Overview:

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

Argumentation:

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

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

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

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

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

Speed:

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

Fairness and Abuse:

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

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

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

Hi!

They/them

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

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

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

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

Please don't spread.

Your args need warrants.

New cards are acceptable thru the 1ar.

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

CP: Needs a net benefit

DA: needs to have a link

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

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

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

~2nd-year debater at Shawnee Mission West, please include me on the email chain: bqg2605@gmail.com
~She/Her
~I will most likely be taking time, even if someone else says they are as well.
~I'm not sure if you can count it as "flowing" perse but I will be taking notes throughout the round

Make sure with topics like these to explain them thoroughly with layman's terms, otherwise I might not fully understand. This one's a given, but please make it clear that you know what you're talking about and that you're knowledgeable about this year's topic.

Moving on to specific arguments

Topicality~ Please actually make the topicality argument matter. Did you know you can run topicality on a semi colon? A semi colon! Please don't do that. It's funny but please don't. ALSO please don't make the ENTIRE debate about topicality because then that takes away from learning about the topic, which is the whole reason why you're debating it.

Impact Calc~ I used to love running impact calc in my debate days, but it always boils down to economy vs extinction/nuclear war which is fine but I'd prefer if it was a little more unique than that.

K~ I do not understand Ks in the slightest so if you run one, make sure you know what you're talking about and explain it to me in layman's terms.

Counterplan~ I LOVE COUNTERPLANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please run one if you have one.

Anything else I'm completely neutral on and is fair game.

CX~ I get it if you're passionate about the topic, but please don't yell just for the sake of yelling. Give the other team a chance to talk and try not to talk over them if they're answering/asking a question.

Thank you for reading

High-Budget Thomas

He/Him

Email: 10197560@students.usd497.org

(Add me to the email chain please)

2nd year DCI debater for Lawrence (The better one)

Lies>Tech>Truth

Resident Aspec Hack. (also any other letter tbh)

I am not scary so please interact with me. I love debaters who dont take things too seriously.

Im fine with people getting a little bit spicy in round but personal attacks, racism, homophobia is not chill- can be inclined to vote teams down on it

I started debate in 2019 and this is my 3rd year debating. If you create a speech drop or email chain I would like to be included so I can follow along. I don't like Ks so don't run them. I also don't like impacts like Nuclear war or Extinction but if the other team is unable to refute the DA I will still vote on it. I would also prefer if you didn't spread and would rather you speak clearly instead of gibberish because if the other team doesn't understand you I probably won't understand either. DO NOT use prep time before CX because that's not how that works. Also do not just speak over your opponent during CX because it is just rude and if you want your question answered you will listen to the answer unless they start babbling about something else. One more thing about CX if you are the person asking questions DO NOT make statements because you are not the one being questioned, the same works where I would rather the person being questioned not ask questions back. Also please remember not to bring up new arguments in the rebuttals because you aren't supposed to and it will be a waste of your time because I will not write it down. With all of that I wish both teams the best of luck and that they both have a good tournament.

-Daniel Henre

I can flow

Email: donnasjalosjos@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

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

Karissa Kromminga - she/her

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

Seton Hall University - International Relations and Diplomacy

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

Top Level:

Tech>truth

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

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

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

DAs:

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

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

CPs:

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

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

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

Ks:

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

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

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

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

T:

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

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

Theory:

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

Speaks:

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

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

Ana-Sofia Lahovary (she/they)

KU'25

Assistant Coach for Shawnee Mission East High School

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

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

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

- disclosure is good

- tech > truth

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

- keep track of your own prep

- clipping/cheating/bigotry will guarantee a loss

- evidence comparison and ethos are good and will be rewarded

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

have fun !

Former Assistant Coach at Lansing High School for three years.

I did not debate in High School or College but DID participate in Forensics.

Speed - clarity is important

I will not vote against my own self interest. (don't read death, wipeout, spark)

Kritiks: I enjoy the philosophy but you have to make sure it makes actual sense, you also need to explain the logic of the K for me to vote on it.

I am a HUGE SpeechDrop truther, please do not use an email chain.

I am the head coach at De Soto (KS).

Tech/Truth, Ev Quality

For both of these things, I try to limit judge intervention as much as I possibly can. I'm probably 70/30 tech v truth and I think your evidence should actually say what you claim it says. That being said, because of my intervention philosophy, you need to call this out deliberately in the round for me to evaluate it. I will absolutely vote on "untruthful" arguments if there are no responses (or responses too late in the debate) claiming otherwise. However, I am increasingly realizing how much I dislike meme-y arguments in debates so at least make an attempt to say things that are moderately real, otherwise I might embrace my grumpy old man mentality and vote it down on truth claims.

