Debated 4 years at Blue Valley West High School | Current 1st year at KU (not debating)

Add me to the email chain : nsbinshtok@gmail.com | Feel free to email me before/after the round with questions.

General :

1 — I primarily debated Open/KDC, and mainly ran policy arguments.

2 — I'm unfamiliar with what is being run in current high school topics, and haven't judged yet this season.

3 — I'm okay with speed as long as it is clear. You should not be reading your analytics, tags, and signposts at full speed, or you might lose speaks. I will have a much easier time following along the more you include in your speech docs, analytics included.

4 — Tech > Truth, I will only evaluate what is on my flow at the end of the round. If you want a higher chance of your arguments coming out on top, ensure that you are clearly extending your evidence throughout the round. I love seeing good clash within a debate round, and expect you to directly address specific arguments and evidence that have been read by your opponents in your line-by-line. Dropped arguments are important, but you still need to articulate what effect it should have on the flow.

5 — Argument preferences : You can read whatever you'd like in front of me, just keep in mind that I may not be the best judge for some arguments. On-case debate is vital, there are always arguments that can be made on either side, and the work you do here tends to be applicable throughout the entire round. I love a good DA+CP combo, especially when paired with strong impact calculus and clear articulation of the net benefit. I enjoy theory and topicality, I just feel these debates lack clash at times. Ensure your interpretation is clear, and I believe TVAs are a very underutilized tool. In terms of K debates, I've watched few and participated in even fewer. Take your time explaining your alternative and framework for me.

6 — Speech preferences : Clear signposting and adding emphasis/changing your inflection on important arguments throughout the whole round will help you gain more speaks. CX is underutilized, I will be listening, and I love hearing arguments in speeches based upon what was said in CX. By the end of your rebuttals, you should have more or less written my ballot for me. Distill the round down into the most important arguments, and have a clear idea for how you have won that is emphasized in your speech.

email chains - evanderdavis6@gmail.com

Debate - Washburn Rural - '19-'23

I'm fine with speed (though I am biased toward slower debates). Analysis and (especially) theory should be slower than evidence. Signpost! I will clear you if necessary.

Truth informs tech (it is a tiebreaker), but tech > truth.

I generally default to reject the arg, not the team (condo being the obvious exception).

Case

Case is undercovered. Impact turns, clash, evidence comparison, rehighlightings, etc are great.

Intelligent debate is valued. A quality logical argument with clear warrants can be worth just as much as a card.

DAs

DAs are good. I like policy-type debates and DAs are a big part of that. Specific links are best, and make a debate much more interesting. Don't neglect impact calc or be afraid to do analysis about the weakness of an internal link chain.

CPs

Condo is good unless the neg reads a bajillion CPs and then I'm happy to listen to that debate.

I think judge kick is pretty lazy. If you tell me to and the aff doesn't contest it though, I will.

T

T debates are fine. It's annoying when you read a bunch of throw-away T args in the 1NC, but you do you. Reasonability is a decent arg, but you can't just say "reasonability" - tell me why your definition is good/real world.

Ks

I used to hate Ks. I don't anymore, but it probably isn't the best idea to read one in front of me.

I think Ks should have an alt to generate uniqueness. If you kick the alt you should probably lose to a no uniqueness argument most of the time. It's possible to win, but much more difficult.

You need to prove alt solvency. You should actually explain what the alt does instead of repeating the same canned phrase 100 times. I am not all that familiar with a lot of the literature, so make sure to actually explain.

If you want to read a K in front of me, I'd recommend kritiks of the case. I'm most willing to listen to the frameworks on those and while I don't think they're true, tech > truth. You will have an uphill battle reading reps Ks or kritiks of debate in front of me.

K/planless affs are probably cheating. I will do my best to evaluate these debates fairly, but know I'm biased.

CX

Open CX is fine, but should be limited. Prompt, don't ask questions for your partner.

Other

Things that are good:

Judge instructions, impact calc, evidence comparison, etc. Your job is to do as much of my job for me as possible - that's the best way to ensure you get a positive result.

