Please add me to the email chain: Brenda.aurora13@gmail.com

I debated for Washburn Rural for four years between 2014 and 2018. I debated for the University of Kansas last year, but am not debating this year so I can focus on my nursing degree. Generally speaking, I am not picky about arguments and speed. Do what you want and I’ll do my best to keep up.

T: I believe that topicality is a question of competing interpretations. I like to see good explanations of each team’s offense on the flow, how their offense interacts with the other team, and why their interpretation creates a better model for debate.

Disads: I’m a big fan, especially when you have a specific link. I think impact calculus and turns case arguments are important. I always enjoy listening to a good agenda or election disad.

CPs: Delay counterplans are cheating. I’m willing to judge kick a counterplan unless the affirmative gives me a reason not to. I prefer specific solvency advocates.

Ks: I didn’t read a lot of Ks in high school. I am most familiar with neolib and cap, but I am willing to listen to pretty much anything as long at it is explained well. I will NOT listen to death/extinction good kritiks. These arguments can be triggering for me and for other people that may be competing in or watching your round. When it comes to links, I like when they are specific to the affirmative and describe how the aff increasing/makes worse whatever it is that the neg is critiquing. If you’re going for your alt, you need to prove that it solves, as well as clearly explain to me what a world of the alternative looks like. The framing debate should be more than a block reading competition, especially if the neg isn’t going to go for the alt. The neg’s interpretation should be meaningful and not just “whoever best challenges (whatever the K is critiquing)”

Theory: I believe theory is usually only a reason to reject an argument, not a team, especially considering most theory debates are block reading contests where no one really explains or understands the argument. That being said, I might be willing to vote on condo if you really explain your interpretation and impact the argument out.

Some other things to note: I enjoy a good case debate. Please be kind and respectful to one another. If you are horribly rude and disrespectful I’ll probably vote against you

I debated for 3 years in high school but was not very competitive. I graduated in 2016 and have come back to judge every year since then. I’m ok with all forms of arguments but I want you to explain them as best you can. The better you explain and summarize the more likely I’ll buy your case. I also care very much about how you represent yourself and your school, so please treat your opponents with respect.

I debated for four years in high school, but that was quite awhile ago. I typically value "stock issue" arguments, and I'll certainly also listen to any well-developed and relevant off-case arguments as well. I'll flow the round, and - particularly given the virtual nature of things this year - I would recommend that the rate and nature of the speeches be sufficient to allow for clear communications (i.e., please don't talk too fast and please speak clearly, signpost where you are going, and present your arguments in an organized and coherent manner).

Experience: I competed in high school policy debate for three years and LD and IX for one year. I have judged a few topics since then, especially in 2020, but have not had the opportunity to do so on the 2021 policy topic.

Speed: I am unfamiliar with this year's topic, but am generally comfortable with moderate-speed speech (please don't spread; I won't be able to track what you're saying. If you're uncertain, assume I'd rather you go slower and I understand what you're saying).

Voting Issues: I'll evaluate the round based primarily on core issues you centered the debate on, but I won't ignore stock issues or blatant abuses of topicality (if topicality is brought up in the round). Communication skills are secondary to your actual argumentation; provided that I am able to understand your line of reasoning and your arguments, that's what matters most to me more than pretty speeches (though those are always a bonus).

Misc.: Roadmaps and signposting are crucial; don't trust me to inherently know what you're responding to based on context. I also prefer it if you reference a specific subpoint/tag as you respond to points + cards, because I often miss author/dates in favor of recording the substance of the card. I also have an auditory processing disorder, so clarity is important (don't worry; I catch most everything/can figure it out from context clues, but I appreciate clarity + general explanation if necessary in your speeches to help me out).

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.

My name is Dave, and I'm a parent of 2 debaters at Shawnee Mission East. I did not participate in debate when in school, and am not familiar with its intricacies. I do appreciate a well-reasoned argument, and prefer that the speaking pace not be extremely fast. I do not respond well to cocky presentations that fail to recognize the nuances of arguments, and the fact that there are likely viable pros and cons on both sides. Analytics will be very important - I want you to present cogently and convincingly in oral arguments, not just reading pre-created evidence. Given my lack of formal debate experience, if you intend to utilize theory, it will need to be well-explained. I want to learn and be engaged, not lectured to.

Please include me on the email chain; shane.billig@gmail.com

I'm a fairly adaptable judge; 10+ years of debate experience as a competitor/coach. I default to policymaker framework and I am very familiar with CP/DA theory and am generally okay with any generic arguments, but I'd prefer to have the links analyzed to be as specific as possible. In general analysis and comparison of cards and warrants is the best way to convince me that your evidence is superior, and I find that many 2AC/2NC rely too much on reading more blocks rather than providing unique in round analysis.

I have and will vote on kritiks, and there are many times I think the K is the smartest choice in the round, however the more specific your kritiks get, the less familiar I am with the authors and literature. There are some key exceptions and generally any form of IR kritik or kritik of the general "structure" of society I will understand (Fem IR/Cap/Militarism for example). You must explain the kritik, the role of the ballot, and specifically explain the link and how the alternative functions. Explain the kritik in your own words, don't just read a block at me.

On topicality I default to reasonability, but this doesn't mean that I won't vote on topicality, especially if you give me reasons why I should prefer competing interpretations. In slow/quick rounds I am generally able to get citations on my flow, but in fast rounds you won't be able to extend just by author/year. Talk about the card, its tag, and its role in the round (this is just good extension advice in general). With all arguments if I don't understand your point, it doesn't make it onto my flow because you weren't clear, it got flowed onto the wrong sheet, etc then you didn't say it and I won't evaluate it. This happens most often on theory/T/K where I don't understand the violation or alternative or some other aspect of the argument--and the easiest solution to this problem is again to slow down for a second and use your own words to explain the argument.

If the round is going to have more than 5+ minutes of T/Theory I think everyone is better off if you go at 90% of your speed on those arguments. I am not as fast as you think I am, and while it's rare that I'm sped out of rounds, it does happen, and when it does 90% of the time it's me missing theory analysis because you're blazing through a pre-written block like its a politics card. I am more than happy to answer any questions you may have, and I do my best to adapt my judging style to the round I am in. One thing that I feel many teams do is over-adapt, and it often hurts them. Debate the way you want to debate, and I will evaluate it however you tell me to. I'd much rather judge really good debates over K literature I'm not familiar with prior to the round than bad or bland CP/DA debate.

inactive

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

also, please add analytics to chain, atleast for zoom debates because it might be harder for me to flow them due to audio/connection speed/lag. Thanks

Debate Experience:

*I debated at Olathe South Highschool for 3 years.

*And I have debated at JCCC for 1 year and I'm currently moving onto my 2nd year debating in college.

Pronouns: They/Them

What I expect in and outside of rounds:

I understand that debate can be a squirrely place full of different arguments, theory and ideology, and some have some pretty interesting things to say. HOWEVER I have ZERO tolerance for racist, sexist, ableist, and heterosexist comments in and outside of the activity.

And dont be excessive or unnecessarily mean or rude to anybody in and out of rounds.

I will not do the work for any team, if you have an argument you have to connect the dots and lines for me, I refuse to do extra work for a team. It's apart of getting better, explain your arguments and stick to the ones that best suits you and the round. Show me/tell me why you win the round and cross-apply/pull through the arguments you go for and tell me why its important.

I reward creativity and hard work, show me something new, keep me engaged for a chance at higher speaks.

I also refuse to make any judgements about you or the round based on what you wear, that means nothing to me, in college debate no one really dresses up. Also, making judgements about clothing in & out of rounds is not only classist, but it can be racist, sexist, and ableist. I WILL call out other JUDGES and DEBATERS who make any comments related to another's appearance. This is a space of acceptance.

Spreading/Speed Reading:

I'm more than okay with it, I can understand those who spread. Don't be afraid to speed read for me, don't worry I got it. Just make sure you are speaking clearly, If I cant understand you I will make that evident within round, if I cant understand you or your words are coming out of your mouth faster than your brain can process it. Just slow down on the Tags, Authors. I don't want to hear gibberish, I don't expect it to be 1000% crystal clear the whole time, but try your best to be understandable.

Counter Plans:

CP's are cool, just do the work. Show me that the CP is mutually exclusive and explain the CP that's all I ask.

K's and K lit:

I am a big fan of Kritiks and any K lit, I prefer them much more than policy arguments, however that doesn't mean you have a higher chance of winning or losing a round if you do or do not run them. If you do decide to run a K, you have to explain it well enough for me to understand it, as if I have not heard it before even if I have already, which I probably have lol. Like I said above, I will not do the work for you!

A big part of judging a debate for me, is the technical side, please explain in great detail the link level of the debate in great detail, I cant apply an argument if you don't do the work.

You also have to explain the alt to me, and the mechanisms of the alt, like how it will work, or what the world of the alt would look like. Just be sure to explain your arguments in general.

I'm also a big fan of performance arguments so go for it if you want! :)

A brief summary of some K's I have used this year: Academy, Ableism, Anarchy, Buddhism, Capitalism K, Heidegger, Psychoanalysis, Security, Queer Theory.

Also if you're not black then don't run blackness arguments, if you're not queer then don't run queer theory, etc..

Policy Arguments/Case Arguments:

I was a policy debater all throughout high-school and a little bit in college, I do enjoy some good o'l policy arguments, just make sure you explain whatever you run well.

I'm not the biggest fan of Nuclear war impacts, so if you can avoid it, then please do so. Unless you can prove to me, beyond a reasonable doubt how the world will dissolve into nuclear chaos. Other then that all impacts are on the table. I'm looking for creativity with Policy arguments, because truthfully most of them tend to bore me. That doesn't mean you will have a higher or lower chance of winning if you run them, just have fun with it, do the work and show me why you win. it's very simple.

Im also not the biggest fan of Politics or Bi-Partisanship DA's in general, but that can be attributed more to the fact that I hate the USFG and any other Governmental/Power Based structures as a whole, because I believe any power structure is designed to create struggles and tyranny from those deemed lesser, and thats messed up and I shouldn't have to tell you WHY! (Thanks Anarchism K's lol.) But like I mentioned previously regarding Nuke War impacts/DA's, I won't stop you from running them, and I won't weigh them any less than any other DA/IMP's/ or argument you run, YOU HAVE TO DO THAT WORK FOR ME WITH IMPACT CALC!!!

And please if you have case args, then run them if applicable, I feel like there isn't enough clash in rounds anymore and that's partly because people are either afraid, or just dont want to read on-case, read it if you have it, if not I hope you have a sure-fire/strong strategy to win the round. Say if you have 10 DA's and 3 K's it still might not be enough to win the round without great links, or impacts. Because even if you do, if they claim case outweighs and you dont provide any reason why that's not true you will lose, plain and simple. That's also I big reason I think Impact Calc and FW is super important.

Impact Calculus:

Its important, do it in round if you want to make me happy. Show me the in's-and out's of your impacts, and weigh them. Thanks

Framework/Topicality:

Framework is huge for me in deciding a round, I will usually always vote for a team that tells me how to view their arguments, and the round at large rather a team that does not, even if I wouldn't necessarily deem that lens in which they asked me to view the round through is a good argument or not. If you really wanna sell me on a vote for you, have solid FW arguments.

I understand T is basically apart of FW, but if you separate the two, which is totally fine, then good for you. However if you run a T arg you really have to hit home on why a team is or is not topical/ abusively untopical for me its either all or nothing. If you don't make it thorough, and really explain it I wont vote on it, simple as that. And that's also due in part because I hate Topicality, I guess IT IS an argument, but to me its sort of a cop-out unless they're blatantly un-topical. I would much rather see some of your efforts be put into another basket. But again, I won't stop you from running it, but please show me they actually are abusive and

Speaks:

I'm down for any speed you want to go, I dont reward based on presentation and speed alone, but moreover on argumentation, creativity, and how well you explained your arguments.

Coaching/Communication Inquires:

If you would like to contact me for advice, coaching, and/or a more in-depth explanation of an RFD then feel free to reach out to me and send me an email or a text with the contact information listed below. If you do reach out it, I will only respond to debate, forensics, life advice, or college related discussions.

I also I have a close relationship with some coaches and assistant coaches in the community, and if you would feel more comfortable talking to them for advice, coaching, or connections. I'm more than happy to set you up with them so you can connect and talk to them about what I mentioned above or about furthering your debate career.

And if there's any specific theory you'd like to learn about, or what it takes to debate in college, I know either me or my spouse - who currently debates at KU, and is an Assistant coach at SMW - can give you some great suggestions! We are always down to help the community that has given us so much.

Thanks, and have fun y'all! :)

Coaching/Questions Email: lbrigdon.info@gmail.com

And remember to have fun, debate is about expression, learning, growing and making life long connections. Dont take any RFD or ballot to heart, in the end I just want you to succeed and learn as much as you can. I love the members of this community dearly, and I want everyone who partakes to have a good time that they will take with them for the rest of their lives.

pfd peeps:

I have only judges pfd a handful of times, but I did qualify for nats in public forum in high school. I also competed in public forum for three years in high school. I should be good with anything you decide to do, but let me know if you have any questions at all.

Policy peeps:

You don't lose until I sign the ballot - if you know you are way too behind then it's time to shoot for the moon; condo, dispo turns, try and sell a new link turn, whatever. I appreciate not giving up and being risky on a mid round strat change if executed well and justified.

Voted aff on the policy topic: 13

Voted neg on the policy topic: 19

email: trinityb@ksu.edu

she/her/hers

Four years at @ Manhattan High School

Assistant Coach @ Lawrence High

Everything is up for debate.

I am a heavy flow critic. I find myself looking towards the arguments and how they function in the debate over the inherent “truth” of an argument. I will vote on an argument I know is not true (many economy arguments, for example) if this is not refuted. Basically, I am tech over truth in most instances...

However, I will not vote on arguments such as racism good, patriarchy good, transphobia good, ableism good, colonialism good, etc. Give content warnings for graphic content (I will vote you down) If there are any of the aforementioned violence practiced theoretically or materially in round I will vote against your team immediately. These types of injustices kill education and means that no ethical pedagogy can occur. Zero tolerance here. Debate space should be a space to act without fear of oppression - I will make sure that is reflected in my judgments and comments.

I am fine with any speed you choose, you will not go too fast for me. However, do not spread just to push the other team out. That is an accessibility issue and if they are pushed out of the round and make an abuse argument or criticism of your practices I will most likely vote against you. I see way too many debaters push other teams out just because they think they are better than the other team. Don't be a dick.

Topicality: I love it. A good T debate is my favorite debate to judge and was my favorite argument to run. T is always a voter because it taps into the performative aspects of debate and how this education can be effective. They are always about competing interpretations and the reasons as to why that interpretation is more beneficial than others. You must weigh the offense based on your standards/voters vs. the C/I and their subsequent standards/voters. You have to win your interpretation is the best for the debate. This applies to all theory arguments.

***Topicality is just an agreement between two teams on what is to be debated.*** If there is/are more pertinent issue(s) that the teams wish to discuss (e.g. anti-blackness, transphobia, colonialism, ableism) of a particular event that is proximal to the debaters then that is okay. Do not think you are stuck to the topic if there is a general consensus on what should be debated.

Counterplans: Read one, please. If you don’t, you need status quo solves. If you read a perm text, please give SOME explanation on how the perm functions. I don’t view perms as advocacies (no one does anymore) because the CP is just opportunity cost to the affirmative, so don’t act like you suddenly have an amazing new net-benefit because you permutated the CP. Presumption never flips aff. Presumption, simply put, is that the existing state of affairs, policies, programs should continue unless adequate reasons are given for change. I believe condo is good, I'm going to have a hard time listening to anything else.

