 2-Speaker 1st Place (Curt Lockwood & Jessica Wells - Caney Valley High School)
2011 321A 2-Speaker 3rd Place (Bruce Williams & Caleb McIntosh - Caney Valley High School)
2012 321A 2-Speaker 1st Place (Jeremy Nave & Jessica Wells - Caney Valley High School)
2013 321A 2-Speaker 1st Place (Alexis Brey & Alex Vore - Caney Valley High School)
2016 4A 4-Speaker 1st Place (Seth Cross, Zach Humble, Joe Adams, Isabella Provence - Fort Scott High School)
2018 4A 2-Speaker 2nd Place (Zoe Self, Elizabeth Ngatia - Fort Scott High School)
2019 4A 2-Speaker 1st Place (Zoe Self, Elizabeth Ngatia - Fort Scott High School)
2020 4A 2-Speaker 1st Place and 2nd Place (closeout) (Zoe Self, Elizabeth Ngatia, Madi Toth, Dalton Womeldorf - Fort Scott High School)
2021 4A 2-Speaker 2nd Place (Neil Gugnani, Shekhar Gugnani - Fort Scott High School)

Have judged at least one tournament in Kansas or Missouri every year since 1993, and have judged NFL nationals off and on since the late 90s whenever the tournament has been in the midwest, but recently have judged nationals almost every year including the most recent tournaments in Florida and Texas, and the online nationals in 2020 and 2021.

Pet peeves: Overuse of acronyms and abbreviations without defining them. Mispronouncing words. My skin crawls when students repeatedly use verbal hedges such as "like", "I mean", "you know"/"you know what I mean"/"you know what I'm sayin'", "kind of", "sort of", "and stuff", "or something" and "or whatever", "basically", "literally", "obviously", etc. Don't say "I can see nothing but a (neg/aff) ballot." (Don't be cliché.)

Pet peeves that shouldn't even need to be said, but they happen so much that I feel obliged to actually put this in writing: It's ok to shake my hand and introduce yourself or thank me at the end of the round, but do not try to peek at the ballot during or after the round. Do not take up time by asking each individual person in the room if they are ready at the beginning of your speech - if the judge doesn't look ready, ask, but nobody cares if your partner is ready. Neg team: do not noisily pack up your stuff during the 2AR. Do not talk loudly to your partner during your opponents' speeches. Do not steal prep time. Do not stand next to the person speaking and impatiently await the evidence they're reading. Don't stand behind the person speaking and read over their shoulder. No oral prompting during speeches please.

Arrive to the round on time. Do not dawdle getting ready for the round to begin. DO NOT MAKE THE TOURNAMENT RUN BEHIND. Be prepared: Bring a timer to the tournament. Have an extra PAPER copy of your case. Know how to correctly pronounce every word in your 1AC. Charge your laptop battery before the tournament. Bring flash drives. Bring extension cords. Use the restroom before the round. Be a responsible, respectful, and courteous professional.

Likes: Organized (signposting, numbering, line-by-line), real-world, smart, clever, unique, efficient, strategic arguments which showcase the debater's individual thought process. Strategic use of cross x. Partners working together on an effective strategy. Emotion, energy, personality, originality, humor. Overviews, weighing of arguments, concise and intelligent explanations. Intros, conclusions. Every speech in open division should have an intro and a conclusion. NO "with this I can see nothing but an affirmative/negative ballot" IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE CONCLUSION. (the Intro/Conclusion requirement applies more to open division and less so to champ division). If you're going to run long complicated arguments, it's best to explain them at the beginning and throughout rather than at the end so the judges aren't confused the entire time - the team that spends the least amount of time confusing the judges usually wins.

Dislikes: Thoughtless, disorganized, generic babble. Monotonic regurgitation. Lack of strategy. Lots of cards with no supplemental explanations or logic/reasoning/applying by the debater. Partners not working together. Inefficiency. Debates about debate (i.e. fighting over whether debate rules allow or disallow a particular type of argument. Spend your time arguing the merits of the argument, not whether the rules allow it or not.)