Things that are bad:

Running args you don't understand, unnecessary rudeness, bigotry, death good.

I will do my best to evaluate the round without bias. I think I've typed out above pretty much all of my biases in evaluating debates. None of these are totally insurmountable, but you should adapt to your judge. Debate is an educational activity and as a judge, my role is to allow for experimentation and reward the team that made the better arguments.

FOR POLICY DEBATE:

I approach debate rounds as a presentation on whether or not to take a particular course of action. I'll judge in favor of the more convincing presentation, even though they may not have an air-tight case.

I prefer not to judge K, as they are often difficult for all involved to parse. If you want to run a K, make it clear and concise, and provide specific links to the Aff. I also dislike counterplans, as I see the Neg as speaking directly against the course of action suggested by the Aff.

Specific links and clear "bright lines" are most convincing, while vague or generalized statements will likely make me question the validity of your entire argument.

DO NOT, under any circumstances, insult or demean your opponent(s). That may be how "real" debates go, but your goal here is to convince me of the validity of your course of action. Maintain professionalism while you're in the round.

FOR LD DEBATE:

I'm primarily familiar with policy debate, from what I understand LD is much more about moral arguments. As such, my own moral standards are relevant, even though I will try not to judge based on them.

I consider myself an 'act utilitarian,' meaning I judge the morality of an action based on its consequences, and prioritize maximizing the most good for the most people. In the classic 'trolley problem,' for example, I view it as morally good to kill one person to save 5, and I view abstaining from making a choice as a choice in and of itself. That is, I view choosing not to kill the one person as the same morally as choosing to kill the other 5.

That said, you do not have to play by this framework, if you provide sufficient grounding for your stance and arguments. If you argue from some diametrically opposed moral perspective, but do so in a consistent and well-thought-out manner, I will probably still disagree but won't judge against you for it. I simply provide this so that you know where I start the round.

***I'm adding this mid-tournament because I'm getting annoyed. DO NOT run cards or arguments that state a moral framework's inability to predict the future is a reason to vote against it. NO ONE CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE. It doesn't matter what morality you approach the world with, there will always be times when you can't accurately predict outcomes. This line of reasoning is bad, and I will vote against it.***

FOR ALL NON-PERFORMANCE EVENTS:

Do not try to pull the wool over my eyes. I know you're stressed and under time pressure for many events, but that doesn't excuse lies or fabrications. If you think something is true, try to back it up. If you tell me something I know not to be true, I will count it against you, and I will tell you so. Considering I have the ability to look it up myself before I submit my decisions, I strongly suggest you back up your important claims and responses with evidence. I won't pretend to be the smartest person in the room, but I know enough to double-check things I doubt.

Email: sjkhan@bluevalleyk12.net

Karissa Kromminga - she/her

Debated 4 years of policy at Washburn Rural - (arms sales, CJR, water, NATO)

Seton Hall University - International Relations and Diplomacy

Pls add me to the email chain: kkromminga04@gmail.com

Top Level:

Tech>truth

I love good line-by-line and case specific debating

Do whatever you need to win rounds. I have arguments that I like / don't like, but I'd rather see you do whatever you do best, than do what I like badly. Have fun. I love this activity, and I hope that everyone in it does as well. Don't be unnecessarily rude, I get that some rudeness happens, but you don't want me to not like you. I will auto vote you down for being discriminatory (racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, etc.) and I will not feel bad about it.

General rule - I need a warranted explanation of what your argument is and why it outweighs/solves whatever the other team went for in order to vote for it.

DAs:

Impact calc is super important for both the aff and the neg. All parts of the DA need to be extended in the 2NR for me to reasonably vote on it. If you only extend the link or only extend the impact I won't give it much weight. The more specific of a link the better, evidence is great, but an in-depth explanation of why the specific mechanism of the aff triggers the link is better than non-contextualized/generic evidence.

Impact turns - I love them, read them. However, this does not include death good, if you read it don't expect me to vote on it.

CPs:

Yes. That being said, I need a 2NR explanation of what the CP actually does in order to vote for it. There has to be a net benefit to the CP that the perm can't access in order for me to vote for it.