Criticisms/Performances: I do run Ks as a debater. (I have argued neolib, cap, security, fem, gender, set col, and queer kritiks) It should be an advocacy. Additionally, I do not think white debaters should run anti-blackness. I do not think non-queer individuals should run queer theory. This runs the line of commodification and you cannot work within that position if you do not belong to it, meaning that you will never truly understand what you are running and operating form a position of privilege to do so. I am okay with whatever criticism or performance you so choose to run, just make sure you can explain it and how it solves the aff.

Case: haha you should do it, literally aff's are so bad and not well designed anymore. I could have lost on presumption so many times my senior year but people are too afraid to give that 2NR. If that is your best 2nr option, do it.

***BOTTOM LINE***

It is much more important to me that you find an educational gain from this activity and adequately express the things you care about greatly than hitting all the stock issues or being a policy maker. Debate is about the debaters, make the round what you want. ANY attempt to push the other team out of the debate will result in a dropped ballot.

fiat is fake and the debate round should be ethically and strategically centered in the contact between the bodies in the space (me and the debaters). that doesn't mean i don't buy your ptx da or shady i/l link chain, but that i want to see a politely conducted, complex debate with four people who know a lot more about what they are talking about than me. at the end of the day, we all leave the round and what we take away from it is knowledge, empathy and experience. if you prove to me that you are best for the production of those three things in this space, then it is likely you have won. (Sam took this from me)

Attack the argument, not the debater. As a woman in debate, I have experienced forms of sexism, if I see any of this, you will be voted down. microaggressions, racism, homophobia, or xenophobia will not be tolerated by me. If I encounter this, I will stop flowing and vote you down. CX is a time for understanding, not for coming after the other team. Don’t be a jerk. If you are, you will be voted down. Debate is a place for fun and learning, not for being mean to people for the sake of “winning.”

Any other questions just find me and ask.

Debated @ SMW from 2016-2020 (China (2016/2017, Education 2017/2018, Immigration 2018/2019, and Arms Sales 2019/2020)

Debated @ JCCC 2nd semester of my senior year 2020 (Space)

Debated at KU (alliances fall 2020)

Coached at SMW 2020-2022

Pronouns they/them

add me to the email chain: catheydebate@gmail.com

~~~~~~~~LD DEBATERS~~~~~~~~~~

I may be experienced at policy but I have no idea what's going on, treat me like a parent judge please, im begging you. I don't even know round structure.

~~~~~~~~POLICY DEBATERS~~~~~~~~~~

UPDATE 12-2-22: I took a step back from the debate world this school year, so this is the first tournament of the season for me, yay!! I have really no idea about the topic. If you're good at what you do, it shouldn't matter. Make sure to explain everything out, impact it, do the stuff, basically write my ballot for me. Feel free to read whatever, get out there and do your thing. Since I have been out my spreading awareness has just gotten worse, so you can, just maybe not top speed for me? Slow down, and clearly say tags & analytics. I don't care how fast your cards are as long as I can get the speech doc and what I just mentioned. I will be watching for clipping, but I trust y'all.

*New rule for zoom debate, send me analytics when spreading because I have a really hard time processing stuff when I’m listening to things on the internet, captions are honestly my best friend, when you otherwise can't send analytics slow down. Plus you never know about audio quality on my end so don't assume that my scratchy speakers can put through your spreaded analytics. You don't have to send them to everyone if you don't want to, but please send them privately to me, because then you know I flowed them for sure and can get justifiably mad at me when I say you didn't say something that's right infront of my face. It's much easier for me to focus if we were in person so don't worry about speed.

Don't say anything abusive. You'll get 0 speaks. So no racism, no homophobic/transphobic things, no ableism, no sexism, nothing. I will give your team the automatic loss, with 0 speaks, and talk to your coach. So please don't. It should be a given. On pronouns, if you misgender someone, if you just say I'm sorry and then move on and don't do it again, I won't feel inclined to drop your speaks. But if you say more, yeah I will, just apologize and move on. Doing anything else in my mind is toxic, because if you say anything other than sorry you're justifying it and that's not cool.

I've been trying to figure out what I want my paradigm to say for a while now, but honestly I think less is more at this point.

You can run anything. Except, I really don't want to vote on T. Please don't read more than 1 or 2 arguments.

Framework I will vote on, but I don't want to vote on just framework, give me a good reason why I shouldn't vote for this K aff other than it scares you and you have nothing else ready.

Run all the abusive CP's you want, I love abusive counterplans, as long as they solve something.

DA's I love em, keep em coming, but make them link.

K's make sure you explain to me the nuances of your K, otherwise go at it. I know some stuff from running it but please understand I am a business major and don't have the energy to read every single philosopher to exist. UPDATE 1/2/21: I am no longer a business major, I've changed to something different, but the premises still stands

For theory stuff if you read condo I won't vote on it unless the neg is running more than 5-6 things, but it also really depends on what they are. Like a DA, a CP, 2 T's, and a K yeah no, probably won't get me to vote on condo because you can easily respond to all of it if you manage your time right. More than 1 K plus a bunch of other things will get me to. I don't want to see a round have more than 1 K ever so please don't do that, and what i mean by more than 1 K is dont read 3 5 card K's that totally contradict each other. If they pair well I don't care(like a language K + something else), but if their philosophies are totally off base from each other yeah no.

He/Him/His

Paradigm: Tabula Rasa, default to offense/defense

Email: nateisdabomb@gmail.com

I would like to be on the email chain

Last substantive edit on my paradigm would be like late 2018.

Experience: I debated for Neenah High School for four years and UMKC for three years. For a year I served as assistant coach at Lee A Tolbert Community Academy. I also did forensics, kudos to you if you can make a group discussion reference. I've judged a lot of middle school rounds, a good number of high school, and the occasional college tournament (including the NDT). Just about all of my competitive and judging experience is in policy / CX debate.

I will flow whatever I hear in a speech, I have no objections to spreading. That being said, if I cannot hear you, I cannot flow you. Slow down on tags/authors or key points if you want to ensure I get them.

I want to hear good substantive clash in a round - that can occur with any argument type. Analysis wins rounds. Make comparative claims.

To me, there are two clear cut strategies to win a round - go further in depth or have a wider breadth. Either of these are fine for me. To win a depth round you need to do lots of analysis. To win a breadth round you need to capitalize on your opponents concessions. Either way you should be explaining why you winning a certain argument is important to the round.

Flows interact more than most teams acknowledge. Cross applying an argument your opponent made on one flow to another is a very viable strategy.

I have no objections to any argument type, whether it be K's, performance, T, theory, etc. That being said, I'm not super familiar with a lot of wild K literature; explain your thesis and you should be fine. I generally find myself leaning towards and inclined to vote for well explained kritiks over policy teams.

Theory should have an interpretation, standards, and voters just like topicality. I enjoy a good topicality or theory debate and I think that these arguments are underutilized in debate today. However, the ways teams are deploying topicality have drifted from the time/space I debated, I find it increasingly difficult to evaluate a round decided on topicality - make it easier for me. Tell a story, don't make me piece together the abuse claim.

Tech > Truth. But truth still has a lot of value, particularly on theory flows.

I aim to be as neutral as I can be going into a round. I think judge intervention is one of the worst things a debater can experience. This informs my philosophy towards me calling for cards at the end of a round. I will not call for cards unless there is a clear disagreement over the substance/text of a piece of evidence. I highly value good evidence, but if your evidence is better it should be articulated in round. I will not do work for you after the round. On the subject of evidence quality, I will give you significantly more weight on a claim/argument if you extend the warrants in a card rather than just saying extending the author or even the tag.

In some rounds judge intervention is inevitable depending on how the debaters performed. Eliminate the risk of judge intervention by doing my work for me. Tell me exactly why I should vote for you and why that's preferable to voting for the other team. Comparative analysis and warrant explanation does wonders here.

I'm serious when I say I'm a tabs judge. If you win that I should evaluate a round a certain way I will do so.

That being said, there are a few rules of debate that I would be very uncomfortable writing off. These include: uninterrupted speech, speech times, and speech order (I don't really care so much as to who on a team is speaking, especially if the identity of the speaker is relevant to the argument). From my perspective right now, these 'rules' are inviolable and necessary for a debate round to even occur, but if you argue against these rules I will evaluate it, I'll just need some real persuasion.

Pizza is my favorite food.

I'd be happy to answer any questions you have at any time! Good luck and have fun!

Danniel Christensen

dannielchristensen1@gmail.com

Currently an assistant coach @ Lansing High School

1.5 years College Debate @ K-State

4 years HS debate @ Shawnee Mission West

Policy Debate:

Tech over truth

I have no knowledge of the current topic

Tl;dr: I will evaluate everything in the round. At the end of the day, this is a debate, so do what you are good at and have fun.

Affs: Anything. I read planless affirmatives all the time, but at the same time, I also read topical affirmatives.

Impact turns: They are fun.

Topicality: I vote on T. Even if it doesn't make sense. I do not like RVI's, but I will vote on them if they are conceded.

Disadvantages: Impact framing is important. Give me some way to weigh the impact of the DA in relation to the aff.

Counterplans: Default condo, CP's are great, cheating CP's aren't cheating until it has been proven that they are cheating. I will vote on theory but make sure you slow down on your theory shells so that I can catch all of your arguments. Debaters have a fun habit of just spreading everything, and that can make it difficult to catch blippy arguments that are often embedded in theory arguments.

Kritiks: FW is a way to win my ballot. Explain the alt in a way that resolves a link (usually isn't an instantaneous action). You don't have to go for the alt, just make sure you explain how the link/impact alone should win the debate. The role of the Ballot is a great way to explain how I evaluate the round. I know most K lit, but buzzwords don't explain anything to me.

I flow every speech straight down, so the presence of an overview is meaningless to me.

Notes for LD:

I have done both the classic value-criterion style and the new policy style. Either is fine with me. Just make sure it all flows and give me a lens to evaluate the round. Why am I voting for you (offense)? Why am I not voting for the other debater (defense)?

To win an LD debate you can employ any of these strategies:

1. My value is better than yours

2. My criterion can lead to your value, but your criterion cannot obtain my value

3. your criterion cannot solve your value, but mine can solve my value

4. Offense/Defense (policy style that has grown in LD)

Speaks:

30: Fantastic -- one of the best rounds I've seen

29: Some things to work on -- but overall you did pretty good (above average)

27-28: This is average -- some mistakes, but you recovered

26: You executed something wrong

Hello folks,

For me, debate is focused on the art of persuasion.

Beyond everything else, solid arguments backed by reason wins points with me.

Delivery is of secondary importance, but if I cannot hear (volume) or cannot comprehend (to much speed, incoherent speech,) can detract from the argument. I do enjoy confident speakers with great verbal and nonverbal communication.

Often, my judging comes down to only a couple of moments of the debate. I hope to clearly let each team know what moments I see the argument falling to one team over the other.

If the opportunity arises, be clever.

**Masks UP please**

Thank you for participating. I hope this experience is positive and memorable for the rest of your life.

Good luck!

Joel Coash-Johnson

My email is carolynsearscook@gmail.com carolyncook@smsd.org and I think it would be awesome for you all to start the email chain before I get to the debate so that we don't have to waste time doing it once I arrive:)

I debated in high school in Kansas from 1999-2003 (SME). I coached high school debate throughout college but did not debate in college. I was the director of debate at Lansing High School where I coached and taught from 2009-2018. This (23-24) is my 6th year directing and teaching speech & debate at Shawnee Mission South.

I dislike when debaters are mean. This activity is awesome--I believe that it pushes us and makes us better thinkers and people--and debaters cheapen that opportunity when we choose not to respect one another. Please just be kind humans.

I learned to debate and evaluate debates as a policy maker but also find that I much prefer seeing you do what you do best in rounds. That being said, you know your lit and arguments better than I do (at least you should). So:

1. If you don't think the aff should get to weigh their 1AC against the criticism, you have to tell me why--same if you think that we should abandon the topic as the aff.
2. If you want me to evaluate an argument and your 'warrant' is described as a specific term: that one word is not a warrant. . . you should include a description of WHY your claim is true/accurate/means you win. Debates that are heavily reliant on jargon that I am unfamiliar with will result in me being confused.
3. If you do little work on literature (especially lit I am not familiar with), please don't then expect me to do a bunch of work for you in the decision.

You should clearly articulate the arguments you want to forward in the debate--I value persuasion as an important part of this activity.

Please be organized--doing so allows me to focus on the quality of argumentation in the round. Debates are so much more fun to watch when you have a strategic approach that you execute with care. Talk about your evidence. Warranted and strategic analysis that demonstrates your understanding of your own arguments, and their interactions with your opponent's, make debates better.

I default competing interpretations on Topicality and think T debates should include case lists and topical version of the aff. I think that weighing impacts is important. I also just enjoy good case debate. I tend to find consult and and condition CPs to be cheating...but you still have to answer them. You should always answer conditionality.

I really prefer that you are as explicit about HOW you would like for me to evaluate the debate and WHY this approach is best.

Please speak clearly... if you are incomprehensible my flow will not be great and the quality of my evaluation of the round will likely decrease.

I've been an assistant coach at Campus HS (Haysville, KS) for 7 years, and I was an assistant in Valley Center, KS, for 3 years. I also debated in high school.

Clarity of arguments is most important to me. Debaters should be understandable, and they can speak at a rapid pace. However, extreme speed--like that of an auctioneer--is unnecessary. It is better to have quality arguments that read a ton of evidence. I like for debaters to explain how the evidence supports the argument he/she makes. Merely reading a ton of evidence with no analytical link to voter issues is not productive debating. Don't assume that I will use the same reasoning or make the same connections as you do. It is your job as the speaker to help the audience understand and prefer your position in the debate. Keep it civil as well. I prefer arguments based in reality not theoretical or philosophical impossibilities.

If I stop flowing and cross my arms, that means you have lost me. Either you are confusing or you are reading so quickly I can't understand the words coming out of your mouth. This is your visual cue to adjust your speaking style to make yourself more understandable. Debaters often make the argument that the way a judge votes determines if a policy passes. I have never heard or seen a legislative session in Congress use spreading to pass laws. I really don't want to hear this in the round.

Above all, I vote on the logic and clarity of the arguments. This means that you must do more than read evidence.

Email: wcornett@trinityacademy.org

Lincoln-Douglas

I am a pretty traditional LD judge. I want a focus on the moral obligations and the value/criterion framing. Make sure that your framing connects to the contention level. Any questions, feel free to ask.

Policy

Warrants: Whichever arguments are being read, whether evidence-based or analytical, the ability to clearly explain your warrants instead of just asserting stuff is what gets you ahead on my ballot and in speaker points. This should be obvious, but it doesn't always play out that way.

Aff burden: Defend the resolution. My bias is towards a policy plan, but if you can provide a clear and compelling framework for another way to support the resolution, you can certainly do so. If you do want to get creative, however, you will have to do work explaining your framing and why/how I should evaluate the round.

DA's & CP's: Core negative positions. Case specific links are preferable, but I'll vote on generic links if the neg explains how it applies to the aff and the aff doesn't give a good reason why the link is either untrue across the board, or there is something unique about their position that disproves the link.

It's going to take some work to show me that conditionality is abusive, but I'm willing to listen to the argument. As is true across the board, abuse claims are strongest if they are specific to what happened within the round in question.

T: I'll vote on T, but it's not my preference to do so. I try to strike a balance between competing interpretations and reasonability (i.e. it is good to explore multiple definitions and why some may be better than others, but if in the absence of the debate clearly demonstrating that one definition is preferable and the aff meets their own interp, I'm going to lean aff on T).