K

I will listen to and evaluate critical positions. I have become a lot more K-friendly over time, but please don't interpret that statement as a green light to read something just because you can. Accessibility is a very important (and, in my opinion, undervalued) part of any kritik. As such, be very explicit on what the role of the ballot is and what the intended impact of the alt and/or performance is. I will vote on no link to the K and I will default to policy impacts if told to do so. Don't be a moving target or change advocacy stances between speeches (obviously you can kick out of the K but some of those things might haunt you on other flows). Perf con arguments are very persuasive to me.

CPs

Competition > nearly everything else. For this reason, I really have a hard time voting for advantage CPs. I am typically persuaded by PICs bad arguments unless the neg can prove competition/lack of abuse in round. Be sure to have a clear net ben (internal or external) and articulate what it is: I've seen far too many CPs without them gone for. For the aff, I don't love hearing a laundry list of every perm you can think of. Read and articulate perms that actually test competitiveness (i.e. "perm do the aff" isn't a thing) and explain how the actions can coexist.

DAs

DAs should be unique. Generics are good but link quality is important.

Condo

I have no threshold for the amount of conditional CPs or Ks or whatever the neg wants to run. However, if the aff wants to read abuse or condo bad I will certainly listen to it. Watch out for those pesky perf cons.

T

Explain your definitions and make sure the card you use has warrants that actually state (or strongly imply) your interp. Competing interps need to be evaluated in terms of both the definition's contextual value to the resolution as well as the warrants of the definition read. Explain your limits/ground. No laundry list here; articulate how exactly in-round abuse has occurred or how what the plan text justifies is bad. Explain your voters. If you want to read and actually go for T, I need to see contextual work done early and often.

Theory (General)

In terms of other theory arguments like spec, disclosure, etc. I need to have clear voters. Make sure to articulate the sequential order of evaluation when multiple theoretical stances are being taken. On this note, RVIs are a *silly* thing and I will *begrudgingly* vote for them but they need to be weighed against the initial theory claim well.

CX

I don't flow CX. I view CX mainly as a means to generate (or lose) ethos in the debate, not necessarily to win arguments on the flow. Don't make this a shouting match please, otherwise I'm just going to ignore both teams and nobody wants that. We're all friends here.

Speed

I am okay with speed. However, if your argument is 1) intricate and requiring significant analytical explanation 2) not in the speech doc or 3) rooted in accessibility literature slow it down. It will help you if I can understand what's going on. I'd prefer you be organized, clear, and slow instead of messy, unintelligible, and fast. I won't ever give up on your speech if you have a hard time with clarity, but just know I may not pick up all of your arguments (obviously a bad thing for you).

Man, just make smart arguments.

Also, No Ks.

Hi, I'm Frances Parker (any pronouns)

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

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

add me to the email chain francesesparker@gmail.com

How to pref me:

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

2- T v Policy aff,

3- Multi plank cp,

4- racism, homophobia, sexism, ableism etc,

General things:

truth=tech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K specific:

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

have fun:~)

I’ve judged 8 debate rounds in the last 4 months. Before that, I had no debate background. I try to be unbiased while I’m listening to the debate and the scores will reflect this.

Current head coach for a high school debate team... I focus on the clash of a debate and enjoy seeing personal debate styles shine. Show me what you know!

Like I said, clash of the stock issues is important. If you are going to bring up DisAds, CP's, T arguments, make sure they have all of the fundamental parts.

If arguments are dropped, I will not automatically flow it to the other team unless it is brought up in the debate.

Overall, just have a fun debate! Good luck!

Put me in the email chain if you have one: ericqiangno2@gmail.com

Currently a 4th-year debater at SMW. Judged several novice tournaments before.

I will judge you based on the evidence you provide, as well as reasons to vote for you. I see judging as weighing arguments on either side is made, as well as speakers telling me why certain arguments should be preferred over their opponent's arguments. Being a human, I have my own opinion, but also being a debater, I know how annoying it is to have judges to say "I vote for whatever team because I believe what they said," even if they did not have any other arguments, and you were 100% winning. So, I try to be as neutral as possible. That being said, here are what arguments I think are the most persuasive.