I tend to think that CPs that fiat the aff (consult, QPQ, etc) are probably cheating, or easily beat by a perm, but I will vote for them if the aff doesn't extend theory.

I won't judge kick the CP, unless I am told to.

Ks:

I am fairly familiar with the traditional K lit, so if you are reading a K outside of that assume that I am not super familiar with the lit. I have a high threshold for you reading noncontextualized blocks, especially in the 2NR/2AR. Please please please do not just spread through your blocks with no interaction, it will piss me off, and I will tune you out.

Be very clear with signposting during framework and large link walls - however, when extending links please do not just say, "extend X link" with no explanation, that means nothing to me.

K affs: I tend to lean more towards affs having a plan being good, and can be pretty persuaded by a good T push in the 2NR. That being said, I think a lot of 2N’s are bad at extending T, so you might not have that much trouble getting my ballot. I have a very high threshold for T=policing or T=genocide arguments.

K v K: This is area where I am the least familiar. If you want to have this debate, go ahead, but I'll need clear impact calc and explanations from both teams. If I don't understand what your argument is I probably won't vote for it.

T:

I love a good T debate. If you are going for T, make sure to extend your impacts and clash with what your opponent is saying. I tend to lean towards reasonability being a bad standard, but I will vote on it if it is not answered in the debate.

For T-USFG: clash>fairness. Same as above, I have a high threshold for just reading uncontextualized blocks. I think that switch-side debate solves is pretty persuasive, but only if it’s paired with a good TVA, otherwise it’s pretty hard to hedge back against a 2AR “we can’t access our lit” push.

Theory:

I think theory is usually a reason to reject the arg not the team, with condo as an exception. I think disclosure is good, and I have a low threshold for theory if an aff team refuses to disclose before the round.

Speaks:

I am fine with speed, but clarity is important. Please don't spread through analytics at top speed and expect me to catch everything. I will clear you twice, and after that I will just stop flowing. Good, strategic CX will lead to higher speaks. Flex prep does not exist, if you are asking the other team questions outside of cross I am not listening and I do not care. I will boost speaks if you give the 2NR/2AR off the flow. If you get 26 or less, you were probably incredibly rude or literally did not debate.

I flow on my computer, so if I am not typing, assume I am not flowing. Watch for nonverbals, I give them. That said, I have been told I have a RBF, so if I am not making an expression don't assume negatively.

Hi! My Name is Mackenzie Leece. (Pronouns- She/her) I am a 4th-year debater at Blue Valley West High school. Make sure to include me in the email chain: mjleece@bluevalleyk12.net

General: Make sure to always debate with a positive attitude and demonstrate good sportsmanship. Also, be aware of your audience/components in regard to how your argument might affect them. Bullying, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. will not be tolerated in the round and will result in you losing the round. So just remember to be nice!

Performance: I tend to vote for teams that confidently present their plan in a clear and enthusiastic manner. Make sure to read your plan with emotion so I understand the urgency of your plan. Also make sure to give roadmaps, overviews/under-views, and consistently make eye contact with me so you aren't just reading a bunch of info. Speed is not the most important thing to me when considering the winning team. It is more compelling to me if you can read a speech at a good pace with clarity and emotion.

Voting: I generally vote for the team that answers and combats all arguments brought up during the round. I vote for the team that efficiently presents/counters the plan with confidence and emotion. I don't vote for teams that are rude or clearly don't know the information that they are reading.

If you have any information that you think I should know please let me know. I will do what I can to make you feel comfortable in the round!

put me on the email chain - vi.debatedocs@gmail.com

I've done four years of high school policy debate and am currently debating at the University of Iowa, throughout my experience in debate I have read primarily critical arguments but am open to hearing anything, read what you feel comfortable with and ask me any questions you have before round!

Email: lilyren2004@gmail.com

They/she

BVN 23 -> KU 27

Brief summary of my thoughts -

Not very familiar with the topic debate-wise, I have general information because of my political work and research, but don't assume I'll know what you're talking about with buzzwords.