K: Don't trust that I will automatically know your literature. In addition, just because a literature base exist to claim something, I will need clear analysis from the neg as to why I should buy that literature base. Framework is generally going to be important for me. Is the K presenting an alternative policy action to be evaluated like a CP? Is it proposing an individual action on my part? Something else? Let me know. Framework debates will vary depending on the answers to those questions, but affirmatives have options to contest the viability of the alt, either based on the specific action being suggested or on the way debate rounds function and whether I should buy that accepting or rejecting ideas on my ballot has any real world impact (e.g. does policymaking or the k have more educational value/skill development; if neither have out of round impact, is there benefit to game playing or not?). I am more likely to buy an alt if it actually gives me a different policy or mindset to adopt instead of just telling me to reject a mindset.

Impact Framing: I find arguments that say "any chance of the link means you vote" to be rather weak. First, I find that debaters tend to describe the probability of their scenarios in terms that are not only not realistic, but have no objective basis whatsoever. It often feels like arbitrarily pulling a statistical percentage out of a hat. This isn't just about debaters overstating the odds of big impacts like extinction happening. The same problem exists (in either the aff or the k) in claiming that you have 100% solvency for racism or sexual violence. This probably puts me more in a probability first camp, less because I won't look at big impacts than because I want clear warranted reasons that your impact will happen before I look at anything else.

Voters: Assume that I will take you seriously about what you go for at the end of the round. What you go for in the 2NC will be what I focus my decision on, even if I thought you were ahead elsewhere. Importantly, even if you extend a card in the 2NC, but don't give me any analysis of why that is something I should be voting on, it probably won't be part of my decisions. Don't expect me to do the work of framing your voters for you.

Argument Interaction: Give me clear direction as to the way that your arguments interact with one another. If you are running arguments that contradict one another, give me explanation of why doing so makes sense. If you are running T and saying that the aff gives you no DA ground, how does that interact with any DAs you are running? Are you going to just simultaneous ask me to believe that your links are trash when I am looking at the T flow and awesome when I'm looking at the DA flow? Running both of these arguments together can be strategic in a number of directions, but I'm going to need you to clarify that by the end of the round rather than just leaving it unresolved.

Speed: I'm not the fastest at flowing, so give me clear tag lines. If the tournament allows it, I appreciate being on the email chain/receiving the flash of the speech.

In general, I am a flow judge. Carry your arguments in construction through to rebuttals. Cross-Examination is your time to gain insight on policy/evidence/plan etc. I will critic CX but won't judge arguments in the framework of the CX so carry them to your follow-up Construction speech.

I debated in high school and college — a long time ago.

I like clash and reason. Explain to me why your position is better than theirs. If all everyone has provided me at the end of the round is a bunch of evidence, with no reason, I’ll just make up my own mind based on what I know.

Listening to people read to me bores me.

Pick a fight and have fun!!

As long as federalism DAs are not run, we will be okay.

Debated 4 years at Dowling HS in Des Moines, Iowa (09-12, Energy, Poverty, Military, Space)
Debated at KU (13-15, Energy, War Powers, Legalization)
Previously Coached: Ast. Coach Shawnee Mission Northwest, Lansing High School.
Currently Coaching: Ast. Coach Washburn Rural High School

UPDATE 10/1: CX is closed and lasts three minutes after constructive. I won't listen to questions or answers outside of those three minutes or made by people that aren't designated for that CX. I think it's a bummer that a lot of CXs get taken over by one person on each team. It doesn't give me the opportunity to evaluate debaters or for debaters to grow in areas where they might struggle. I'm going to start using my rounds to curb that.

Top Level
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. Last top level note. If you lose my ballot, it's your fault as a debater for not convincing me that you won. Both teams walk into the room with an equal chance to win, and if you disagree with my decision, it's because you didn't do enough to take the debate out of my hands.

Carrot and Stick
Carrot - every correctly identified dropped argument will be rewarded with .1 speaks (max .5 boost)
Stick - every incorrectly identified dropped argument will be punished with -.2 speaks (no max, do not do this)

General
DAs - please. Impact calc/ turns case stuff great, and I've seen plenty of debates (read *bad debates) where that analysis is dropped by the 1ar. Make sure to answer these args if you're aff.

Impact turns - love these debates. I'll even go so far as to reward these debates with an extra .2 speaker points. By impact turns I mean heg bag to answer heg good, not wipeout. Wipeout will not be rewarded. It will make me sad.

CPs - I ran a lot of the CPs that get a bad rep like consult. I see these as strategically beneficial. I also see them as unfair. The aff will not beat a consult/ condition CP without a perm and/or theory. That's not to say that by extending those the aff autowins, but it's likely the only way to win. I lean neg on most questions of CP competition and legitimacy, but that doesn't mean you can't win things like aff doesn't need to be immediate and unconditional, or that something like international actors are illegit.

Theory - Almost always a reason to reject the arg, not the team. Obviously conditionality is the exception to that rule.

T - Default competing interps. Will vote on potential abuse. Topical version of the aff is good and case lists are must haves. "X" o.w. T args are silly to me.

Ks - dropping k tricks will lose you the debate. I'm fine with Ks, do what you want to. Make sure that what you're running is relevant for that round. If you only run security every round, if you hit a structural violence aff, your security K will not compel me. Make sure to challenge the alternative on the aff. Make sure to have a defense of your epistemology/ontology/reps or that these things aren't important, losing this will usually result in you losing the round.

K affs - a fiat'd aff with critical advantages is obviously fine. A plan text you don't defend: less fine, but still viable. Forget the topic affs are a hard sell in front of me. It can happen, but odds are you're going to want someone else higher up on your sheet. I believe debate is good, not perfect, but getting better. I don't think the debate round is the best place to resolve the issues in the community.

Speaker points.
I don't really have a set system. Obviously the carrot and stick above apply. It's mostly based on how well you did technically, with modifications for style and presentation. If you do something that upsets me (you're unnecessarily rude, offensive, do something shady), your points will reflect that.

email chain: ethan.eitutis@gmail.com

>>If you're not flowing, I'm not flowing.<<

I debated for 4 years for Cindy Burgett at Washburn Rural High School where I graduated in 2017. I coached for Annie Goodson at Blue Valley West for 4 years. I went to KU, studied Political Science, and graduated in 2022.

I will not do any work for you.

You can read fast but don't go 100%. I need to be able to understand your tags and analytical arguments, especially during online debates. I'd much rather you make 3 good, thought out, real arguments than 6 garbage ones. Getting through your T shell in 2.8 seconds is cool I guess but I won't be able to flow it.

If you're not flowing, I'm not flowing.

Extending claims without warrants is not making an argument.

I am familiar with Cap, Security, Abolition, and some SetCol. I'll gladly listen to whatever K you read, but for ones outside of those 4 I will probably just need some explanation.

Stop reading 8 minutes of bad arguments in the 1nc hoping that the 2ac will undercover one and you'll win that way. That's bad for debate and horrible to listen to. I wish aff teams would make args about this in the debate. If your arg is that pqd stops nuisance lawsuits about naval sonar, and naval sonar kills horseshoe crabs which are key to the survival of the human race, perhaps you should lose. Stop it

((I'm not saying affs should make speed bad or condo args, I'm saying affs should make args that pqd -> sonar -> horseshoe crabs -> human extinction is bad for debate))

If you're not flowing, I'm not flowing.

Tim Ellis
Head Coach - Washburn Rural High School, Topeka, KS
Updated July 23
Email chain - ellistim@usd437.net, fiscalrizztribution@googlegroups.com

Introduction: Hello, debaters and fellow educators. I am Tim Ellis, and I am honored to be here as a judge at this high school policy debate tournament. My background includes [briefly mention your educational and professional background relevant to the debate topic or communication skills]. My role as a judge is to evaluate your arguments, critical thinking, and communication abilities, while maintaining a fair and unbiased approach to the debate.

Debate Philosophy: I believe in fostering an environment where students can express their ideas passionately, engage in respectful discourse, and develop their critical thinking skills. I encourage debaters to focus on clear and logical arguments, evidence-based analysis, and effective communication. Substance will always take precedence over style, but effective delivery can enhance your message.

Argumentation: I value well-structured arguments that are supported by credible evidence. When presenting your case, it's important to clearly define your position, provide relevant evidence, and logically connect your arguments. The use of real-world examples and expert opinions can significantly bolster your points. Remember, the quality of your evidence matters more than the quantity.

Clash and Refutation: Debates thrive on clash – the direct engagement with your opponents' arguments. I expect debaters to engage with opposing viewpoints by directly addressing their arguments, demonstrating the weaknesses in their logic, and offering counterarguments supported by evidence. Effective refutation requires a deep understanding of your opponents' case, so take the time to dissect their position and refute it cogently.

Communication: Clear communication is key to conveying your ideas persuasively. Speak confidently, enunciate your words, and maintain a steady pace. Avoid jargon or excessive use of technical terms that might alienate those unfamiliar with the topic. Remember, effective communication isn't just about what you say, but how you say it – engaging with your audience is crucial.

Etiquette and Sportsmanship: Respect for your opponents, your partner, and the judge is non-negotiable. Keep your focus on the arguments and ideas, rather than personal attacks. Maintain a professional demeanor throughout the debate, and remember that good sportsmanship is an integral part of the debate community.

Time Management: Time management is essential. Respect the allocated time limits for your speeches, cross-examinations, and rebuttals. Effective time allocation allows for a balanced and comprehensive discussion of the issues at hand.

Final Thoughts: Debating is a valuable skill that extends beyond the walls of this tournament. Regardless of the outcome, embrace the learning experience. Constructive feedback is intended to help you grow as debaters and thinkers. I am here to provide a fair assessment of your performance, and my decisions will be based on the quality of your arguments, your ability to engage in meaningful clash, and your overall communication skills.

I am looking forward to witnessing your insightful arguments and thoughtful engagement. Let's engage in a spirited and enlightening debate that enriches all of us. Best of luck to each team, and may the discourse be both rigorous and rewarding.

About Me:

I debated for four years at Shawnee Mission West both on open and varsity circuits and competed in NPDA at UCLA. I went to NSDA Nationals in high school and made it to round 11. I am now a medical student at KUMC, so I have been out of the game for a while, but I'm still competent. I have things I like to see, but I ultimately would rather see what you are best at running. So just do that.

Topicality:

I was a fan of always throwing topicality onto every aff, so I am a fine judge for it even though it isn't my fav strategy to judge. There need to be clear violations of the aff and clear standards that are reasons to reject the team. I tend to go with competing interpretations unless reasonability goes completely unanswered by the neg. You need a case list and the aff should respond to this. Why is the ground your interp gives GOOD ground?

Disads:

These are obviously chill. I ran politics a lot in high school (sorry my midterms fans, just missed it). If the basis of your disad is something really niche, explain it to me because I will not have done a lot of research on the topic beforehand. Make sure you have an impact. Usually, tech over truth. I am not going to vote for something without a really clear link to the plan unless it goes unanswered. Turns are a must here, put them at the top of the speech you are addressing them in.

CPs/Theory:

These are also good. Net ben needs to be clear and/or a really good sufficiency arg. I will not judge kick, so do it for me. I am probably not your best judge for a theory debate, but I will listen to them and vote on them if you tell me to.

Kritiks:

I ran primarily neolib and cap in high school and still feel good on these. Security is fine too. I will listen to Ks and ran planless affs in college. You need to win framework here, or I am most likely going to default aff (this goes for a lot of Fw/theory stuff). This is especially true because I think most alts tend to do nothing tangible. Aff should have a perm and some turns probably. PIKs (and PICs for that matter) are iffy for me. Probably don't do these. If you are going to go for the K, GO FOR THE K. Spending half your time in the 2NR on case defense and then the K is a waste of time.

Some More General Stuff:

Don't abuse your prep time. I see teams do this a lot, and it will damage your speaks. I am not going to be super strict about "prep ends when the flash drive comes out", but if you take forever, it will be an issue.

Aff: apply your case extensions to args instead of just line by line extending things without a purpose. Pls, it is no fun to judge a bunch of shallow extensions.

Neg: the more specific your args are to the aff, the better chance you have of winning the debate (duh)

Speaks: I don't have a set -.2 for this and that system, but if you abuse your prep, are discriminatory in any way to the other team, etc. you will lose points and it could be a reason to reject the team. Rarely give 30s unless you are fantastic and perfect. 28 is my default, whether you go up or down from there is up to you.

Everyone is here for good debates, and I love watching them. Be nice and do what you like, and I will listen.

Updated: 11/11/22

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.

Shawnee Mission East

For policy debate:

I am a stock issues judge with a focus on solvency. I will listen to topicality, justification, and prima facie arguments. I like to see a good analysis of case arguments in rounds.

I will take DAs into consideration for my decision. The more specific the link, the better, but generic DAs are acceptable if links are clearly analyzed.

I do not like CPs; they have to be run with strict adherence to the CP rules, and they are a last resort for negative teams.

I will never listen to Kritiks.

Even though I debated all four years of high school, I would like teams communicate their points without relying solely on debate jargon. Speed is discouraged, but tolerated if teams articulate clearly.

I was a high school debater from 2008 -2011.

I have been judging debates since 2011.

I went to Kansas State University and Study Aviation and obtained my pilot licenses.

I spent 2 years at Garmin in the avionics department.

Currently I work as an Aviation Insurance Underwriter.

For Debate I prefer to see arguments on the stock issues. I prefer debaters not just read cards. Cards are important, but I like analytical arguments from the debaters to help link cards to the case and support the arguments being made. CP's can work as well. It is more important for the teams to make strong arguments on a single issue than to make 100 mediocre arguments. Speaking quickly is alright. Speed reading / spreading is discouraged.

If you have any questions please feel free to ask.
Good Luck.

I have worked with the SM East Debate program for 3 years. You may run any arguments that you want. Be prepared to explain if reading multiple cards. Read at the speed you are comfortable with.

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.

Experience: Graduated KU Law 2011 where I was the Student Director of the Paul E. Wilson Project for Innocence and Post-Conviction Remedies in my 3L year. I was a public defense attorney in the state of Kansas until 2016, with trial experience at the district and appellate level. In 2016, I became a federal attorney in the Department of Health and Human Services, where I advise federal Administrative Law Courts in appellate matters involving the interpretation and application of Medicare policy and regulations.

Paradigm: I'm a lay judge/debate parent, with 1 year of debate judging experience. Good evidence matters, but it is most effective when used to support accurate analysis presented in a logical manner. I value straightforward, organized arguments showing a claim, a warrant and an impact. Sign-posting is appreciated, and clarity becomes increasingly important with speed. If you choose to spread, I may not be able to follow you - accordingly, it won't meaningfully impact your chances of carrying the round. If you're going to run a theory, be sure you can explain and support it.

Debate is an incredible opportunity for students to practice civil discourse and develop as critical thinkers. Remember to attack the argument, and not the debater. Be respectful of your opponents and the forum. I have no qualms about voting down a debater who displays unethical conduct towards their opponent.

Experience and Basic Paradigm

Volunteer LD Judge at a small number of tournaments; experienced public and business sector speaker.

Basic Paradigm

As a long-time member of the science and engineering communities, and an adherent to the works of Michael Polanyi (Personal Knowledge), I approach debates as a hypothesis tester, emphasizing resolution-focused rather than plan-focused arguments.

Rate of Delivery Preference

Conversational. I judge on criterion, logic, and the quality of arguments. Rapid-fire spreading does not impress. This is a debate of thoughts and ideas, and not a cattle auction.

Rebuttals and Crystallization

Line-by-line analysis preferred, with minimal use of technical debate jargon.