Speed: Haven't heard anyone yet who is so fast I can't flow them. However, don't try to speed if you're not good at it. Some of the best debaters I've heard have a slower conversational delivery. Hint: You can win many a round by giving a conversational 2AR to a judge who has heard nothing but speed all day - it can be an oasis of relief.

Topicality: Don't run it if you plan on punting it (but don't be afraid to punt it if you're losing it). Don't run it for no reason. If you think you can win it, absolutely run it. Running topicality exponentially increases the chances of a neg ballot, because much of the time the aff loses, not because they wouldn't have been easily able to prove they were topical, but because they dismiss the topicality argument and don't give it the attention it deserves.

I may actually get ticked at you if you don't run it when the case is obviously non topical, or is quasi topical and could be easily beaten with a competent topicality argument. Topicality arguments must be structured with standards and warrants. Legal or contextual definitions are best for violations. I will accept regular dictionary definitions for counter interps.

Extratopicality: Know what this is and run it. I see far too many cases in which the bulk of the plan and case is extra topical. This is an excellent tool for the 1NC toolkit.

Effects Topicality: I rarely see cases that are blatantly effects topical, but it has happened. You have to really be in serious violation of taking too many steps for me to consider this argument. More often than not the negative runs this by inventing steps (first the house has to vote on it, then the senate, then the president has to sign it, then someone has to make a phone call, then they have to transfer the money, then they have to....etc etc) Every plan has these steps, this does not make it effects topical. Rarely is a plan in violation, but on the rare occasion that it is, the neg would be wise to run this (ask yourself, "Does the plan text in a vacuum achieve the advantages or are other steps required?").

New disads in the 2NC or having the 1N run disads and the 2N take case: All of this is fine, I grew up with case in the 1NC and disads in the 2NC, but the neg can do it however they see fit as long as the strategy is smart and makes sense. Presenting a disad shell in the 1N and expanding it in the 2N is fine too.

Disads that are created in the round and specifically tailored to the case are my favorite. Seems like no one does this anymore. Generic politics disads are discouraged, however a politics disad that is case-specific, unique and has good timely evidence can be great.

Backlash Disads: The only kinds of disads I don't like are backlash disads - the idea that we shouldn't pass the Aff plan because some people (usually terrorists, the KKK, or some other "bad guys") won't like it, and they'll riot or start a war or blow something up in retaliation. I've never been a fan of not doing a good thing because it would upset some bad people, so this by itself is not reason enough for me to not vote for an otherwise good plan. However a backlash disad can provide weight to the negative side when accompanied by other arguments such as a counter plan that solves the harms but avoids the disad. Before you run this kind of disad with me, be sure it's not simply an anti-progress position of backing down to terrorist demands and letting the bad guys win.

Conditionality: When I was a debater, I ran conditional arguments, so I'm open to hearing them. However they must be run well. Don't use conditionality as an excuse to run a bunch of random arguments that don't work at all together or make any sense (the throw a bunch of crap against the wall and see what sticks approach), and expect me to accept them because I'm saying here that I am open to conditionality. Be smart. Use conditionality as part of your toolkit to defeat an affirmative case, but don't abuse it. I'll give you leeway, but for instance if you run a critique that has a moral imperative voter on it, and you are emphatic about how this voter is the most important issue in the round, and then you (or your partner) turn around and run five disads which specifically contradict said voter - then I'm going to have trouble taking you seriously and I'm going to be very sympathetic to the aff when in their next speech they accuse you of being insincere about both your disads and your critique voter. Conditionality is acceptable to a point, but overall as a judge what I'd like to see a neg team do is present an intelligent consistent strategy against the case. Conditional arguments can be part of this strategy (i.e. to set up dilemmas), but don't run diametrically opposing arguments unless it makes sense to do so. Just because two arguments can theoretically link to a case doesn't mean you should run them both. Stop and think first if it makes sense. As far as conditionality in terms of the neg being able to kick out of any position at any time without being penalized - yes, I believe in this. However, I'm not too sympathetic to teams who run bad arguments as a time suck and then punt them. I'd rather see a team spend their time running good arguments. It is completely okay to go for the arguments you have the best chances of winning at the end and punt ones that are lost causes.