Tech over truth any day. Judges usually always vote on technicalities because debates boil down to that rather than questions of truth. I'm more policy-oriented but I'm open to anything. I'm most familiar with cap K, imperialism, set col as both aff and neg args. I'm more experienced with answering the K than going for it, but don't let that deter you from reading a k. I will only ask for more explanation of methodology and links. I like theory, I like cps, I like das, I like T. Intentional malice = auto loss. I'll + .2 speaks if you make the analogy
"Like a road, it goes both ways". I don't like death good.

Speaks - depends on tournament level and judge pool

Normal Speaks:

27 - 28 = you probably lost but good effort?

28.1 - 28.5 = average I wasn't blown away

28.6 - 28.9 = You're pretty good

29 - 29.5 = OMG go win the tournament

Inflated Speaks

28.5 = baseline

28.6 - 28.9 = average/eh

29.1 - 29.5 = You're pretty good

29.6 - 29.9 = OMG go win the tournament

Top Level - I refuse to go back and read a card in the last rebuttals not only if they're new, but cards that you say to go back and look at with no warrant. Just say the warrant and apply it with "that's X author".

FW - I'm very policy oriented on framework but lean heavily on tech over truth. I'm confident enough to be an unbiased judge and see when a team is clearly ahead. Policy wise, you're better off going for fairness in front of me. Going for the K, you're better off going for education in front of me.

Kritik - I like plan specific links, but I'll still vote for links of omission. If the K is covering literature I haven't listed in the brief summary, I will probably need more explanation (aside from Ks that have to do with a debater's personal experience). I high-key struggle with the old dead french philosopher Ks. I just need explanation and not sound bites. I don't care for the alt unless it's in the 2NR. Framework-y or material, no preference.

Counterplans -I like them, I hate them. Do what you want. I was and am a 2a, so I'm more sympathetic to aff theory args and perms. But once again, tech over truth.

Disads - like them, but if you read a 1 card DA, your speaks are capped at average and will never go higher.

Topicality - Love it, it's fun to watch those debates. I don't mind to a certain extent the quality of the definition but if it get's too silly I won't give good speaks. I don't have much preference on T except for when debating reasonability. I think that aff teams need to explain why their aff is reasonable enough, saying just one more aff ontop of their case list isn't an argument because I think that all the neg arguments of limits/precision answer that.

Theory - I've gone for condo outweighs no inherency twice and won twice, therefore I am a condo god. But otherwise read whatever.

Misc. - Don't be hateful, be nice, I love debate and you love debate therefore we all love debate

Speak guuuuuud.

But seriously, I'm a forensics coach first, so I wanna hear your fancy speaker skills at a REASONABLE pace!
I like to flow arguments on a spreadsheet. That means I want to hear you give CLEAR tags when you move to a new piece of evidence. And those tags need to be ACCURATE (i.e. NO powertagging)!

Also... CLASH!!! Answer the arguments! If you're the 1NC, and you give me T and 2 DAs but don't at least ADDRESS any of their On-Case, I'm not gonna be a happy judge. Same on the 2AC when you want to extend your On-Case. ADDRESS their Off-Case! And EXPLAIN your cards!
(e.g. "So judge, in a nutshell this is how their plan's solvency ultimately makes climate change worse for us all...">

Likewise, Give. Me. Roadmaps. I want to know WHERE you're going with the arguments, and SIGNPOST when you move from point to point (e.g. "Now let's address their Solvency..." "Okay, moving on to the Link in the BioTerrorism DA...") Letting me know WHERE your argument is on the flow is ESSENTIAL! If I have to look all over the place to guess where you are on the flow, then I'm missing the argument that you're making.

In rebuttals, I'm all about the Impact Calc. GET OFF THE CARDS. Let me hear your analysis of your argument. If you're still reading new evidence after the 2NC, you'd better have an awfully good reason for it. And definitely don't ignore the impact calc entirely. Talk to me!
And honestly, you don't need to wait until rebuttals to start your Impact Calc. Explain how your cards and your arguments defeat theirs in the constructives!