How to Win

I decide on the winner of key arguments in the round, not the most arguments. If it is close, then the better speaker – the person who best persuaded me – carries the day.

they/them

please add me to chain - jamdebate@gmail.com

important stuff not directly related to my opinions about debate:

ceda update:

this is my first year judging college debate and kentucky is the only tournament i've judged at. i have not done any topic research for nukes. i've been out of college debate for a few years, but have been consistently coaching and judging high school debate. i am pretty experienced coaching/judging most different types of arguments, but for the past three years have mostly coached teams going for critical arguments. i used to primarily judge policy debates, but now primarily judge clash and kvk debates

please be honest with yourself about how fast you are going. i need pen time! i don't need you to go dramatically slower than you normally would, but please do not drone monotonously through your blocks as if they are card text or i will likely miss some arguments.

if debating online: go slower than usual, especially on theory

how i decide stuff:

i try my best to decide debates strictly based on what is on my flow. i generally try to intervene as little as possible, but i am not a judge that thinks that any argument is true until disproven in the debate. as much as some consider themselves "flow purists," i think every judge agrees with this to a degree. for example, "genocide good" or "transphobia good" etc. are obviously reprehensible arguments that are harmful to include in debate and i won't entertain. that being the case, i have kind of a hard time distinguishing those "obvious" examples from more commonly accepted ones that are, to me, just as harmful, like first strike counterplans, interventions good, etc. i’m disappointed i have to add this to my paradigm, but i will not vote on “the police are good” or "israel is good"

despite how the above paragraph might be interpreted, i frequently vote for arguments i don't like, including arguments i think are harmful for debate. at the end of the day, unless something i think drastically requires my intervention, i will try to judge the debate as objectively as i can based on my flow

by default i will vote for the team with the most resolved offense. a complete argument is required to generate offense, so i won't vote for an incomplete argument (e.g. "they dropped x" still needs a proper extension of x with a warrant for why it's true). judge instruction is very important for me. if there is an issue in the debate with little guidance from the debaters on how to resolve it, don't be surprised if there is some degree of intervention so i can resolve it. i will also not vote for an argument that i cannot explain

opinions on specific things:

i am willing to vote on arguments about something that happened outside of the debate, but need those arguments to be backed up with evidence/receipts. this is not because i don't/won't believe you otherwise, but because i don't want to be in the position of having to resolve a debate over something impossible for me to substantiate. i know it’s somewhat arbitrary, but it seems like the least arbitrary way for me to approach these debates without writing them off entirely, which is an approach i strongly disagree with. however, if someone i trust tells me that you are a predator or that you knowingly associate with one, i will not vote for you under any circumstances.

plan texts: if yours is written poorly or intentionally vaguely, i will likely be sympathetic to neg arguments about how to interpret what it means/does. neg teams should press this issue more often

planless affs: i enjoy judging debates where the aff does not read a plan. idc if the aff does not "fiat" something as long as it is made clear to me how to resolve the aff's offense. i am very willing to vote on presumption in these debates and i yearn for more case debating

t-usfg/fw: not my favorite debates. voting record in these debates is starting to lean more and more aff, often because the neg does a poor job of convincing me that my ballot cannot resolve the aff's offense and aff teams are getting better at generating uniqueness. i am less interested in descriptive arguments about what debateis (for example, "debate is a game") and more interested in arguments about what debate ought to be. the answer to that can still be "a game" but can just as likely be something else.

k thoughts: not very good for euro pomo stuff (deleuze, bataille, etc) but good for anything else. big fan of the cap k when it's done well (extremely rare), even bigger hater of the cap k when it's done poorly (almost every cap k ever). if reading args about queerness or transness, avoid racism. i don't mind link ev being somewhat generic if it's applied well. obviously the more specific the better, but don't be that worried if you don't have something crazy specific. i think "links of omission" can be persuasive sources of offense. for the aff, saying the text of a perm without explaining how it ameliorates links does not an argument make

theory: please make sure you're giving me pen time here. i am probably more likely than most to vote on theory arguments, but they are almost always a reason to reject the arg and not the team (obvi does not apply to condo). that being said, you need a warrant for "reject the arg not the team" rather than just saying that statement. not weirdly ideological about condo (i will vote on it)

counterplans/competition: a perm text without an explanation of how it disproves the competitiveness of the counterplan is not a complete argument. by default, i will judge kick the cp if the neg loses it and evaluate the squo as well. aff, if you don't want me to do that, tell me not to

lastly, i try to watch for clipping. if you clip, it's an auto-loss. the other team does not have to call you out on it, but i am much more comfortable voting against a team for clipping if the issue is raised by the other team with evidence provided. if i clear you multiple times and the card text you're reading is still incomprehensible, that's clipping. ethics challenges should be avoided at all costs, but if genuine academic misconduct occurs in a debate i will approach the issue seriously and carefully

avoid saying slurs you shouldn't be saying or you'll automatically lose

I debated policy for three years in high school. I am a policymaker and expect you to weigh the round. Tell me why you win and/or outweigh the other team. I believe topicality is important and, if blatantly nontopical, I will vote for it. I have debated in fast rounds and judged fast rounds but I PREFER a more slow to moderate speed round. Case debate is important and more clash/turns the better. Kritiks and CPs are fine but convince me why you win it. Have not judged a lot of Ks so please be very concise in explaining it to me. Be clear on your sign posting. I love and will listen to your CX - I don’t mind open CX. I value your arguments equally with your passion and speaking skills. Your final rebuttal should tell me why you win! Reading a bunch of pre-written arguments or analytics doesn’t do much for me. You can impress me if you do line by line. cmhund@hotmail.com

Experience: placed top 32 in policy debate at NCFL nationals, was Kansas 4-speaker state debate champion, was Kansas 2 speaker debate state champion class 4A

I was an assistant forensics coach for 10+ years in Kansas at Blue Valley Southwest. Placed top three in sweeps in class 5A twice.

*Stock issues: Aff-topicality, inherency, harm/solution, advantageous

Neg-argue stock issues, disadvantages, ineffectiveness of proposed solution--may use counterplan

*Present case logically.

*Respond to arguments clearly, using effective, relevant evidence and, in all cases, showing linkage

4th Year Senior at Blue Valley High School

I'll mostly consider all args but there are some I way a bit more heavily:

I prefer strong links over all else, impact calcs are good but i really want to see link analysis if anything

Love a good DA

I don't follow K's that well

Most importantly I follow the flow VERY heavily, so make sure you flow every arg and tell me why you should win off of it

Good Luck!

I am fairly new to debate so I am still learning some of the fundamentals of debate. I prefer debates that are reasonably slower pace with a bent towards flow policymaking.

I debated for four years at Washburn Rural High School and a year at KU. Previously an assistant coach.

Generally I evaluate in an offense-defense paradigm, but in rare circumstances I do believe that 100% defense is possible. I would generally prefer to see a team run arguments that they are good at rather than try to adapt to my specific paradigm and run arguments that they are less familiar with. With that being said, I do have some preferences.

If your speech contains content that may be disturbing, a trigger warning for judges and other competitors is appreciated. This warning should occur before your speech. You should also have a non-triggering version of your speech available. It is not okay to force another team to be triggered.

Generally I believe an affirmative should read a topical plan text. However, if you cannot articulate specific ground loss and education loss as a result of your violation, I find it hard to evaluate T. A strong discussion of why topicality should or should not be a voting issue is helpful, especially in the final rebuttals.

I also have trouble believing that one or two conditional positions are a reason to reject the team.

Thoughts on counterplans - Delay counterplans are almost always cheating unless timeframe is explicitly in the aff plan text. Consult counterplans seem to problematically assume that the plan that comes out of consultation resembles the original plan, though a specific solvency advocate or specific say yes evidence would be helpful with that. 50 state fiat seems questionable. At the very least, state flexibility arguments are wholly unpersuasive if your counterplan text requires uniform state action. PICs usually don't bother me. That is not to say I won't listen to or vote on a counterplan that seems like a cheating counterplan. It just means my threshold for theory arguments to reject it will likely be lower.

If the negative team goes for a counterplan, I generally believe that presumption flips aff. Judge kicking a counterplan seems extremely interventionary unless I have been told it is an option, and if the affirmative team tells me a good reason why I shouldn't I might not even be okay with judge kicking then.

Kritiks are usually okay, but they should be paired with arguments as to why the aff cannot or should not get to access their impacts. They are rarely an excuse to ignore the aff case.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Former Head Coach, I would recommend sticking to policy-making and dazzling speaking presentation skills. No speed; be prepared to really sell your args in rebuttals.

Shawnee Mission East Debate & Forensics Coach (2 Years)

Shawnee Mission East Forensics Team (2017-2019)

NSDA DUO Semifinalist (2019)

NCFL DUO Semi, quarterfinalist (2018, 2019)

Racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic rhetoric will not be tolerated at all.

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.

jordanmartin@ksu.edu

Most of this is stolen from my good friend, Luke Hartman. Please note that I haven't judged many rounds since Spring of 2019, so bear with me as I get re-used to things in this new debate world in the age of COVID-19.

Background:

I debated for four years at Spring Hill and one semester at Kansas State. I judged several tournaments a year every year from 2015 to 2018, and just recently started judging again this season virtually.

General Comments:

• I prefer policy-oriented debates, but I'm not terribly picky and will listen to most arguments as long as you can justify them.
• I don't pretend to be truly tabula rasa, as I believe that setting some ground rules (namely, that the affirmative team should defend the resolution and that the negative team should disprove the desirability of the affirmative) is a necessary prerequisite to meaningful, fair debate, but again I am open to other arguments if you justify them.
• Logic > tech > truth
• I'm far more willing vote for a smart analytical argument than a shallow extension of a card. Evidence should be read for the purpose of backing up your arguments -- not the other way around.
• On a similar note, my least favorite type of debate is the "card war". Don't just read cards -- make arguments.
• The technical aspect of debate is important to me. I'm generally willing to assign substantial risk to dropped arguments, but you still have to extend those arguments and their respective warrant(s).
• I love cross examination. If your cross examination is well thought out and used to generate arguments and understandings that are useful in speeches for important parts of the debate, my happiness and your speaker points will increase.

Topicality/Theory:

The affirmative team must affirm the resolution in order to win the debate, and I believe that maximizing fairness and education (generally in that order) is good for debate. "The plan is reasonably topical" is not an argument unless the negative's interpretation is patently absurd; the neg's standards/voters are reasons why the aff is not reasonably topical. T is never an RVI. Conditionality is fine unless abused in an egregious fashion; for example, if your 1NC includes 2 Ks and 5 CPs (I've seen it), you should probably go home and rethink your life.

Kritiks:

I am not very well versed in high-theory critical literature, so try to avoid burying me in jargon. I'm not a fan of 2NRs that go for "epistemology first" as a way to remove all substantive clash from the debate. Additionally, I tend not to think that my ballot has any particular "role" besides choosing who wins/loses the debate. "Role of the ballot" arguments should be articulated as impact framework, and they require actual standards/warrants -- not just the assertion that "The role of the ballot is [to vote for exactly what our aff/K does]." I am extremely skeptical of the idea that an isolated use of gendered/ableist language is reason enough for a team to lose a debate round. I'm open to listening to these arguments, but if the offending team apologizes, I think we should all be willing to move on and learn from the experience to improve all of individual lives.

Debates judged (CJR topic): 3

Debates judged (career): 188

add me to the email chain alexmc.debate@gmail.com

General Thoughts:

1. Be respectful.

2. You do you, read what you want and debate how you want.

3. Judge instruction in the 2nr/2ar is the best way to get me to vote for you. What does an aff/neg ballot look like? What does winning x argument mean for how I evaluate the round? These are the types of questions I want answered in the 2nr/2ar. Being ahead on some part of the flow is cool but not telling me what that means for how I evaluate the round may result in you being disappointed when I decide who won the debate based on my interpretation of what those claims mean for the debate rather than what you think they mean.

4. Offense is everything - if you win a substantive piece of offense in the debate there is a high likelihood that you win the round. No aff offense in the 2ar means I vote negative on presumption. Arguments needs warrants.

The Specifics:

Topicality / Theory - I default to competing interpretations. I don't think RVI's are much of a thing unless something egregious occurs.

CP's - Perms are just a test of competition. All your cheating counterplans are fine just be ready to defend their legitimacy in the debate.

K's - I'm good with whatever literature you like. I want a clear link in the 2nr - going for presumption without an impact directly tied to the reading / politics of the aff can occasionally work but I think the aff would need to be in a pretty dire situation. Judging high school debates I often find myself dissatisfied with alt solvency explanations in the 2nr, so if your 2nr strategy is heavily reliant on the alternative be sure to be in depth and try to contextualize the alternative to both neg and aff impacts, clearly outlining how the alternative process works and how you resolve the impacts, as well as which defense / turns means I prefer alt over the plan. For framework, if you think I shouldn't evaluate the implementation of the affirmative the justifications need to be clearly outlined.

K Affs / Framework - I heavily lean towards fairness as an internal link, not an independent impact. I can be convinced otherwise but will likely need more impact explanation and comparison in the 2nr. Switch sides should have a unique reason it's good rather than solves fairness while only linking to aff offense half the time. I find ethos to be relevant in these debates, I'm not a huge fan of conditional ethics. Ultimately if you engage in good faith debate you should be fine.

Despite the fact I have never been a debater, nor have I ever coached debate, I have been judging debate for 15 years.

As a judge, I value the following:

A logical stream of arguments that are tied to solid evidence and even stronger analysis.

Respect and professionalism between debaters.

Passion for the art of debate.

Insightfulness

Humility.

I do NOT appreciate the following:

Belittling your opponent

Speed-talking--I must be able to follow the argument.

I'm between a flow and a lay judge. I can follow arguments very well, and typically try to flow rounds. I will struggle somewhat with high-speed talking, but as long as I'm provided evidence I can manage. Composure and logic will help convince me in rounds, however, it is not the deciding factor for me. I am mainly a stock issues judge, but I am able to understand things as complicated as a K (Theory). The burden will be on the AFF to prove that they will solve completely, and if that is disproved then NEG will win. Although, the NEG will have to do a substantial job of demonstrating how the AFF doesn't solve.

Current assistant coach at Blue Valley North; debated at Oklahoma (2018-19) and Blue Valley North (2014-18).

Email chain/questions: emendelson7@gmail.com

Note for NSDA: I haven't judged PF before but I did compete in it a few times in high school. Everything below is in the context of policy debate.

General:

Online debate: please have your camera on, at least during your speeches/cx. I won't dock points if you can't, but online debate is a little less soul-crushing if we can at least see each other.

Debate should be enjoyable. Be nice to each other and have fun.

Do whatever you do best. I don't have any strong ideological positions on debate and I'll do my best to fairly judge whatever you put out there.

Please don't go top speed through T/theory/other dense analytics. I will not consult the speech doc to fill in gaps if I can't understand you or am unable to write it down fast enough. This is especially important for online debate.

I'll read cards after the round to verify the claims you're making about them, but I will not do the work of warrant explanation for you.

Case:

I would MUCH rather see in-depth case debate than a 10-off round. Substantive solvency arguments and indicts of the 1AC evidence are some of the easiest ways to my ballot. Offense is always important but I think I am slightly more willing than most to vote neg on presumption.

Counterplans:

I love counterplan debates. The more specific and creative the better.

I’m sympathetic to theory arguments against word PICs, delay/conditions/consult CPs, and CPs that fiat outside the federal government. Outside of those examples, I lean neg on counterplan theory. If the aff wins theory it’s more likely a reason to reject the argument than the team, with the exception of condo.

Kritiks:

Don't read a kritik that you cannot clearly articulate in CX. If you are unable to explain your own evidence, I will be very unlikely to vote on it.

The link is the most important part. Winning framework does not reduce the necessity of winning the link.

The neg still needs to beat the aff in order to win the K. What that looks like can vary, but I'm not very persuaded by arguments that I should just ignore the 1AC.

K Affs/Framework:

The aff should probably defend something in the direction of the resolution but that doesn't necessarily require a plan text. The farther the aff strays from the topic area the more likely that I'll find framework arguments persuasive, but I won't on-face reject any aff.

In general, I'm less concerned with whether the act of reading the 1AC solves a real-world problem than I am with whether the kind of action/inaction the 1AC advocates is hypothetically a good idea.