Counterplans, Plan Inclusive Counterplans, Critiques, Critical Aff's, Goals-Criteria & Plan-Meet-Need Cases, and other miscellany: I'm open to just about anything as long as it's run competently as part of a thoughtful strategy. Run a critique because the case calls for it. Do not run a critique as a way to avoid case debate. Don't run something if you don't understand it. Don't run something if your only motive is to confuse the other team - you'll probably end up confusing yourself and the judges as well. Critical aff's, counterplans, critiques, philosophical arguments and policy debates which end up sounding like LD rounds can make debate more fun and interesting.

If your counterplan is plan-inclusive, it's a good idea to run topicality against the aff, or run extratopicality against yourself so your counterplan remains non-topical. Counterplans must be nontopical - trying to get me to budge on that will be an uphill battle, but I could be persuaded if you are extremely convincing and the circumstances warrant. However, I will have a default sympathy with an aff who claims abuse against a topical counterplan. Multiple counterplans are okay, again as long as it makes sense.

Tag team cross X is okay unless the tournament rules forbid it, but don't abuse this.

I prefer the person who gives the 1AC give the 1AR, the 2AC the 2AR, the 1NC the 1NR and the 2NC the 2NR, mostly because this keeps speaker points simple. You should only really switch if you think it is absolutely necessary to do so to win the round. If you do switch, make sure you tell me before you do it.

Overall:

What is probably most enjoyable to me is watching the student's mind work - seeing a good 1NC rip a case to shreds with their own individual analysis is worth more to me than a spread of cards that the student didn't even research themselves.

I confess I probably put more emphasis on speaking skills than most flow judges (although I think most judges do, they just don't admit it or realize it). I've often found myself using skills as a speaker point tie breaker when the arguments were moot.

One good succinct original thought that tears through an opponent's argument can win a round or score a student a better speaker point.

The team with the smarter arguments and the smarter strategy is going to win my ballot.

p.s. After writing all this, I realize it may appear that I have a neg bias. I don't. I'm a progressive-minded person and generally like to see change to the status quo as long as the proposal is a good one. I want to see positive change, but I don't want to pass bad plans. Run a good case and argue it well and you have a good chance of winning.

Debated for four years at Blue Valley Southwest ['21]. I know very little about the water topic, so try to avoid using too many acronyms [without explanation] or assuming I know general topic information.

Add me to the email chain: rorystanfield03@gmail.com

I'll keep this short and sweet:

At the end of the day, it is up to YOU to make your points known and understood by me.

1) "spreading" is okay...but only if you are articulate, you enunciate, and you have a reason for doing it (see my comment on 'fact vomiting below). The argument wins the day, not the speed at which you deliver your speech.

2) I will judge on anything where a successful and convincing argument is made.

3) Telling me that a something flows isn't the same thing as telling me WHY or HOW that point is still valid in this round. Pointing out that the opponent dropped something OR that they ignored a point you made is a vaiid way to do this.

4) Any appeal to "common sense" MUST also include WHY you believe that your statement can be unsupported by evidence. Remember, YOU have to make your argument

5) you need to define ALL Acronyms that you are using BEFORE you are using them.

6) Not a big fan of Jargon....best to not use it.

7) Fact Vomiting is simply not good debate...its a crutch for a bad argument. Every card that you read should support your argument, and YOU have to tell me how each of them do that.

8) argumentum ad novitatem (appeal to the new) IS A LOGICAL FALLACY. YOU have to tell me WHY a newer argument, study, or fact is better. Nobody expects you to be an expert in every field, but you need to understand how your evidence works within your argument, plan, or counter-plan.

I did highschool policy debate for 4 years, PFD debate for 2 years, and lincoln douglas debate for 3 years. Ive also done collegiate debate. I am a flow judge and please send me your speech docs when you give your speeches - that way if there's any argument about a specific card I can see it for myself.