Finally, I want the debate round to be FUN. I would like to come away from that round with stories about how clever your argument was or how creative your analysis was.

Tell some jokes.
Drop some geeky, pop culture references.
Make me laugh.
Make me clap.
Give me a reason to look forward to judging another round.

I competed in policy debate for 3 years and have judged for two now. I can track arguments pretty well and semi fast paced talking should be fine if you are still speaking clearly.

Overall - Summaries and explanations are fantastic and greatly appreciated. I really feel they are great practice and can even help you as the debater better understand what you are talking about. DO NOT SPREAD please. I really do not care for spreading. If I can't understand what you are saying then your arguments are void to me. Speak clearly and you'll do great. I don't care for kritiques at this level of debating. You can run them but if you don't run them well I won't even consider them when choosing a winner.

Neg - I am in favor of topicality if and only if it is run properly with all four parts and makes sense. I don't really care for vague arguments. For the most part, as long as you can prove and show how your arguments links up and why it matters I'll take it seriously.

Aff - Make the harms clear and convince me. Tell me what's wrong and why I should care. Prove you solve and you'll do great.

As a final tip... take a deep breath. Trust yourself and you'll do great. Even if you don't win there is still a lot to learn and help you grow. Don't let it drag you down. 

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'm a junior at Blue Valley South West

Be nice, don't be rude

I like to have fun just don't become an irritating ball of crap

I rest my case

i have been studying for my SAT, so i am not fresh on the topic

lucky for you k debaters i am more prepared to have your in-depth discussions inside of the round while nort aCTUALLY DEBATING so that i can become refreshed on the topic

if this isn't clear refer to niko helixon's paradigm

selinulusarac@gmail.com

I debated 4 years at BVN.

Freshman at University of Pennsylvania,

4-year Varsity/Open CX at Blue Valley West

Have fun, any arguments work. Truth and tech valued equally coming into the debate room. I value concrete arguments and fair debate.

Add me to the email chain - shishirv24@gmail.com

He/Him/His

Live Laugh Love Debate

zwillingham04@gmail.com

Washburn Rural '22

University of Kansas '26

Assistant for Washburn Rural

General Thoughts

Debate is a technical game of strategy. If you debate more technically and more strategically, you will likely win. Read whatever and however you like. Any style or argument can win if executed well enough or if answered poorly enough. I don’t believe judges should have any predetermined biases for any argument. Dropped arguments are true.

I am operating under the assumption that you have put in considerable effort to be here and you want to win. I will try to put reciprocal effort into making an objective decision unless you have done something to indicate those assumptions are incorrect.

Nothing you say or do will offend me, but lack of respect for your opponents will not be tolerated.

My background is very policy-oriented. I strategically chose to talk about cyber-security instead of criminal justice and water resources. The best argument is always the one that wins. Do what you are best at.

My favorite part about debate is the way different arguments interact with each other across different pages. The way to beat faster and more technical teams is to make smart cross-applications and concessions.

Except for the 2AR, what is "new" is up for debate. Point out your opponent's new arguments and explain why they are not justified.

Evidence is very important. I only read cards after the debate if the issue has been contested. A dropped card is still dropped even if it is trash. Quality > Quantity. I do not see any strategic utility in reading multiple the cards that say the same thing. Card dumping is effective when each card has unique warrants.

Cross-ex is very important. Use it to set up your strategy, not to clarify what cards were skipped. I appreciate it when the final rebuttals quote lines from cross-ex/earlier speeches. It makes it seem like you have been in control of the round since the beginning.

I do not want to hear a prepped out ethics violation. Tell the team before the round.

I do not want to hear an argument about something that happened outside of the round.

Rehighlightings can be inserted as long as you explain what the rehighlighting says. I see it as more specific evidence comparison.

Argument Specific

Topicality:

Your interpretation is the tag of your definition. If there is any discrepancy between the tag and the body of the card, that is a precision indict but not a reason the aff meets.

Counterplans:

I enjoy quality competition debates. I like tricky perms. Put the text in the doc.