As the aff, you need to explain why the ballot matters and why debate specifically is a necessary site for your argument, not just why the thing you're talking about is important to learn about/discuss.

As the neg, framework is not a "they cheated" argument and I probably won't vote for it if that's how it's framed. I increasingly think that fairness is not its own impact but an internal link to education, but I can be persuaded otherwise.

Topicality:

The neg should frame T as "here is why the aff model of debate is bad," not "the aff should lose because they cheated."

I think I'm more pro-reasonability than a lot of judges, but "the aff is reasonably topical" is not a compelling deployment of it. The explanation of reasonability that makes sense to me is "our definition is a reasonable interpretation of the topic." That still needs to be backed up by warrants, though.

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 debated in high school for 4 years at Shawnee Mission North . I have been a coach for 5 years, 3 at Shawnee Mission West and 2 at Shawnee Mission East with my last year in spring of 2019. I have not judged a round of debate in a year, so I have no experience with the topic.

All arguments should be extended with a warrant. I will consider a dropped argument true if you extend with a warrant.

I prefer speed to be a bit faster than conversation and can generally follow a faster style of debate so long as you are clear. To be more specific, please be clear and slower on tags, and I would advise slowing down when you make topicallity, theory arguments or anything that is very technical. If you are too fast or unclear I will not flow your argument.

As a judge I will default policymaker, and to me this means I look at the debate from an offense/defense perspective. I have voted on critical arguments before, but for me framework and role of the ballot arguments are very important in such a round. I am unfamiliar with most K literature since the only K's I ran were Cap and Security. It is up to the team to explain very clearly their alt and link.

I believe theory is generally a reason to reject the argument and not the team, but I can be persuaded. Condo arguments are an exception.

I lean towards reasonability with Topicallity. This doesn't mean you shouldn't go for T in your 2NR. If the aff drops significant parts of the T debate there is a really good chance you can convince me to vote on it. I've watched alot of teams not go for T when they should.

Please ask me any other questions you may have.

I did policy debate in high school (Blue Valley High School, 4 years) and college (Missouri State University, 2 years). I've debated at NFL nationals, CEDA, and the NDT. (BV class of 2011; MO State class of 2015)

I really enjoy judging and want you to run the arguments you like to run/think are strategic whether that's a DA, K, CP, T, or something else. Help me write my ballot by telling me what's most important in the round and offering a coherent story of what it means to vote for you.

I think case debate is really important. Not everything needs to end in extinction and I think it's often persuasive when teams push back on that part of the impact debate. In other words, impact defense is important!!

Speed is fine, but I do think it's best to slow down a bit when everything is virtual. While I can certainly follow speed, quality is WAY more important than quantity. It's good to give yourself options in the round, but super overloaded 1NCs tend to include lots of arguments that are clearly just intended to suck time from the 2AC. Mostly, I just don't like it when a team goes WAY faster than the other team. I want to watch and evaluate a good round where we all actually learn instead of a round where we just skim the surface because one team is going as fast as they can and the other team can't keep up.

Rather than reading a bunch of cards that basically say the same thing, please actually lift up warrants and engage the other team's evidence. The best rounds include strong analytics and evidence comparisons. In short, clash is good!

I've noticed a lot of debaters assert that something has been "conceded" or "totally uncontested" even though that's not the case. If something was actually dropped, tell me why that argument is significant! If something was responded to, please don't say it was dropped!

I appreciated it when debaters say "and" or "next" or something in between cards in the 1AC/1NC or anytime you're reading a bunch of evidence back-to-back so I can get each individual piece of evidence on my flow.

Please give an off-time roadmap! All I need for that is how many off-case positions and which case pages in the 1NC and then which off-case positions and case pages for the subsequent speeches. i.e. "2 Off, Solvency, Advantage 1" or "Federalism DA, States CP, Solvency, etc. etc."

I think closed CX is generally better than open CX. I understand if you really, really need to clarify something, but otherwise trust your partner! Mostly I just want each debater to participate fully in CX. So that doesn't mean I won't allow or am totally against open CX, I just think it's important to make sure everyone gets to speak and contribute.

My familiarity with this year's topic comes from a little bit of coaching, a lot of judging, and personal experiences as a community organizer. I spent several years in Chicago organizing around racial, economic, and environmental justice which included efforts related to policing and bail reform. I say this not because I think it'll impact my decision so much as it is an area of my life that has been helpful in understanding this topic and various affirmatives/negative arguments.

Please be respectful, have fun, and I hope you learn some stuff!

(she/her)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi,

I’m Alina. My pronouns are she/her. I was mostly a block boy when I debated but I do prefer judging lay style debate rounds. I’m fine with Ks and like open cross x and all that stuff whatever you want to do I just think the most important thing is to have fun.

I'm a recent OE grad that debated for 3 years in High School (1 at BVN, 2 at Olathe East) mainly in the Open and KDC divisions for policy and Congress, Extemporaneous Debate, DX, PFD, and Info in Forensics.

Policy

TL:DR: I'm just here to watch your round. Be you, be respectful, follow the rules, and demonstrate understanding of your evidence. If you want to speed up, just be clear on your tag lines and analytics.

In terms of preferences, I'm not too picky about debate rounds; you can run whatever you want, as long as you understand the nuances of your agreement. It's your round, and I'm just here to watch. However, I am a firm believer in the idea that clash is crucial in debate round, and will prefer a team that takes the time to properly address the opposition's arguments over one that doesn't.

Recently, the biggest gripe I've had with debaters is the overlooking of synthesizing arguments in favor of reading more meaningless cards. In my eyes, evidence is useless without analysis. I want you to take that evidence and elevate it into an argument; reading cards to me without inputting them into the advocacy through analysis, especially in response to an opponent's arguments, isn't going to help your case. Show me that you understand your case and support your advocacy. I would love to see line by lines and impact calc whenever pertinent. Again, clash is what I prefer in a debate round, and analysis is a key portion of that.

In terms of advocacies in general; there's no argument I won't go for with the right defense (spare any offensive or inappropriate argument). I must admit, I'm not the biggest fan of dramatic and overblown framing arguments, but again, with the right defense and in the right context, it's not something I would never vote for. I prefer truth over tech.

I don't prefer topicality and/or theory, unless the argument is truly valid in the situation. I've seen the two often be used as more of a time suck than a true argument, and I'm fine with any other off case position being used in that manner. Please only run these arguments if the opponent's advocacy truly affects your ability to participate in the round.

I won't hesitate to vote against you or dock speaker points/rank if you make a blatant violation of debate rules/etiquette. It goes without saying that you should be respectful and professional with your opponents, but some people often forget that that respect extends into discourse during the round. I expect everyone to be truthful in the round, and that includes bringing up relevant and credible evidence as well as making sure that your partner follows up if you say "my partner will cover that in their speech."

In terms of speed, I can generally handle it as long as you slow down and be clear on your tag lines.

At the end of the day, Debate is just another high school activity. Respect your peers/opponents, act professionally (that includes being aware of when your audio/video are on), and have fun.

If you're going to be on an email chain, please include me. My email is aadityapore@gmail.com. Thank you.

PFD

I've got plenty of experience with PFD, so I consider myself tabula rasa. Run what you want, speak how you want, and I'll adjust. I will say though, I feel like PFD is the best place to improve and display an individual's speaking skills, regardless of what cards you've got in front of you. I prioritize clash and prefer that you use cards solely as an accompaniment to your speech. This is not Policy, and I don't want to hear what your author has to say. I want to hear what you have to say and how your cards support what you claim. If you're going to be on an email chain, please include me. My email is aadityapore@gmail.com. Thank you.

I debated for four years at SME. I pretty much debated in the JV area so I like to judge as a lay judge. I will be flowing the round and making sure that arguments are specfically answered.

Add me to the chain mail: anikaradadiya@gmail.com

Decision Wise:

I vote on solvency and impact. Impact analysis is super important to me as well as the solvency. It isn't only the affs job to make sure they are telling me how and why they solve, but the neg must argue each reason and give impacts that connect through DAs.

For CFL PFD kiddos: First of all, congratulations on making it to CFL 2021! I hope you all enjoy the experience, and I'm sorry that we can't be doing this in person. Thank you for adapting to digital debate. My regular laptop died on me right before this tournament, so if I look like I'm having issues with tech I probably am, just keep moving on with the round as long as I'm still connected to the room. Listening and flowing your arguments will come before me fighting with the old brick I'm trying to judge off of. Next, I will always prioritize good clash in the round. This means the clarity and explanation of both your arguments and the sources you are citing matter to me, a lot. If that means slowing down the round to delve deeper into a really good argument, and skipping that last contention, so be it. The rounds are short anyways, so lets have in depth conversation about your topic(s), not a wide breadth of coverage on the resolution. Please be nice to each other, to the judges, and to yourself. No matter how lost in the round you get, keep pushing through it. Most of all, have fun! For some of you this will be your last nationals, some of you your first, but either way it should be a good experience. If you feel like it you can read through my regular season policy paradigm below.

TLDR: Policy maker, I won't vote against my own self interest, please put me on the email chain, and give good clash and good impact calc (and see bottom bolded section)

Graduated from Buhler High School in 2018. I competed in debate and forensics for all four years. I qualified to nationals (a mix of NSDA and CFL) 5 times: oration once, public forum four times. I judge semi-regularly (I try to pick up as many rounds as I can in a season, sometimes that's more than others). I've judged something like 10-12 tournaments this season thus far.

I tend to vote Policy Maker with a heavy emphasis on stock issues. However, if the role of the ballot is defined in round I will respect that.

I will be flowing. I will deal with speed in rounds but I would prefer lay speed. I just ask that if you are going to speed, make it worth it. The flow will be my utmost priority in judging the round (this includes role of the ballot arguments), so please don’t drop the flow. If you have an email chain I would love to be on it to follow along. allysonregehr@gmail.com

I will not vote against my self-interest. If your impact hurts me or my community it's a no go.

Explain your arguments and why they are important. Good debate stems from you being able to hold your ground and explain why what your saying both makes sense and is important.

Most of all debate is meant to be educational. If I feel like you are taking away from the educational factor of debate I will vote you down. There is no place to be rude, belittle, or demeaning in any way to your opponents, your judges, your teammates, etc in this round today.

I am a "Stock Issues" paradigm which means that the affirmative team must present a prima facie case to win: Aff must prove their policy proposal will result in a significant advantage free from disadvantages. If the affirmative plan does not solve (produce the advantage), they lose. If the affirmative plan does result in the advantage but it is not significant, they lose. In other words, the negative has presumption and the aff the burden to prove.

I debated four years in high school and four years in college. But it was many years ago. Since then I have judged debates over the past 30 years. But it is probably wise to consider me a lay judge. I was trained as a stock issues debater. The slower the better, including 1AC. Look at me as much as possible. We did not use a lot of counterplans and critiques were not a thing then. I am a dinosaur.

I am a debate parent of 4 years.

I like current data.

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.

About me/ Preference things-

I debated at Lawrence High School for 4 years and debated in college at the University of Kansas. I have been an assistant debate coach for Shawnee Mission South High School for 4 years.

** Please add me to the email chain rose.haylee2000@gmail.com

LD

I evaluate LD traditionally with emphasis on the V and VC level. However, it is important that you are winning some offense both on the V and VC as well as the contention level debate. Winning top level offense on the V and VC and and describing how that effects the contention level debate is the easiest way to win my ballot.

TL:DR

As for how I evaluate debates, I cannot say that I have a bunch of things that I am for or against so I will just go down the list.

Make arguments to the best of your ability but please just be a good human. As far as how many rounds I have judged I did not judge or teach at a camp this summer so I am a little behind.

T- I debated and went for T quite often in debates but I won't vote for it unless its 5 min in the 2NR and you gotta have a case list and reason why your interpretation is good, what does the aff's model of debate mean for the debate community?

Theory- its fine, be persuasive and tell me why the aff/negs justification for reading a particular argument/set of arguments is bad. I can/will vote for abuse on condo or other theory but getting there may be hard, I think condo is good and it needs to be excessive abuse. Continuing on theory, you as the person reading theory need to be able to prove why their interp is bad and why that hurts you in the round, not just the debate community writ large.

DA's- I enjoy them a lot, you will need to explain each individual part of the DA debate and its implications for the argument overall I won't extend cards when you say "extend my link".

CP's- I like Cp's that are competitive. I also am a firm believer that the CP must have a NB that is not we solve better than the aff. Not a huge fan of "cheating" counterplans but you gotta do what you gotta do to win.

K's- I read and went for the cap k, I am not a K hack or know all of the things that you are talking about. I really enjoy k debates but I will need you to explain things to me and why they matter/ what you win because of each individual part of the K debate. I like techy K debates.

READ ME:

I really enjoy this activity but there are some things about it that I am not too fond of,

1. Charging the Mound, it makes me uncomfortable and probably also makes your opponents uncomfortable as well. If you have questions or do not understand my decision please ask or email me but you are not going to convince me I made the wrong decision, and if you do why does that matter my ballot is already submitted. Let's have a productive conversation about debate

2. Personal attacks at your opponent, there is a line between being sassy and making others feel bad about themselves.

3. Sexist, Ablest, Transphobic, Racist (and other isms) language and behaviors, please be good human.

4. Stealing prep, it's just a pet peeve of mine

Feel free to ask me questions about my judging paradigm before the round starts, and email me if you have any remaining questions after the debate is over. I will always be more than happy to help you all get better at this activity!

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!

Did not take Debate or Forensics in High School or College. Started judging the fall of 2019.

Speed: I’m not judging a speed-reading contest and do not care how many words you can read in 8 minutes. If you are hyperventilating, spitting or losing your place reading your speech, You are going too fast! Slow down, breathe, relax and read at a normal flow while looking up once in awhile to see if I am engaged and understanding you clearly.

Constructive: A minimal number of well-planned out cards that clearly backs up your arguments supporting aff or neg is much better that trying to string a bunch of random cards together within the time limit. I would like to know how each card fits into your overall plan. I want to get the feeling you fully understand the content of your speech and you’re not just reading a bunch of words on your laptop.

Harms & Solvency: Telling me the world is going to end or world hunger will be solved by voting for or against a topic is very hard to justify. Keep your predictions and outcome believable that can be validated by facts or past history examples.

Rebuttal: While Constructive and Cross Examination is very important, My decision for the wining team comes during the rebuttal. I’m looking for the team that can defend and strengthen their position on aff or neg while discrediting the other team’s position. I want to clearly know why your team has the best facts and arguments. Keep the Rebuttal simple and focused. Don't waste time with filler or repeating the same argument multiple times, just get your main points across.

Speaker Points:

· Speaks clearly and is confident presenting material.

· Knows the material and has good responses to cross examination

· Has good cross examination questions for opponents

· Convince me your position on the topic is the best.

I appreciate debates that include logical, relevant arguments that are articulately stated and presented in a manner that is understandable.

Email chain: lfsdebate@gmail.com

Who Am I: I debated four years at Field Kindley High School in Coffeyville, KS, did not debate in college, and have been an assistant coach at Lawrence Free State High School in Lawrence, KS since 2013. I have a Master's degree in International Relations.

General Approach: Tell me what I should be voting on and why. If you want me to evaluate the round differently than they do, then you need to win a reason why your framework or paradigm is the one that I should use. If no one does that, then I'll default to a policymaker paradigm. I don't view offense and defense as an either/or proposition, but if you do then I prefer offense.

Standard Operating Procedure: (How I will evaluate the round unless one of the teams wins that I should do something different) The affirmative has a non-severable duty to advocate something resolutional, and that advocacy must be clear and stable. The goal of the negative is to prove that the affirmative's advocacy is undesirable, worse than a competitive alternative, or theoretically invalid. I default to evaluating all non-theory arguments on a single plane, am much more willing to reject an argument than a team, and will almost always treat dropped arguments as true.