I believe stock issues are voting issues. On topicality:

-I love T debates - they're the best - but T is won and lost in the standards/voters debate. You say that T is a voter (for education/equity/etc.) but no one ever tells me why that's even important or what the impacts to being not topical are. If you wanna go for being not topical means bad debate - fine. If you wanna go all the way to being untopical underlimits the topic and is inequitable to minorities - perfect - take it all the way to cultural genocide if you want to. But for the love of all that is good and holy, please take it somewhere. You have to compare standards - tell me why yours are more important/outweigh or why they apply more to your arguments than the other teams.

-If you say "reasonability" or "judge's discretion", I won't flow it - you are lazy debating - it is not my job to convince my own self who is topical/not topical and why that's important.

I'm good with cps, disads, k's, any theory arguments, framework, or really anything else. I'll judge based on how you debate. If you're runnings k's you need to be absolutely clear on how your alt operates in real life, not just well we said it so it happens. I'm cool if you wanna run d-dev but you better prove your impacts happen before anything else. Conditionality is fine, but I'm prepared to hear theory on this if you wanna argue it's not. On CP's specifically:

-I ONLY vote for CPs if they prove a COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE TO THE AFF. If they solve the same things, have equal impacts, or aren't better than the aff in some way, I vote aff.

One of my biggest voting issues is impact calc - you need to explain why you're impacts are bigger, happen faster, or are more important if you want me to care about them at all.

-I believe in this. Timeframe/magnitude/probability are real issues.

-I believe in theory here. If one of the holy trinity should be held more important than the rest - please say so - I will vote on this.

If you drop an argument I'm not flowing it; it's really easy to say "pull this through", but don't forget about the argument and expect me to still think it's important 3 speeches later.

10208009@students.usd497.org

I want to see all of your speeches.

Hello, if you are reading this, then you are lucky enough to me as you judge! My name is Jack Stutler, and I appreciate you taking the time to read the paradigm, so I'll keep it brief.

As for my experience, I am a open debater at Lawrence High School, and I will flow the round. As for speed, I am fine with spreading, but it is pointless if none of it makes any sense.

My preferences in-round are not very strict as long as you can make sense out of it. I do require that your plan meets all the stock issues, though if you can make a claim on why some are not as important to your case, then I will let it slide. In general, just make clear, efficient, supported, line-by-line arguments and there will be no issues.

TOPICALITY:

I like topicality, as a neg team, T is a way of pointing out the aff plan is untopical, which is unfair. What I don't like is T that can be applied to every case imaginable, even the topical ones. Even then, I will vote neg on one of these kinds of T if all you say is that it is unfair.

DA'S:

On DA's I don't have much to say for the neg other than to have all of the pieces to one, like your uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. For the aff though, I think it is imperative that you do good line-by-line on the DA, you don't need to answer the whole DA if you ABSOLUTELY CLOBBER the links.

CP'S:

CP's are my FAVORITE, I really enjoy a nice and wacky cp. Fun fact, my aff for last years resolution started out as a counter plan (+.5 speaker points if you can mention it smoothly in a speech.(You will know if you got it by the look on my face.)). Though that does not mean you can ignore the necessary rules that a cp must follow. Try to make your counter plan as clear as possible, give the aff no reason to be able to perm, and show me why the cp is a viable alternative for the plan. CP's done right, should be a big commitment in the round, so if you plan to kick the cp from the get go, it won't be as good as it could be.

K's:

Honestly, I doubt novices will be running K's, so it would be cool if you did. Either way, for those who will, I don't have strong opinions on the K, so just give it your best.

ANALYSIS:

For analysis, I find myself always just doing analysis and only extending cards, while this does sometimes this works, please read cards, don't do what I do and write these run on sentences that go on forever. Try to keep your analysis short and sweet, while not only letting your cards talk.

Overall:

Just do your best and know that you are most likely right. When it comes to debate, I consider myself pretty chill, so please don't stress over my paradigm.