"Links less" makes sense to me for certain disads, but makes it harder for the net benefit to outweigh the deficit. Perm do both is probabilistic. Perm do the counterplan is binary.

If a perm has not been extended, solvency automatically becomes a net benefit.

Most theory arguments are a reason to reject the argument, not the team. I will not reject the team even on a dropped theory argument unless there is a coherent warrant for why it would not be enough to only reject the argument.

I will only judge kick (without being told) if it has been established that conditionality is good.

Advantages/Disadvantages:

Most scenarios are very construed. Logical analytical arguments can substantially mitigate them. I do not like it when the case debate in the 1NC is only impact defense.

Punish teams for reading new impacts in the 2AC and block.

Extinction means the end of the species. Most impacts do not rise to this threshold. Point it out.

"Try or die" or similar impact framing is very persuasive when executed properly. If the negative doesn't extend a counterplan or impact defense, they are likely to lose.

Zero risk is possible if your opponent has entirely dropped an argument and the implication of that argument is that the scenario is 0. However, I can be convinced that many arguments, even when dropped, do not rise to that level.

Kritiks v Policy Affs:

I will determine which framework interpretation is better and use that to evaluate the round. I will not adopt a middle ground combination of both interpretations unless someone has convinced me that is the best option (which it usually is).

Make it very explicit what the win condition is for you if you win framework. Only saying "The 1AC is an object of research" does not tell me how I determine the winner.

If the K is just one of many off case positions and the block reads a bunch of new cards, the 1AR probably gets to say any new thing they want.

Planless Affs:

All affirmatives should endorse a departure from the status quo.

Procedural arguments like topicality come prior to the hypothetical benefits of the aff's implementation, but if there are arguments on the case that also serve as offense against the negative's interpretation, then I will weigh those against the negative's offense.

I do not like it when the 1AC says X is bad, the 1NC says X is good, and the 2AC says no link.

Many debaters do not explain switch side debate as effectively as they could. It should be offense.

Things to boost speaks, but won't affect wins and losses

Give final rebuttals off paper.

Number/subpoint arguments.

Impact turn whenever you can. Straight turn every disad if you're brave. I love chaos, but the final rebuttals better be resolving things.

Good wiki and disclosure practices.

Don't read arguments that can be recycled every year.

Stand up for cross-ex right when the timer ends. Send docs quickly. Preferably in the last few seconds of their speech.

Make jokes. Have fun. Respect your opponents. Good-natured insults can be funny but read the room.

Pretty speech docs. Ugly docs usually means ugly debating.

Debate with integrity. Boo cheapshots. It is better to lose with honor, than win by fraud.

LD

I’ve never had the privilege of sitting through an entire LD round so if there is specific vocabulary I am not in the loop. Assume I have minimal topic knowledge.

Tell me why you access their offense, why it is the most important thing, and why they don’t access their offense. Be strategic.

Answer your opponent’s arguments explicitly. I want to hear “They say x, but y because z”.

he/him, freshman at Columbia studying polisci, debated exclusively policy 4 yrs at Blue Valley West at both KDC and DCI/NatCir level

call me Kevin/judge, idrc

add to email chain: kevin.xu@columbia.edu

T/L:

Please be nice (to me, the other team, and actually your partner), have fun, and talk about stuff you're passionate about

• This activity can be toxic but we'll all have a more enjoyable time if this round isn't

• I'm fine evaluating any arg as long as it's not racist, homophobic, sexist, otherwise offensive — you will lose if it is

Haven't judged or done any research about this year's topic or its "norms" (most I can say is probably, as ashamed as I am now, I read Andrew Yang's UBI book when it first came out)

If you use some funny analogy or joke, I might boost your speaks

Not gonna go into too much detail but please ask about anything you might be curious abt

Biggest debate influence/inspo: Brandon Yao (he made me write this)

General:

Please do clear signposting (love numbered arguments for some reason), line by line, and judge instruction

Feel free to spread BUT clarity and efficiency > speed, please don't become an incomprehensible spreading mess or clip

• It'll be better for both of us if you slow down for analytics, tags, anything you want to emphasize