Mechanics: (I'm not going to decide the round on these things by themselves, but they undeniably affect my ability to evaluate it)

• Signposting - Please do this as much as possible. I'm not just talking about giving a roadmap at the start of each speech or which piece of paper you're talking about during the speech, but where on the line-by-line you are and what you're doing (i.e. if you read a turn, call it a turn).
• Overviews - These are helpful for establishing your story on that argument, but generally tend to go on too long for me and seem to have become a substitute for specific line-by-line work, clash, and warrant extension. I view these other items as more productive/valuable ways to spend your time.
• Delivery - I care way more about clarity than speed; I have yet to hear anybody who I thought was clear enough and too fast. I'll say "clear" if you ask me to, but ultimately the burden is on you. Slowing down and enunciating for tags and analytics makes it more likely that I'll get everything.
• Cross Examination - Be polite. Make your point or get an answer, then move on. Don't use cross-ex to make arguments.
• Prep Time - I don't think prep should stop until the flash drive comes out of your computer or the email is sent, but I won't police prep as long as both teams are reasonable.

Argumentation: (I'll probably be fine with whatever you want to do, and you shouldn't feel the need to fundamentally change your strategy for me. These are preferences, not rules.)

• Case - I prefer that you do case work in general, and think that it's under-utilized for impact calc.  Internal links matter.
• CPs/DAs - I prefer specific solvency and link cards (I'm sure you do, too), but generics are fine provided you do the work.
• Framework - I prefer that framework gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
• Kritiks - I prefer that there is an alternative, and that you either go for it or do the work to explain why you win anyway. "Reject the Aff." isn't an alternative, it's what I do if I agree with the alternative. I don't get real excited about links of omission, so some narrative work will help you here.
• Performance - I prefer that you identify the function of the ballot as clearly and as early as possible.
• Procedurals - I prefer that they be structured and that you identify how the round was affected or altered by what the other team did or didn't do.
• Theory - I prefer that theory gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
• Topicality - I prefer that teams articulate how/why their interpretation is better for debate from a holistic perspective. TVAs and/or case lists are good. My least favorite way to start an RFD is, "So, I think the Aff. is topical, but also you're losing topicality."

Miscellaneous: (These things matter enough that I made a specific section for them, and will definitely be on my mind during the round.)

• I'm not planning to judge kick for you, but have no problem doing so if that instruction is in the debate.  The Aff. can object, of course.
• Anybody can read cards, good analysis and strategic decision-making are harder to do and frequently more valuable.
• Individual pages on the flow do not exist in a vacuum, and what is happening on one almost certainly affects what is happening on another.
• Comparative impact calculus. Again, comparative impact calculus.
• You may not actually be winning every argument in the round; acknowledging this in your analysis and telling me why you win anyway is a good thing.
• Winning an argument is not the same thing as winning the round on an argument. If you want to win the round on an argument you've won or are winning, take the time to win the round on it.
• The 2NR and 2AR are for making choices, you only have to win the round once.
• I will read along during speeches and will likely double back to look at cards again, but I don't like being asked to read evidence and decide for myself. If they're reading problematic evidence, yours is substantively better, etc., then do that work in the debate.

Zen: (Just my thoughts, they don't necessarily mean anything except that I thought them.)

• Debate is a speaking game, where teams must construct logically sound, valid arguments to defend, while challenging the same effort from their opponents.
• It's better to be more right than the other team than more clever.
• A round is just a collection of individual decisions. If you make the right decisions more often than not, then you'll win more times than you lose.

I'll be happy to answer any questions.

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.

Paradigm for Anish Srivastava:

Email chains acceptable, anishsrivastavaks@gmail.com

Relevant Background:

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

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

For the Negative:

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

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

For Both teams:

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

Notes:

Ask me anything, I am an open book while judging

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

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

Greetings Debaters!

(she/her)

I am a 5th year debate sponsor with my school with not a lick of personal debate experience to my name. I am but a humble teacher of mathematics who wanted some extra ways to get involved in my school. That's not to say that I haven't been learning a lot about debate with every new year that I sponsor. I've come a long ways to where I am in understanding the jargon of debate, the technicalities of a round, and how to listen to a round. My team has in the past referred to me as a "fairly competent lay judge" with my current abilities. So I've got some judging experience but by no means am I ready to listen to a team spread like their lives depend on it or run complicated plans/kritiks. I do my own form of simple "flowing" which sometimes has given teams the impression that I'm more advanced of a judge than they assume and I am lost in the round very early. Looks are deceiving, I honestly just have a terrible working memory for lots of details in round!

When judging debates, I really appreciate when I'm able to learn more about debate itself from the competitors. There are a myriad of different types of arguments that you make to poke holes in cases or highlight issues with speeches - be explicit to me on what you are attempting to accomplish with your own speeches or CX. A road map for each speech is a must with VERY CLEAR markers within your speeches to tell me when you are addressing a new part of your competitors last speech. Like I mean almost excessively explicit within your speech. I can judge best when I am able make sure each argument is being responded to throughout speeches.

I tend to vote on solvency or impact calculation, but have been known to give the ballot to a really convincing framework debate.

Good luck!

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 2 or 3 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.

I'm fine with speed (like 7/10) 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. Judge instruction and having good rebuttals can help cover you. I'm not the judge for you if you're just trying to win by out-speeding your opponent. That's boring and, in my opinion, antithetical to the point of the activity. 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 5/10 on speed for heavy theory). I find theory debates boring at best and inscrutable at worst. The team that can actually explain why I should care (in plain language) will get my ballot. Other than that, I really don't have any opinion or preference on what you run.

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 is, oftentimes, high-key problematic.

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 upset 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

Please add me to the chain: oli.debate@gmail.com

I do my best to evaluate the round without intervening personal ideals. I enjoy how different arguments take different strategic developments and want to see you develop whatever argument you are best at because that will be the most fun for all of us. Speed is fine but slow down when you are trying to emphasize an issue or when debating theory/dense portions of the flow (proper signposting helps tons here). I wont follow you on the doc, I want them for reference but will attempt to decide with as little reading as possible. If I can't flow you then i will set my pen down and clearly not be flowing.

Be nice to each other.

I am a former debater and have five years of judging experience with debate. I am a stock issues judge. Disadvantages are okay/allowable as long as their links and impacts tie to the Affirmative case. I never think Kritiques are acceptable/allowable in a round. I will only listen to counterplans if they are run properly and can be shown as to how they tie out from the Affirmative plan.

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.

Less speed more stock issues. More traditional debate less K.

I've evolved as a judge which has unfortunately been interpreted as I'm inconsistent or unpredictable. As an assistant coach I understand that creates frustration, which I want to avoid, so if there is anything below that is not 100% clear, please ask me prior to the round. I would much rather have a brief discussion and give you some sense of understanding my thought process than you walk away from the round thinking you don't know what you could have done to win my ballot. I assure you, there have been people who have asked and learned how I evaluate, and those individuals found me to be consistent even if it wasn't always in their favor (though it often was).

Let's start with the foundation. Once upon a time I would give myself the label of "games player" because I appreciated good strategy. I still evaluate if I think a team is being strategic or clever, but I am strongly TRUTH OVER TECH. If you tell me that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and your opposition does not respond, that DOES NOT mean I accept something that is not true. I think it is especially critical in an environment of "fake news" or "relative facts" that we champion the truth above spin. So you will find that if your argument is only theoretically plausible, it is going to be much less persuasive than if you stick to simple truths.

This leads me to two conclusions you should be able to draw about how I evaluate a round. 1st, magnitude does NOT overwhelm probability. In fact magnitude rarely plays any part in my decision. I have listened to the same authors for 25+ years predict the next war will be over water or food or that we're all going to starve or that terrorists are moments away from having nuclear weapons. Empirically all of these authors are wrong. The have no credibility with me. Which means I give zero weight to an impact that I have zero probability of believing it will happen. You hear judges say all the time that they are tired of nuke war impacts. You want to know why? Because I have lived my entire life with the doomsday clock at least 7 minutes to midnight. The "experts" have cried wolf for far to long to be believed. The only chance you have to win on magnitude is if you extend very detailed warrants about why this time is different and the facts your author has looked at to draw the conclusions. If you don't know what facts the author looked at, don't bother.

2nd, links and link stories matter much more than uniqueness. I believe students like to debate uniqueness because it is easy. It is eacy to try to find evidence about the current state of the world. What is hard is predicting the consequences of taking any action. This is why solvency and link turns on case are extremely effective as well as indicting internal links on a D.A. to make it go away. I will assign 0% solvency or 0% risk of a link so defense can make an entire flow seemingly go away. This is especially apparent on politics scenarios! Pundits who try to predict elections or votes on legislation are less accurate than the weatherman! I will not assume that just because the Affirmative plan is topical that it will lead to any consequence other than the ones that are by fiat. I have listened to debaters who were incredibly informed on specific congressional leaders and how certain pieces of legislation are being used as a political football, and those debaters were persuasive. If you just aren't that debater, there is no shame in that, but you will find your politics scenario just isn't persuasive.

Let's shift gears and talk a little about topicality. Here is my single belief: the affirmative team must affirm the resolution. When I write affirmative on the ballot that means the affirmative team has successfully convinced me the resolution is true. The affirmative plan is an example of the possible reasons the resolution is true. The affirmative doesn't have to prove all instances of the resolution are true, but at least the affirmative plan should be adopted and if the affirmative plan is an example what could be under the resolution, then the resolution is true. This view of the resolution is nearly non-negotiable (we'll talk about K's in a minute). This means the affirmative plan is a proof of the resolution or it isn't. Period. I don't evaluate if it is fair because that is subjective. There will be an interpretation that I either believe or don't believe, it is always all or nothing. When it comes to competing interpretations, I will walk into the round with an interpretation in my mind (no one is a blank slate) and that will be my default. I can be persuaded that there is a different interpretation, but the reason must be more compelling than an appeal to emotion and warranted in facts. I will admit, topicality is the one place that I will suspend the truth until it is argued. There are countless rounds in which the foundation of an affirmative plan hasn't been established, it isn't prima facia topical, and I don't get to pull the trigger because the negative is silent. That frustrates me because I don't get to vote on what I see is the truth. That doesn't mean run topicality no matter what, because you hurt your credibility by running the wrong violation or running it to run it. It's not a strategic time suck. Both the affirmative and negative need to ask themselves if they would vote on if the affirmative is topical and make their best case. It probably goes without saying, but I believe the plan text must be topical, not the solvency of the plan. I believe the plan text must be sufficient to justify the resolution. If you need to do something in addition to the resolution to show the plan should be adopted, then you have shown the resolution should not be affirmed because it is insufficient.

I said I'd talk about K's, so lets get it over with. For years I said I didn't like them or worst wouldn't even listen to them. I'm much more open minded now, but here is the truth. You have 26 minutes to convince me of some philosophical position that I might not agree with. That is ridiculously hard when I've studied most of these positions for entire semesters, or life long, and have true biases. Flat out, I believe in Capitalism. I've studied Marx, and I happily participate in a Capitalist society. I have voted on Cap Bad because the round called for it, but my default is Cap Good. I could go through several popular K's, but you get the point. You will either 1. have to get lucky and preach to the choir on something I already believe or 2. knock me off my preconceived notion about the world. That's either luck or quite difficult. And I will caveat all of this with one big factor. If you are making a social criticism, you better walk the walk. You cannot be a hypocrite. If you performatively contradict your position, your link to the K will be far stronger than anything you say for your opponents because you should have known better. For example if you say animal suffering is always immoral and you are wearing leather shoes, you better be able to prove the cow died of natural causes! I LOVE to vote against the team who presents a K and link back into it. Speaking of K links, I will not assume the K links, you need to have a story (see my take on D.A.'s). And your alt must actually solve (see my take on solvency).

From K's to their cousins the CP. I am old and still believe that a counterplan must be an opportunity cost to the affirmative plan. We can't do the CP and the Aff (mutually exclusive) and the CP is better than the Aff (competitive) so we should do the CP instead of the affirmative. Futhermore the CP must be non-topical or else the affirmative gets to simply say the counterplan is one more example of why the resolution is true. See, the affirmative could present 2 or more plans to prove the resolution is a good idea. They don't do that because it puts them more at risk because they must advocate for everything they present, but they can just freely have the CP if the CP is topical. This is a strong belief of mine so theory to tell me otherwise is not persuasive. This isn't to say PIC's are off limits, it just means the PIC must be extra topical (see my take on why extra T doesn't justify the resolution). There are plenty of strategic CP's that work with this paradigm, but ultimately it needs to be an opportunity cost to the affirmative. CP's can be permed, thus they are not mutually exclusive and therefor not an opportunity cost to the affirmative plan. A CP can link to a D.A. so it isn't competitive. I appreciate counterplans and their usage, but they need to be that opportunity cost to the resolution.

The rest of theory type stuff is a coin flip and situational. I've voted on condo good and bad. I'm willing to pull the trigger on something, but you need to explain it and warrant it. I don't fill in the gaps for blips.

To be clear, I don't fill in anything. Just saying a couple of key words like "perm do both" or "pull the impacts" may not be sufficient. If I understood what you said earlier, perhaps, but I'm not going to insert what I think you mean by shouting out debate jargon. This leads to the overused question of speed. This is a verbal activity. I almost never read cards because I want to evaluate what I heard. If I hear the warrants in a card, great. If I'm not able to process the warrants then all you've done is make a claim in your tag. Speed is very rarely the issue, it is a matter of clarity. And it is unusually pretty obvious if I've given up on flowing. The only time I usually ask for evidence is when I personally am questioning myself on what I heard and I think it is my fault I'm unsure. As far as I'm concerned the authors are there to lend credibility, you are making the arguments, so I'm not going to evaluate what your author said, I'm going to evaluate what you said. If you author lacks credibility, you might as well just say things in your own words. Which honestly is often not a bad thing. I think debaters are way too dependent on quoting an author and treating it like a fact. If your author makes a claim but doesn't warrant it, just because they are an author doesn't make it true. This is more common in K debates where quoting a philosopher is treated like an absolute truth, but it can happen anywhere in the debate. Again, I want the truth over tech, so facts with logical analysis will outweigh a card in most situations.

Finally, I am human. I am biased. I have emotions. Why is this relevant? Because my bias and my emotions can make somethings seem more persuasive than others. Your credibility matters. If you destroy your credibility, you might say you won on the flow, but I'm not believing you so what is on the flow carries no weight. Treating your opponents poorly lowers your credibility. "Put away your impact defense, my card beats them all" is insulting because it shows that you care more about what your opponents think about how cool you are than persuading me that your argument is actually sound. Tag team cross ex tells me through your actions that "I don't trust my partner. My partner is stupid so I'll speak out of turn. What I have to say is more important." That is pretty damning to your partners credibility and frankly makes you a jerk. Prompting arguments says the same thing. Prompting "slower" shows you are trying to assist with something they might not realize in the moment but giving an argument and having them parrot it word for word so it "counts" is about the worst ways to attempt to persuade me. If you cause logistical issues such as being late to the round because what your assistant coach had to say was more important than my time, or stealing prep time while you fiddle with your computer, or take significant time to pass evidence, all of these things I notice and leaves an impression on me. You might be shocked by this, but humans like to reward people they like and punish those they don't like. That isn't to say I'll immediately vote against you because you rearranged the entire room so you could plug in your laptop, but it makes your job harder if I'm rooting against you. Just don't give me a reason to want to vote against you and we'll be fine.

Oh, and I don't shake hands. I'm not as adverse as Howie Mandel, but I prefer not to physically touch strangers. I just don't see any reason to do it. I know you respect me as a human and I respect you as a human without our hands touching.

My background:

I have a background in speech and forensics, having done policy debate (CX), oratory, congress, etc. and other speech and debate activities throughout high school and college. I'm a KUDI alumna and my graduate work is in policy analysis and rhetorical discussion of same by young people. I love debate and I want you to learn something and yes, have fun. This should be enjoyable, and you are learning critical thinking skills by doing this.