I debated in HS 2016-2020 and college for the last 3 years. Any argument is okay with me as long as it is relevant and well thought out. K's are cool but please please please run them correctly if you're going to run them. I don't know enough about them to be able to judge a sticky K round

Organization is key throughout your speeches. If you're bouncing around through your speech it'll confuse everyone and not give a clear representation of what you're for.

I love speed as long as you're fluent and not mumbling :)

Be respectful because at the end of the day if you're being disrespectful or rude you will not win my ballot, ever

Email: debate.swafford@gmail.com

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

Pronouns: He/Him

Non-Policy Notes:

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

PF: I straight up just weigh contentions. My ballot will list my decision on each contention and how much I weigh it in the context of the round. Fully winning a single impactful contention will sway my vote more than winning a bunch of less important ones. I don't love having more than 3 or 4 contentions, less is always more. Please don't be chaotic during grand crossfire, some of y'all need to chill.

Policy Notes:

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

I fundamentally believe this to be an educational activity more than a competitive one, so I tend to lean truth over tech. I'm big on communication skills and proper argumentation. Logical fallacies, bad-faith arguments, lack of warrants, and blatant misuse of data or statistics (I teach math) make me sad. I will almost always prioritize probability when weighing impacts. Clear analysis is key. I always follow along in docs, but will not be doing any additional reading - I've gotten more and more comfortable doing less and less work in a round. If you expect me to re-read something in order for you to win the round, don't expect to win the round. (I was never really good at debate, you definitely don't want me to debate for you.)

I'm fine with speed (like 8/10) with appropriate signposting and a clear structure. If you spread through absolutely everything and I can't reasonably comprehend something, I won't vote on it. You have to be OK with that tradeoff. Judge instruction and having good rebuttals can make up for this. I'm not the judge for you if you're just trying to win by out-speeding your opponent. I'm also not the best judge for a highly technical round - I don't have a lot of high level varsity experience and can struggle with processing all the jargon when going fast (think closer to 6/10 on speed for heavy theory). I find theory debates boring at best and inscrutable at worst. If we are going to go down that path, the team that can actually explain why I should care (in plain language) will get my ballot. The good news is, other than that, I really don't have any opinion on what you run. I think it's important for judges to be willing to listen to anything.

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

Things I find annoying:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TL/DR:

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

I am a freshman in college, but I did debate all 4 years of high school. I have gone to KDC, state x4, and regionals x2. I was a KDC debater, and am not a fan of DCI-style rounds. I would say I am a more traditional judge but have extensive experience with K's (I am a pre-law student and my classes are all based on K literature, so please know your stuff). I am good with really any speed as long as you provide clarification at the end/summary. I enjoy passionate debates, but I do not vote on morals hate to break it to you. If you cite statistics/percentages make sure they are legit or else it becomes a voting issue for me. I am a huge evidence junkie so if it's not there and you claim it is that will be an issue for me. Not sure if this matters to you all but I was double 2's so the analysis game is something that would appeal to me ;)

Basics-

I will vote against anything discriminatory (racist, sexist, homophobic) this includes comments, analysis, and things written by debaters in the document. I understand being competitive but I do not condone being overly aggressive or being derogatory to opponents. Thank you for being good humans :)

Flow-

I am a flow debater, which means I will flow your speeches as well as listen to them. Clean flows are preferred always and off-time road maps are needed. Try to stick to your off-time road map so that way I'm not having to search for where your arguments are going. If I get lost in the flow then there is a good chance I will vote for the team that keeps the flow clean.

Topicality-

Topicality is an okay argument to run I generally wouldn't vote on topicality so it is up to you on running it. If you run T then there have to be legitimate standards and voters, not just the words standards and voters. PULL THROUGH YOUR T!! If you drop a voter or a standard then it is a loss.

DA-

I will listen to anything, just make sure it is clear. I am neutral on impacts, anything goes as long as you explain it. I vote on impact calc, just a heads up. I do love myself a big impact, but you have to convince me it will happen. Don't say nuke war and then not be able to back it up.