Topicality: By far my favorite arg, personally I try to run it whenever there is a good definition that can prove they are untopical. That being said, this does not mean I think you should run it every round, especially if 1. you can't explain your definition or why they are untopical, 2. your definition is really bad, or 3. you can't explain what the aff being untopical does (why it is bad for debate). Topicality must have an interpretation, violation, standard, and voters. If you can do all these things, I will be slightly more likely to vote in favor of you depending on the aff answer. If the aff answer is good however, and they are able to persuade me more on either why their definition is better for debate/why they meet, then you should probably just spend the rest of your time on the neg developing your other arguments.

DA: The bread and butter of neg offense, Disadvantages need to have a clear uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact scenario. Essentially, you have to prove that there is something in the squo that the aff plan changes, which leads me to some problem that we would not see absent the plan. The more specific the link the better, I am more likely to vote on a DA with a more specific link. I think impact calc is a very persuasive argument, especially if you can prove that your impact outweighs the opposing teams.

CP: Must be mutually exclusive with the plan (can't do both.) It is the burden of the neg to prove that you cannot do both. I will not vote on a CP with no net benefit (no reason to prefer.) Don't think there needs to be too much said here, prove that CP is better than plan for me to vote on it.

Aff: I think a very big mistake alot of novice teams make is not answering the arguments made by the other teams. This is something that is very common, and happens alot when learning how to debate, but is a very important part of debate. If you can successfully answer what your opponent says, and what you say that answers it, then you will be in a very good spot to win the round at the novice level. This goes both ways, for both the aff and the neg. I will vote on any impact, but if there is absolutely no reason for me to prefer one or the other, I prefer real world impacts (police brutality) over big stick impacts (warming causes extinction.) Again, if you can explain to me why your impact is better, that plays a big part in my decision making. I don't believe that any one solvency arg completely negates solvency, unless you convince me that it is such a big issue that they can't solve. Rather, I view solvency as comparing how much less the aff plan can't solve, and if that is enough for me to not see the advantages being solved.

K: Don't bother reading a K, I am so extremely unversed in K literature that it just isn't a winning solution, unless you are able to literally explain everything to me, and make sure that I understand exactly what it is the role of the judge is in the round, and what I am voting for.

Overall, I think that a big part of debate is a good balance of reading evidence, and being able to explain what it is that you just read, as well as why it is important. Being able to do that is the foundation of being successful in debate. I think another big thing that should happen is learning how to fill speech time, especially in the rebuttals. I understand that it is not always easy to fill up all your time, but even if it means repeating everything you just said three times, that is still better than ending your speech 50 seconds in. A really easy way to fill time is to answer and refute your opponents arguments, especially with direct evidence that you read from previous speeches. Even if it is not a very good or convincing argument, it goes a long way.

Also, this should go without saying, but be respectful of each other. Insulting others does not help you win, and will most likely make me vote against you.

Email me if you have any questions, and thanks for reading some random t 4th-year debater's (who happens to be your judge this round for some reason) paradigm.

My name is Parker Richmond and I am a 4th year debater. I am the Captain of the SM West Debate Team.

Put me in the email chain if you have one: kentaro.richmond@gmail.com

I also highly recommend SpeechDrop as a way to share your speeches quickly and this is something I really prefer as a judge.

---

Topicality: I will ALWAYS VOTE ON T if you can argue it properly and win. That being said, this does not mean I think you should run it every round, especially if 1. you can't explain your definition or why they are untopical, 2. your definition is really bad, or 3. you can't explain what the aff being untopical does (why it is bad for debate). Topicality must have an interpretation, violation, standard, and voters. If you can do all these things, I will be slightly more likely to vote in favor of you depending on the aff answer. If the aff answer is good however, and they are able to persuade me more on either why their definition is better for debate/why they meet, then you should probably just spend the rest of your time on the neg developing your other arguments.

DA: The bread and butter of neg offense, Disadvantages need to have a clear uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact scenario. Essentially, you have to prove that there is something in the status quo that the aff plan changes, which leads me to some problem that we would not see absent the plan. The more specific the link the better, I am more likely to vote on a DA with a more specific link. I think impact calc is a very persuasive argument, especially if you can prove that your impact outweighs the opposing teams.

CP: Must be mutually exclusive with the plan (can't do both.) It is the burden of the neg to prove that you cannot do both. I will not vote on a CP with no net benefit (no reason to prefer.) Generally, this will be that your CP does not link to a DA you read, or it solves better (assuming you read solvency arguments against the aff plan.) Don't think there needs to be too much said here, prove that CP is better than plan for me to vote on it.