My public speaking approach:

I do not expect public speaking perfection. If you are working on your public speaking skills, you can absolutely tip the scales with your argumentation and intellect. This is a technique that you should be practicing more than a spread/speed flow. I don't mind a spread - and practiced spread debate myself - but remember -- if you can't back up that approach with a lot of intellectual discipline, it will fail. I will see right through it.

I don't care what you wear, how you sit, if you stand. I want to see "a mind at work."

You can send me your case. My email is coringilbert@gmail.com Why would you do this? Because you just want to save time. Because you've crafted a case that will dominate the discussion and you are focused on stock issues and wish to empower me to dig in to prep.

General Paradigm

Anything is valid if you signpost, signal and stick to your framework. Don't try to do too much. I appreciate attention to the stock issues, but I appreciate the evolving nature of this activity and if you choose to adjust to T/R, gaming model, or offer a kritik -- do so with confidence and walk the judge(s) fully through the model you are using. Strive to make sense. Work to be crystal clear, as the round moves on, what elements are being dropped by the other side.

Theory: I'm open to them, but you had better bring the thunder in terms of providing clear rationales for each element of the theory. DO NOT ASSUME that your theory will be acceptable. Theoretical debate frames have to float and if you present one, it's got to be focused on a traditional debate outcome. Your judges (myself included) expect to be able to explain clearly a rationale for a decision on the ballot. Read the room. If your theory is ineffective -- don't be afraid to punt.

If I hear an argument that is racist, homophobic, Islamophobic or Anti-Semetic -- you will lose. Similarly, I have no issue with passion, healthy intellectual aggression, and even a little passive-aggressive gamesmanship. But candor should never be confused with condescension.

I love a clean flow at the end of the day. Give me a reason to cross out arguments that have been covered, circle things left untouched and structure a ballot with insight on how you might improve.

I've rewritten my paradigm now that I've graduated and I've shifted to primarily judging NFA LD. I am also a little bit of a hoarder so if you want to see my old paradigm, it's at the bottom of this one. I still believe most/all of those things about debate, I am just endeavoring to make it more concise and NFA specific going forward.

A Little about me:

I debated at University of Nebraska-Lincoln for 4 years (2019-2023). I won the NFA-LD grand prix and nationals my last year (imo largely because of judge/opponent adaptation) but that does not necessarily qualify me as a good/bad judge. I competed at 3 policy tournaments with UNL.

I also coached high school LD for three years at Lincoln North Star High School in Nebraska (2020-2023).

Before that I was a policy debater at Shawnee Mission West in Kansas (2016-2019).

My topic knowledge is probably a 4/10. I am now in law school which means I don't cut cards right now because I don't have time, but I am planning to judge NFA pretty regularly for UNL.

My senior year I primarily read affs that were either squarely topical with large impacts or affirmatives with non-USFG advocacy statements instead of plan texts. On the negative I went for T (60%) or the K (30%) in 90% of my rounds. This doesn't mean you have to debate that way, that's just where I am coming from.

I like speechdrop, but I don't care enough to make you use it. If we do an email chain use wallenburg.debate@gmail.com.

TLDR:

I flow, which comes before almost all my other preferences. I like fast (but accessible) debate. I think the time limits in NFA are broken which changes how I would like to evaluate certain arguments. I will vote for nearly anything that has warrants. If you read a plan text, it should be topical, if you don't read a plan text, I think your aff should be at least tangentially related to the topic. I like when negative debaters lay their cards on the table in the NC to prioritize explanation over shock value in the NR.

General Things:

Speed: Sure. Go probably 90% of full speed and slow down on analytics. I flow on paper because I don't type very fast. Clear and slow is better than fast and non-understandable. If your opponent asks you to slow down for accessibility reasons you should. If you ask for someone to slow down for accessibility reasons and then in another debate go really fast, I will not be very forgiving. Those who do this create a poor perception of all requests for slowing down which harms people who actually need to have conversational debates.

Style: Frame my ballot. Tell me which arguments matter the most, why they matter, and why you are winning them. Fewer arguments that are well explained are almost always better than trying to make as many bad arguments as possible. Don't be afraid to "kick" me if you're in front of a more traditional panel. I will still flow and vote off that flow, so if you can win both the technical and ethos debate it will be better for you.

NFA Specific Opinions: 2ARs need to do pick their two or three best arguments and then do line by line on the negative's answers to those arguments from the 1AR. NCs should be less afraid of reading only 1 or 2 off. NRs (generally) shouldn't read cards except to answer cards that the aff read in the 1AR. I think generally more than 1 Conditional advocacy breaks the game, but you should probably get to read that one advocacy conditionally. When the Negative goes for multiple off case arguments that aren't part of the same route to the ballot (i.e. DA + K or T instead of CP + DA), I think the aff gets a ton of leeway in answering them all. The 6-3 time tradeoff just necessitates it and neg debaters will find their time is better spent in the NR really explaining 1 route to the ballot instead of shadow extending it all. I am frustrated with NFA judges that have really ideological oppositions to certain arguments and styles, I think it is just as much my (our) job to adapt to you as it is your job to adapt to me (us) and as such I will endeavor to listen to all of your (non-bigoted) arguments with an open mind.

Disclosure Theory: I am at a crossroads with how I evaluate disclosure right now. We can talk about this more, and I'm open to opinions or suggestions. Generally, I think everybody should be disclosing arguments they have read before on the Wiki. I also tend to evaluate theory arguments very technically. In the spirit of transparency, however, here are a couple thoughts I'm still working through in these debates (and I think they deviate pretty substantially from what people assume about me, hence the relative length):

(1) I am more likely to vote for disclosure theory against someone who knows better. In practice, this means I give more credence to potential abuse arguments against debaters who have been doing this for awhile and/or respond to disclosure with a really big "disclosure bad" shell. On the flip side, I have found myself defaulting to proven abuse/functional application when disclosure is run against new debaters or those that are losing the "tech" simply because they have never had a deep theory debate before.

(2) Often, people think "Nick will vote on disclosure theory" and so they jettison what would otherwise be a clean cut win on a different position. This makes me sad. 100% I would rather vote on the DA/Aff/K/etc. and tell your opponent after the debate "also you should really disclose or answer theory better." It allows me to give better feedback and will likely help you in speaker points, which I think are both good things for you.

(3) I find it hard to establish a discernible difference between "full text on the wiki" "Tags on the wiki" and telling someone what the aff is 15 minutes before the round (a) when asked and (b) with the willingness to send them a copy if they want it. If you don't ask for disclosure so that you can read disclosure, I think you should evaluate whether you actually wanted a fair debate in the first place.

(4) The more you are reading blocks for disclosure theory in the NR/1AR, the less likely I will be to vote for you. I don't want to weigh a novice's reading of their Top 10 teammate's blocks if I can say with substantive certainty that they would not be able to explain the arguments absent those blocks. I know this is the practice with all arguments, but it just makes me feel especially weird with disclosure theory and Idk why (probably an offshoot of my opinion in point (1)).

Arguments:

Affs: Should have an advocacy and an impact. I think if you're going to claim to be Topical you should be topical. If you aren't trying to be topical I prefer you just impact turn T instead of going for defense (I never much cared for "the people are the USFG" arguments). Don't read cards you don't need in the 1AR, you don't have time.

Disadvantages: Sure, I think you should read your best link card in the NC. I (generally) don't think you get add on scenarios in the NR. Specific links are always better than non-specific links.

Counterplans: Yes. Explain how they solve the aff, how they avoid the net benefits, and why they are theoretically legitimate. Do what you can justify, but I tend to fall pretty in line with (policy) established convention as to whether a certain type of CP is cheating or not. I will say I do like PICs and I think that judges that auto reject PICs are actively inhibiting creative negative debaters and rewarding affirmatives for lazy plan writing.

Kritiks: I lived here for the longest in College. Stylistically I think the NC should read less cards and spend more time articulating the links on the case. Why wait until the NR to make link arguments when you can have two shots at explaining it to me to understand it? Framework arguments should be in the NC/1AR. I don't think the NR needs to go for the alt, but it does need to explain why it doesn't need the alt. I think affirmative debaters get too generic answering kritiks, and should make more specific analytical arguments instead of just asserting "perm double bind." 2ARs should collapse more on these - if you're winning the no link debate, go for the perm. If you're winning the impact turn debate, who cares about the perm?

Topicality: (Against the aff with a USFG plan text) I love a good T debate. I think that topicality informs how we write plans in the future which means competing interpretations and potential abuse are (generally) truer arguments. Define words in the resolution, put any TVAs/ExtraT/FXT/impact framing issues in the NC shell. The NR should go between overviewing/explaining disadvantages to the affirmatives interpretation and line by lining the 1AR responses. Here, again, the aff should pick their battle in the 2AR.

(Against the aff with a non-USFG advocacy) I think this is a viable strategy. You should do more establishment of impacts in the NC then you might against a topical aff. Think of this as more a disad to their method than a prior question, which means you should be making arguments on the case about why topicality harms the aff's ability to solve itself in the NC. You will be hard pressed to win this debate if you do not put some amount of argumentation on the aff. You can win fairness alone but I think it's better explained as an impact to clash/education. Affirmatives should read 2-3 good 1AR impact turns based in AC evidence and explain them in the 1AR instead of 10 blippy, generic arguments. The 2AR should pick the best one and explain it against every macro impact the NR extends.

**********OLD PARADIGM***********

Last Edited in April of 2023.

TLDR:

Do whatever you want. I typically default to offense/defense paradigm and I think judge adaptation should be a two-way street: yes you should probably do what your judges prefer because its strategic, but judges should also make every effort to understand and evaluate your arguments fairly. I am very frustrated by judges that give RFDs like "I don't evaluate this kind of argument" or "You were going too fast so I didn't even try to flow you." I prefer affs are at least based in literature about the resolution. I started with more exposure to Policy style arguments but have since become somewhat of a "K hack." I love impact turns, T debates, tricky DA's, and well thought out Critical debates, not necessarily in that order.

Style Preferences:

Speed - Yes I can handle speed, but please don't go full out. I can flow pretty well, but going too fast will likely hurt you more than it will help you. I would say the 1AC/1NC should be like 90% of top speed, and warrants/rebuttals should be 75%, I'm not a very fast typist so I will likely flow on paper.

Frame my Ballot - Please. The 2NR/2AR should almost always start out with an overview of "You vote Aff/Neg Because..." if you fall into the nasty habit of just going straight into line by line without telling me where to look first in the debate, but your opponent gives a clear, concise overview of how I should evaluate the round and which arguments matter the most, you may not like my decision.

Round Vision - Keep an eye out for technical mistakes and cross flow applications. My partner and I came back from a lot of debates that we were very clearly losing by correctly analyzing bad 2NR kick outs or 1AR mistakes. Making strategic concessions and cross applications will be rewarded.

Adapt - If you're debating in front of a panel don't be afraid to kick me and cater to the other judges interests. I get it, no hard feelings. I will still make my decision based on a technical analysis of the flow unless explicitly instructed otherwise.

Argumentative Things:

Affs - I would prefer that Affirmatives are in the direction of the resolution, and have a stable advocacy, otherwise I will likely find a parametrics argument pretty persuasive. I have read planless affirmatives and I think they have lots of merit, but where teams go wrong is shadow extending aff cards but not explaining their method or solvency mechanism. What does the advocacy do? How do you resolve violence? Do you need to resolve violence? I think these are questions that need to be answered early in the debate. That being said, I think impact turns to FW should use the aff. I am not a big fan of copy and pasting your generic K aff blocks to every aff you read when your evidence justifies much more nuanced answers to framework. As for Affs with Plan Texts, I'm down for whatever. My senior year Alex and I mostly read soft left affs with a framing page, but we also occasionally went for a big stick economy aff with a lot of preempts to Cap and Dedev, so read what you want and I should be able to handle it.

Impact Turns - Yes. Please. Dedev and prolif good were my favorite. Focus your attention on the Sustainability debate, impact analysis, and Impact defense. Read any impact turn you want. Although hearing something like death good or wipeout will probably make me sad.

Topicality - I love a good T debate, but the key word there is good. I default to competing interpretations and I don't think you need to win in round abuse to win T. I typically view T as a Disadvantage to the Affirmative through an offense/defense paradigm and I think fairness is just an internal link to education. 2NC/1NR should have a case list and hopefully have a TVA. The biggest problems teams have when going for Topicality in front of me is warranting out their DAs. Why does the aff explode limits? What do they justify? Why is the ground they take core neg ground and why is that bad? Answering the why question will make topicality debates more persuasive for me. When answering T make sure you have offense or a very clear we meet. ***Pet Peeve: Reasonability is an interpretation level argument, not a violation level argument. "We are reasonably topical" makes absolutely no sense. You are either topical or you aren't, and whoever wins the interpretations debate decides that.

Disadvantages - Yes. There was always a Politics DA in my 1NC's in high school and I love them. The best 2NC's/1NR on DA's will have an overview of some form on top. Brink DAs are much more persuasive than linear DAs. Be sure to make turns case arguments and really flesh out your links in the block. Conversely, dropped turns case arguments in the 1AR typically make a neg presumption ballot significantly easier. Read whatever DA's you like and I can jive.

Counterplans - Also yes. The Bread to the Disad's butter. I think that judge kick is implied in condo and if you want to make a more in depth argument about why I shouldn't judge kick the cp for the neg then that debate should start in the 2AC. Conversely, if the aff wins no judge kick I am sympathetic to arguments about presumption flowing aff if a counterplan is in the 2NR. When reading counterplans sufficiency framing is your friend. Make your net benefits clear and your solvency warrants clearer. Carded counterplans are always better than non-carded counterplans, but pointing out that the aff evidence advocates for your generic CP is also pretty cool. I am always telling teams to do more framing in these rounds. What does the counterplan solve and why does it matter? I will draw the lines, but I will be hesitant.

I would say my opinions about counterplan legitimacy are pretty mainstream. If it's typically thought of as a "cheating" counterplan, I probably think its cheating too. That doesn't mean don't read it, just spend enough time to actually win the theory debate. Nuanced interpretations and fewer, better arguments are preferable to your 9 point "yes delay CPs" blocks.

Kritiks (When You are Neg) - Yes. I will listen to K's but I am probably not very familiar with your literature. I am probably a little bit more sympathetic to framework arguments about ontology/epistemology/pedagogy/etc. than some other judges, and I think the most effective way to win the framework debate is to get impacts external to fairness alongside all of your typical clash impact turns. I don't think you need to go for the alt if you can win framework and impact calc. If you do go for the alt, I think the most persuasive debaters describe it more as a process and less as a singular event. The link debate is the most important part, and an analytical extrapolation of generic links and how they interact with the case in the 2NC is more persuasive than reading 10 new cards that don't say much about the aff. My senior year when I went for the K, I mostly went for a Zizek Cap K with a really buff 2NC Framework (I look back and feel silly saying that). I also read Agamben and Security. In college I have focused my research on Ecological Pessimism (A Climate oriented spin off of OOO), Managerialism, Necropolitics as it is theorized by Achille Mbembe, Militarism, China Threat Construction (Pan), and critical pedagogy. The teams I coach read a lot of Warren/Wilderson, Puar, Munoz, and Edelman so I'm being exposed to that lit too. Everything outside of those I probably have a working knowledge of, but you will probably have to do more explaining to me than you might have to with another judge. If I don't understand the core thesis by the end of the round, it will be very hard to win my ballot.

Case Debate - Is a lost art. The more you can attack the internal links of the aff, the more likely you can pick up my ballot. I will vote on presumption if a significant amount of case answers are mishandled or good DA turns the Aff arguments are won. If you are debating against a plan-less aff do what you do - I could listen to a methods debate or a FW debate - I think often teams that read plan-less affs are really only ready for the latter, so you might consider using that to your advantage.