CP-

I am a huge counter plan junkie...when they are run well. CP must have solvency and a plan text. Prove a net benefit and if you are conditional/competitive/ all the things. Don't drop perms, I vote on drops. Don't make me do the work on the CP to prove solvency or net benefits, I won't vote for it.

CX-

I am good for open or closed cross x. If you do open and only one partner answers questions or asks questions, that will be a voting issue for me. I also am good with aggressive cross x but if you are rude or consistently talking over the other team, that is another voting issue for me.

K-

I will listen to Kritiks but they have to be run well and clearly. I need clarification on the literature and why the K is competitive, if not I won't vote on them. K's are pretty neutral with me it is your debate run what you are comfortable with.

AFF-

I like squirrely affs. I also like topical affs. I do not discriminate on what you run but understand your case. Pull through your advs and explain how the solvency functions. I vote on impact calc. Defend your link chain. Don't drop case turns.

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

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

Arg Prefs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Style Prefs:

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

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

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

I debated at Blue Valley North 2018-2022

I don’t have much topic knowledge so try and avoid acronyms in tags for the first constructives  

email chain: atoniappa@gmail.com

If you are smart in cx and apply it during your speech I will increase your speaker points.

being smart does not equal being mean or talking over your opponents -- please be respectful 

tech over truth 

Evidence 

Your evidence has to make arguments-- three buzz words highlighted will make me give the opposing team more leeway with their responses (especially internal link cards). 

Case

I care about case and I don't think it's utilized enough in most debates. “I’m willing to vote on defensive arguments against incomplete affirmatives.”- Brian Box 

Topicality 

This was my favorite argument to go for. I believe it should be looked at from an offense defense perspective. I'm most likely going to default to competing interps if it's not clear you're sitting on reasonability -- I don't think there's such thing as a bad interp it's just about how you debate it. 

CP

judge kick is a logical extension of condo --- if condo or judge kick is never verbally specified (in cx or the speeches before the 2nr) and the 1AR says no judge kick I'll be more likely to default AFF if nothing is verbally specified by the negative throughout the debate and the 2ar says no judge kick I'll default AFF. 

I like counter plans that are textually and functionally competitive but if you impact out why having one is better for the sake of competition I’ll vote on it 

Neg

- internal net benefits need to be able to withstand a CX 

- threshold for what needs to be highlighted in a 1NC solvency card isn't that high in comparison to internal links or impact cards

AFF

- Impact out your solvency deficits 

- A good explanation of PDB can be very persuasive 

DA

I like the politics da :) 

don't be afraid to go for DA and case

I think da turns case can be very persuasive 

the more specific the link the easier it is to win my ballot 

Theory

I’m good with whatever— reject the arg not the team is enough for me if its not the 2nr 

The neg reading a bunch of off doesn’t make me lower the bar for aff team going for condo 

these debates can get really annoying when it’s two ships sailing in the night and if you debate it like that it will be reflected in speaks 

K’s 

If the alt is not explained clearly in cx and the 2NC contextualization is very different than cx your speaks will drop. If you’re going for the alt I need a thorough explanation of what it does and why it matters 

Tbh not the best judge for high theory — I’m not super familiar with most lit other than set col, cap, and IR k’s but as long as you’re flushing out the arguments and not spreading your blocks at top speak it should be fine 

If you’re going for a reps link PLEASE have specific lines from the aff 

When evaluating K debate I start on the link then move to FW — if you do not have a link specific to the aff or the affs impacts I don’t see a world where I vote neg unless you win framework 

K affs 

I think these debates are very interesting 

please do not read t blocks straight down without engaging in the aff's offense 

I need an implicit answer to the TVA in the 1ar or at the very least 2ar answer needs to match 1ar warrants with the same wording 

K v K debates are interesting but links to the plan/rehighlighting are even more important in these debates 

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

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

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

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

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

I'm a college freshman at Northwestern University with four years of debate and forensics experience at Lawrence High School, focusing on Policy and LD. I will listen to any range of arguments (excluding those that are racist/sexist/bigoted or blatantly incorrect) as long as you appropriately respond to your opponent (pull through warrants, signpost, etc); create as much direct clash as possible! However, I usually prefer args that are based in truth testing over technical skills. Also, if a DA/K/T/CP doesn't have its necessary components (ex. UQ, Link/ILs, Impact), I won't evaluate it. Spread if you want to, I will say "clear" if you become unintelligible. Safety and education in the debate space is my biggest concern. Have fun! Don't be mean to each other!