Aff: I think a very big mistake alot of novice teams make is not answering the arguments made by the other teams. This is something that is very common, and happens alot when learning how to debate, but is a very important part of debate. If you can successfully answer what your opponent says, and what you say that answers it, then you will be in a very good spot to win the round at the novice level. This goes both ways, for both the aff and the neg. I will vote on any impact, but if there is absolutely no reason for me to prefer one or the other. I will vote on both kinds of impacts, including real world impacts (police brutality) and big stick impacts (warming causes extinction.) Again, if you can explain to me why your impact is better, that plays a big part in my decision making. I don't believe that any one solvency arg completely negates solvency, unless you convince me that it is such a big issue that they can't solve. Rather, I view solvency as comparing how much less the aff plan can't solve, and if that is enough for me to not see the advantages being solved.

K: An argument I do not usually run as a debater and have not dealt with extensively, but as long as you explain it well to me and can prove you understand it, I will consider/vote on it, but I personally don't like K affs very much. I do prefer a K with a clear alt or solvency mechanism. 

Summary: I will judge you based on the evidence you provide, as well as reasons to vote for you. I see judging as weighing arguments on either side is made, as well as speakers telling me why certain arguments should be preferred over their opponent's arguments. Being a human, I have my own opinion, but also being a debater, I know how annoying it is to have judges to say "I vote for whatever team because I believe what they said," even if they did not have any other arguments, and you were 100% winning. So, I try to be as neutral as possible.

Overall, I think that a big part of debate is a good balance of reading evidence, and being able to explain what it is that you just read, as well as why it is important. Being able to do that is the foundation of being successful in debate. I think another big thing that should happen is learning how to fill speech time, especially in the rebuttals. I understand that it is not always easy to fill up all your time, but even if it means repeating everything you just said three times, that is still better than ending your speech 50 seconds in.

A really easy way to fill time is to answer and refute your opponents arguments, especially with direct evidence that you read from previous speeches. Even if it is not a very good or convincing argument, it goes a long way. There is a very good chance that if you have are able to respond to every argument that the opponent throws at you, whether by analytics or evidence cards (which you should still extend/explain with analytics), then you will likely win the round. RESPOND TO EVERYTHING!

Also, if you are disrespectful or straight-up insulting, you will definitely automatically lose the round.

YOU WILL IMMEDIATELY WIN THE ROUND IF YOU CAN ANSWER THIS QUESTION: why do they call it water when you protect the cold water of out hot save the water

To give some basic ideas of how I want the round to go are

• Don’t run a K if you don’t know how.

• Don’t try and speed unless your coach has told you otherwise

• T substantial is an okay argument in some, not in others (I can elaborate in round if needed)

• The 1AR can make or break my decision

• Two worlds is a great format. Use it

• Don’t be rude in general. It will hurt more than it will ever help

• Please flush out arguments made in the 1nc.

• Please flash me or add me to the email chain

• Make your arguments in order

• CX will not have a big sway over my decision

Hi! My name is Ellie:)

I really like clear speakers and a good pace. If you go too fast and I can't understand you I will definitely count off for that. Also, please please please give me a road map, it's super helpful. Next, make sure you know when your speech is and when you're asking cross-x questions! My opinion on DA's, topicality, etc. is that if you run it, MAKE SURE you run it correctly and effectively.

Current 4th year debater. I have debated on this years resolution, but I am a flow judge. Tell me why and how your team wins the argument by applying to the flow. Please be respectful to each other, we will all enjoy the round more if you are kind. As long as the argument isn't completely outrageous I'll go with it, just run what you feel most comfortable with. Good luck!

I did not debate in high school or college but I have judged every year for the past 10 or so years. I would describe myself as a policymaker judge although topicality is important to me and I don't mind Ks. I am not opposed to CP as long as net-benefit or perm are clearly articulated. I am comfortable with traditional or progressive debate as long as the harms are real world and I don't have to struggle through speed readers.

10208009@students.usd497.org

I want to see all of your speeches.

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

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

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

TOPICALITY:

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

DA'S:

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

CP'S:

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

K's:

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

ANALYSIS:

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

Overall:

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

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

Basics-

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

Flow-

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

Topicality-

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

DA-

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

CP-

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

CX-

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

K-

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

AFF-

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

I have been an assistant coach for around 12 years.

I do not value any one type of argument over another or automatically discount any type of argument. Anything is game; it just needs to be argued well. Make sure you are listening to the other side and actually addressing what they are saying.

I do value good communication. I can't give you credit for an argument that I can't understand. That said, I am okay with speed as long as it is still enunciated well.

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.

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

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

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

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