Theory - SLOW DOWN ON YOUR THEORY BLOCKS. The key to a good theory debate is a nuanced interpretation. The more tailored you can make your interpretation to the debate that is happening to subsume the other team's offense, the better off you will be. Theory is almost always a reason to reject the Argument and not the team, but I think the best aff theory is used to justify abusive permutations like Perm do the counterplan. Condo is a different beast, and a reason to reject the team if won. I would prefer the 2AR not devolve to condo, but I also understand that sometimes you get spread out or there are egregious performative contradictions that warrant a complete throw to theory. In these situations outline the in-round abuse and make your impacts clear - ensure that you can explain why your interp is not regressive.

**********************************************HIGH SCHOOL LD****************************************

Because I live in Nebraska I guess I have to include this stuff too...

Top Level: SHARE CASES. I don't understand this permissibility with not seeing your opponents evidence, not for flowing purposes but for checking reliability of the evidence, but it seems more prevalent in HS LD than other places. Pet peeve is debaters who don't share the AC/NC until after they give it or ask which evidence to send instead of just sending the whole doc :)

I have now been coaching/judging LD for the better part of 3 years and more often than not I find myself evaluating these rounds very similarly to how I would evaluate a policy round. With that being said, see above for my policy preferences if you want to have a progressive round, with a few caveats below. If you find yourself more of a traditional or phil debater, that's cool too, read on...

TRAD: This is the LD type I did when I went to high school in Kansas City. If you want me to just evaluate value v value with degrees of solvency, tell me why that's the best method for debate. I prefer arguments steeped in argument quality and structural fairness as opposed to arguments that appeal to "the spirit of LD" or "Morality is useful for everyday life." I find the first to be arbitrary and the second to be just silly. If you are debating against a Traditional case with a progressive case, focus on similar aspects of the framing debate. Tell me why it is pedagogically/competitively valuable to abandon pure value v value debate. I think there is a litany of reasons on both sides of this question and it is up to you to parse out.

PHIL: These are the concepts that are most foreign to me. I enjoy philosophy in my everyday life, but I don't often read a whole lot of books/papers through the philosophical lens of Kant or Locke or what have you. With that being said, I can often understand phil arguments, they just need more explaining in front of me. Explain how your philosophy better explains the world and moral action, and why it specifically takes out the competing method. Don't just say "act omission distinction," tell me what that is and why it's good/bad. Phil cases that I've coached and have begun to understand, but am by no means well versed in are Kant, MacIntyre, and Locke.

PROGRESSIVE: If you're actually reading paradigms this is likely why you're here. I try to be tabula rasa (don't we all?) but I do have preconceived biases that are not hard to overcome with well-developed argumentation. I tend to think that the round should be some flavor of hypo testing where the aff defends the whole rez and the neg defends the status quo or a counter advocacy that is not related to the resolution to resolve aff offense. If the aff reads a plan text, that's fine, justify it and parse it out. I think that gives the negative more leeway for Counterplan or PIC offense, as well as Topicality or Theory. On condo, I think that anything more than 1 or 2 condo in LD is abusive but can be persuaded to think less or more is permissible. I consider myself to be a connoisseur of theory debates, but I hate having 3 or 4 theory arguments flying around from the get-go. I would much rather you focus on one theory argument and really developed and debate it, instead of relying on your opponent dropping standard 3 subsection C.

A CAVEAT ON T WHOLE REZ: If you think this is your best option for the NR go for it, but I want to be very clear on how I often find myself adjudicating these arguments: 1. Grammar over pragmatics is silly to me, I likely won't be as persuaded by a grammar argument about what kind of plural the word "states" is but I would be much more persuaded by a Limits DA. 2. I don't think an interp card is necessary for this argument. I think it's just as viable as a theory argument like solvency advocate theory or Condo - affirmative teams that rely on "You don't have a card for that" will receive much less sympathy from me than teams that make their own counter interp and have the standards debate.

For the most part, everything above about policy debate applies, if you have any specific questions please ask me before the round and I will be happy to answer them. GLHF!

Please use jamielwelch95@gmail.com for any email chains.

I have not been involved with debate or argument design for a little over a year. I judge occasionally but that is about it. Please don't assume I know the ins and outs of your arguments. You should take from this that a little more explanation is needed for me.

Soft left affs: If your answer to disads is “but the framing page!” you will get very bad speaks and most likely lose. If you use your framing page and then also make specific arguments against the disad then you are in a better spot. Framing pages encourage lazy debating. Don’t be a lazy debater.

Theory – Conditionality is good. Lean neg on basically all theory.

Ks – I don't care which K you read, it can be whatever you are comfortable with. I don’t think the alt has to solve anything. Winning links to the plan is best but if you win a link to other things the aff has done and it has an impact then I will vote on it.

FW/T – Fairness is an impact. Limits matter. That doesn’t mean because you don’t read a plan I won’t vote for you but rather what it means to be topical is up for debate. Without a solid interp of what “your model of debate” would look like I am less likely to vote on your impact turns. Give judge direction on evaluating your arguments versus things like topical version, switch side, procedural fairness, limits, etc.

I am the parent of a high school debate student, and this is my fourth year judging.

• No Spreading - I want to understand what you are saying as you are speaking.
• Present the best case and have the best evidence and you will win, even if I don't personally agree with your argument.
• If you are invoking a specific law or policy, please read the pertinent portion of it if possible rather than assuming your opponents or I know exactly what you are talking about.
• Only run topicality if you can prove the other team is untopical, not to waste time. (Don't run it on the definition of "substantial" or "majority.")
• Cite your sources.
• Never be unkind or rude to your opponent.

kmwhite@olatheschools.org

Policy:

I've been coaching in KS for about 15 years and debated in high school and college before that. It's been quite awhile since I've done much coaching and judging on the national circuit. I'm opening to listening to almost anything but don't assume I'm familiar with specific authors.

You're likely to be the most successful in front of me by debating in your comfort zone and doing it well. I'll list some preferences below but they are all flexible based on what happens in the round. Particularly smart, original arguments can persuade me to vote on just about anything.

I DO NOT want to listen to you be rude to each other. We're all in an activity that we enjoy. Please don't be rude or condescending.

Delivery - Speed is fine. I'll say clear or slow once or twice if you're too fast, but then if you don't adjust I won't keep it up. Please slow a bit during transitions to give me a second to process where you're going.

Round progression - Please narrow the number of arguments but deepen those arguments as you go along. Give me reasons to prefer your arguments that are based on analysis and warrants. Avoid answering developed arguments by just repeating a cite.

Topicality/Theory - I enjoy these types of arguments if they are well-developed and have warrants and impacts. I don't like blippy lists of theory or cheap shots where you read six quick perms and crow because they dropped #5. Tell me very clearly what I should do with your argument if you win it.

Policy impacts - I'm most comfortable evaluating rounds as a policymaker. If you don't specify another method, that's what I'll use. Focus on offense and impacts. I do believe it's possible to mitigate an impact or weaken the link to the point I shouldn't consider it. I have a slight preference for real-world, high probability impacts over low probability terminal impacts.

CPs - These are fine. I have a fairly high standard for competitiveness.

Ks - I like philosophy and enjoy listening to good K debates, but I'm not up on a lot of the literature. Please clash with the opposing arguments and explain exactly what I'm voting for and why. On the neg, apply your ideas directly against specifics from the aff case so I can tell you understand how the arguments interact.

Evidence - I prefer not to look at speech docs unless there's a specific point I'm trying to clear up. Debate is a verbal activity and I want to primarily judge what I hear you say. I will look at evidence if it comes into question.

I'm bothered by the increasing use of heavily biased evidence that hasn't been through an editorial process so please feel free to make source arguments or call their evidence into question. If I end up in a position where I'm comparing evidence directly because you're both telling me your evidence is the best, I will definitely take author's quals into account.

My speaker point midpoint is about a 27.5. If I think you had decently ok speeches, that's where you'll be. Noticeable strategic errors in argument choice or time allocation or delivery will reduce that, insightful arguments and solid strategy will bring it up. I don't mind open cross-x but if you stand up there silently while your partner answers all your questions instead of prepping, you'll both lose points.

LD:

My preference is for LD to be a discussion of philosophy and morality. That can definitely include evaluating outcomes, but don't assume that I'll always vote for the person who proves the "best" outcomes over somebody with a strong philosophical justification for their position.

I dislike both affs and negs who seem to be advocating a specific plan and whose argumentation seems mainly about poking very small and specific holes in each others' plans.

Due to the time constraints, I am much less likely in LD to vote on "gotcha" drops than I am in policy.

Evan Winden

Shawnee Mission East '20

University of Kansas '24

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

Top Level

I think debaters work really hard and will reward teams with good evidence, good technical ability, and good communication.

Clipping results in a loss and 0 speaks- make sure to mark cards when you say “mark the card”.

I will not vote on things that happen outside the round.

Topic knowledge is limited; I seemingly am aff biased on this topic.

Tech issues are way too frequent in the post-online debate world. I will be patient but attempt to resolve these issues prior to the round.

Critical/Non-traditional Affirmatives

I think the affirmative should be topical. Most definitely, the aff should be in the direction of the topic. Otherwise, you need distinct reasons why reading the aff under the topic is good.

Not a fan of debate bad.

Fairness is an impact, but my favorite impact is clash/iterative testing.

Creative TVAs will be rewarded and serve as a way to subsume aff offense.

I enjoy substance/presumption debates against critical affirmatives.

I'm not sure that discussions of the issues/problems of debate are best in-round.

Ks

I think the aff should get to weigh its impacts.

I would not like to hear a long overview; it can probably be done on the line by line.

Good links win debates; bad links lose debates- impacting out these links is important. Links need to be contextualized to the aff.

Links of omission are not links.

The alternative should resolve the links. If not, the kritik is most likely a non-unique disad.

I don't think kicking the alternative and going for it as a linear disad is strategic.

Not highly versed in obscure literature. Even if I am, explanations will serve to your benefit.

When answering - make strong permutation arguments and explain the net benefit.

Disads

Good. Impact overviews with turns case and impact calculus should be near the top of every disad debate.

Disads are not low/no risk unless that's proven.

Politics disads are good and comparing evidence in these debates is what wins. Author qualifications, data, and dates are a good way to start.

Quals are underrated.

Counterplans

I won't judge kick unless it's in the 2NC and 2NR.

Cheating counterplans are only cheating counterplants if that's proven - process, agent, consult, etc. are probably cheating, but you have to say it is and win that they are bad.

Always down for a counterplan competition debate - counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive.

The aff needs to impact out solvency deficits and have more warrants than just permutation do both in the 2AC.

Theory

Highly underrated and I think theory debates can be interesting but most of the time it's just blocks.

Cheating counterplans are cheating counterplans- warrant out why they are bad for debate.

A certain amount of conditional advocacies being bad is arbitrary, but condo can be a voter. I generally think debate should be hard.

I think disclosure and open sourcing are good. The difference between "big" and "small" schools is somewhat arbitrary, but I do think small schools exist. However, this is not a reason to not disclose (this is mostly a Kansas thing).

New affs- good & strategic, but should be prepared for the 8 off debate.

Topicality

I default to competing interps.

I am not the biggest fan of techy topicality debates.

Plan text in a vacuum arguments aren't very persuasive. Extra-T affs aren't topical.

Never a reverse voter.

Affs

Stubborn 2A thing- I think a lot of 2A's blow through the case debate without extending proper warrants or referencing 1ac cards.

I have mostly read big-stick impacts through my career and do not think sitting on framing in the 2AR as a reason to vote aff is very persuasive.

Defending strong internal link chains is easier than bad ones.

"The aff is your home. Protect it." - Martin Osborn

Stolen from David Sposito's paradigm: I appreciate unconventional arguments more than I previously did. Debate is now an echo chamber that does not prepare students to answer all arguments, bad or not. It really bothers me that some debaters "scoff" at certain arguments as an answer rather than engaging in debate. Good debaters should have the tools to answer those bad arguments.

Feel free to email questions or ask me before/after the round.

About me: I debated for 4 years at Mill Valley (2014-18) and I am now an assistant coach at Blue Valley West. I'm currently in my first year of OT school if that matters to anyone.

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

Top level:

*Pre-KSHSAA state update:* I have not judged a lot of debates on the water topic, but I would say I am pretty familiar with the core of the topic from coaching.

I will evaluate anything you read to the very best of my ability. I try my best to leave any biases at the door and make a fair decision no matter what. However, my background and most experience is in policy-oriented arguments and therefore I will be best judging those debates.

Tech > truth, but warrants of arguments should still always be extended and explained. Evidence quality is still important to me, but I won't make arguments for you based on the ev that weren't made in the round.

Please tell me how to evaluate arguments in rebuttals so that I am not left to figure it out myself. I always try to intervene as little as possible when making my decisions and only vote on arguments based on what was said in the round. I try not to read evidence when writing my RFD unless it was an extremely important card to the outcome of the round and/or I can't resolve the debate without reading it. If you want me to read a piece of evidence, tell me that in the 2NR/2AR.

Please be kind. Debate is hard; there's no reason to make it even harder for others.

Kritiks/K affs/FW

I don't have a lot of background knowledge in critical literature and therefore I will require more explanation of these arguments than some other judges. If I can't reasonably explain an argument myself or explain to a team in an RFD, I won't vote for it. This does not mean that I need to have a super high understanding of the literature or argument, but that you spent enough time on it in the debate for me to feel comfortable voting on it.

Literature I am more familiar with: security, neolib/cap, set col. Assume that I am unfamiliar with anything else. Please slow down on tags and analytics (especially important things like perms) and don't use buzzwords. Good line-by-line and impact comparison is very important to me in making my decision. Long overviews are not a good idea.

Ks on the neg: Explain clearly what the alt does and how it solves for the impacts you're claiming. I often find myself confused as to what I am voting for at the end of the round, so a robust explanation of the alternative will help you immensely. I don't think that links of omission are links and links that are very specific to the plan are most persuasive. I will let the affirmative weigh the case unless I'm given a convincing reason not to do so.

Framework vs. K affs:

I think that affirmatives should probably defend a plan, and if not, they should be grounded in the resolution in some way. I am usually pretty persuaded by the TVA if it's done well, so the aff needs to explain why the TVA can't access the same impacts as they can. Neg teams need actually engage the aff and do impact explanation and comparison vs. reading blocks without ever contextualizing it to the aff.

I am increasingly starting to think that fairness isn't a terminal impact but rather an internal link, but I can be persuaded otherwise. I think a lot of neg teams don't really explain why these impacts matter, they just say 'key to fairness,' 'key to clash,' etc. but miss the explanation of the implications of those impacts.

I am not a good judge for a K v. K debate.

Counterplans

The more aff-specific, the better. I will reward you/give more leeway on creative counterplans and ones with recut 1AC ev. They need to be competitive and should probably have a solvency advocate - if it doesn't have one I'll have a much lower threshold for voting aff on solvency deficits. I default to judge kick unless I am told otherwise.

Even though I think condo is generally good, I think it's definitely underutilized by aff teams, especially when neg teams read 3+ advocacies, kick planks, etc. I would say I generally lean neg-ish on most counterplan theory arguments if debated equally.

Topicality

I am not a fan of T on the water topic. I get sometimes it's the most strategic option, but just know it might be more of an uphill battle with me than other arguments would be.

Make the flow clean, explain your impacts, and be clear on what your interp includes and excludes and why that is a good thing. Case lists are a good idea on both sides.

I default to competing interps. I'm generally not a big fan of reasonability and think it's usually a waste of time unless you give convincing reasons as to why I should vote on it.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Good luck and have fun!

email chain: DaneWorthing10@yahoo.com

Former open division debater