• Haven't watched a debate in like a year so do with that info what you will (and be extra clear and explain plz)

• Grouping and cross-applying arguments is strategic and something I will make note of when giving speaks

Make sure to actually properly extend args to carry them throughout a round — I've always disliked when teams don't do this and will reward you if you do

• Don't just say "extend 1AC 1" or "extend Blessing 22", please extend warrants too or else your evidence loses some value

• From experience, you can win a lot of debates against a lot of really good teams by mentioning a failure to do this

Policy:

Was mostly a policy debater

I find T to be underused by the neg, especially because I've witnessed so many 1ARs just completely fumble on it if the neg spends even a couple minutes on it in the block

• I'm coming in with no idea what the "consensus" about topical affs has become

• Please don't just re-read your same blocks over and over, these debates still need progression, clash, impacts, etc

Link chains are super important obviously

• Ev quality > quantity (when explained well), esp when it comes to disads (where link chains are often suspicious)

Rare massive ptx disad fan

• Plz don't rely only on months old UQ cards from camp

• I think smart, informed analytics can go a long way (e.g.: just analytically naming a bunch of thumpers)

• Will always appreciate some interesting or unique DAs — I cut a lot of uncommon PTX DAs and hated when judges would be skeptical of them

Impact calc/sufficiency framing analysis!!!!!

• Impact turns, DA O/W and turns case, case O/W and turns DA, etc, love that stuff

Do I believe presumption/absolute defense is a thing? Probably, but you might have a harder time convincing me of 0 risk than others

Can go either way on judge kick if instructed

Not the most proficient theory judge, warrant out reject arg vs reject team

• I will say I find the aff defending like 2 condo and neg defending like 3 condo slightly silly and arbitrary but do what you gotta do

K:

Have I debated against and for kritical args ((racial) cap, imperialism, taoism, Nietzsche, etc) and read critical lit? yeah. Do I want you to treat me like I have? Not really.

I'm going to know a lot more than a lay judge but I don't want to misevaluate the contents of a kritical argument after not understanding it due to a lack of explanation, especially on the alt level

Don't really care what you run for the most part, just explain it and how it interacts with the aff

I think I tend to be more swayed by args about root cause/alts or links turning case than "you link you lose", but either way can win depending on what happens

With all that being said, big fan, found myself loving K debates more and more throughout high school and ran one basically every neg round senior year

Ben Ziegelman (he/him)

Debated four years at BVSW

Please add me to the email chain ziegelman.ben@gmail.com

don't refer to me as judge it's uncomfy

i will clear twice before i stop listening 

TLDR

I don’t care what you do as long as you’re not discriminatory/cheating

General

Tech over truth in almost every instance

Don’t change how you’re going to debate based on the paradigm, I don’t care enough to warrant sacrificing what you're comfortable doing

Fine with speed but I’ll stop listening if you’re not clear

I love a healthy amount of spin, but make sure it lines with what the evidence actually says.

Judge instruction in rebuttals is probably the best way to make sure I see the debate from the same lense as you

Don't be rude to your opponents or partner, it's an easy way to lose speaks

Going for high risk high rewards arguments and doing it well is an easy way to bump speaks 

Ask questions if you have any

T 

Competing interps>reasonability, but I will still vote on reasonability if executed well 

DA

I am not a huge fan of very generic disads, but I won't hold it against you as long as you're still making connections to the aff (obv specific links will be easier to win with and bad ev quality is a good way to make sure I give the aff leeway)

CP

Love them, much easier to vote on a DA when it's paired with a good counterplan

I think it's great when a CP is functionally and textually competitive, but if you can prove it doesn't need to be I'm game

K

Don't assume I know all the jargon for your specific kritik

I don't think you need an alt

Explaining the aff through the links is a really good way to win a link

Theory

More likely to vote on condo than anything else, but I will still vote for other objections if done well (not perm theory though)

Case

Case debating is just as important neg as aff, I don't like neg teams that forget to do their due diligence on case, and likewise I'm not a fan of aff teams not utilizing their case to beat other neg args