I competed in policy debate and forensics for four years in high school. I then competed in moot court in law school. I've been a judge for debate, mock trial and moot court since then. Also, probably more importantly, I am an attorney. Here are some things I think about:

1. Policymaker judge, especially with this topic.

2. I don't care about speed. However, I can't flow what I can't hear or understand. If you are speeding just to speed and not connecting the dots, it isn't going to impress me.

3. Speaking of connecting the dots, tell me why I should care about your argument and why your argument is better than your opponent's. Essentially, answer the "so what?"

4. Follow the flow and signpost. I am not going to hunt around and figure out where to put your argument, especially if you are just listing arguments to me. Honestly, if that is the case, I'll probably stop flowing/listening.

5. I value good cross-examination - use it wisely.

6. This is fun! Have fun, be competitive, but there is zero reason to be disrespectful.

Hey everybody. Thanks for taking a look.

St. Mary's Colgan High School 1985-1989. Yes, I'm that old. No college debate. Student Government, Intercollegiate Athletics and Student Publications took all my time at Pittsburg State. Multiple small school state championships in debate and forensics. I am a student of Bob Tindell who had help from Dianna Carlin and Barbara Bateman when it came to coaching us.

The following is for you to know more about me, so there's a lot of "I" and "Me" but in your rounds, if you are kind and civil, and dare I say collaborative, to the other team, it is appreciated by this judge.

I was always a first speaker because that was my comfort zone, so I don't overlook the importance of the first speaker in a round of debate, especially 1st Affirmative. Speed in the first affirmative is your enemy in my rounds. If I can't catch where you're coming from and get it down on a piece of paper I will be lost for the entire round and will flip to stock issue only judging. As an affirmative team you don't want that from me. I can flow fast and keep up but I need to be able to understand you. I'll give you one clarity warning and if the issue persists I'll just quit writing.

I am a pro at flow as long as I know what you're telling me. You've got to break it down for me into something I can understand so I can get it on the paper. Sign posting is your friend, or rather my friend, when I am judging. I will let both teams see my flow after the round if they want to see it. Just ask. I am not opposed to someone handing a piece of paper to the judges with their plan planks on it, as long as the other team is furnished with the same.

I am a former lawmaker and government official. I understand fiat and policy making. I understand how the federal code, the state statutes, state and federal regulations and rule makings work. I understand elections and law making and how things actually get done. Having some understanding of these things your self will help you organize your thoughts and present more logical arguments.

The Stock Issues matter to me.

Topicality often becomes a debate about definitions. I can be swayed on this point, but I will understand the resolution and offer my own thoughts on topicality on my flow. The negative has to meet a high bar to disqualify a case on Topicality.

Inherency. Know it, love it and make sure you know what it means and argue it by name. I can identify with those barriers presented by the negative team. I lump workability in here sometimes too as a way to make the link to the harms.

Harms. You can do this in one sentence if you're skilled. I'll buy what you're selling if it is real, meaningful and impactful on things I care about, like the well being of people and the environment. That will bring you to Significance.

Solvency. I do not judge the affirmative on their ability to solve every problem known to mankind with their plan. Narrow scope is fine with me, as long as the plan actually solves for a significant problem. Workability is the braid that holds together Harms, Inherency and Solvency for me.

For the negative team: You can pull at my heart with disadvantages all day long. If your disads are logical, significant and likely given the affirmative plan, you will have a chance at a ballot. Pull a disad coup and add in hard arguments on stock issues and you have me.

That's enough for now. If you have questions ask and I will be happy to answer. This is about growth and the future and I willing to help with those two things anyway I can.

He/Him

Do whatever you want, or read Cuyler Dunn's paradigm (he has a nice personality).