Short Version:
-yes email chain: nyu.bs.debate@gmail.com

-if you would like to contact me about something else, the best way to reach me is: bootj093@newschool.edu - please do not use this email for chains I would like to avoid cluttering it every weekend which is why I have a separate one for them

-debated in high school @ Mill Valley (local policy circuit in Kansas) and college @ NYU (CEDA-NDT) for 7 years total - mostly policy arguments in high school, mix of high theory and policy in college

-head LD/policy debate coach at Bronx Science and assistant policy coach at The New School, former assistant for Blue Valley West, Mill Valley, and Mamaroneck

-spin > evidence quality, unless the evidence is completely inconsistent with the spin

-tech > truth as long as the tech has a claim, warrant, and impact

-great for impact turns

-t-framework impacts ranked: topic education > skills > clash/arg refinement > scenario planning > fun > literally any other reason why debate is good > fairness

-I updated the t-fw part of my paradigm recently (under policy, 12/4/23) - if you are anticipating having a framework debate in front of me on either side, I would appreciate it if you skimmed it at least

-don't like to judge kick but if you give me reasons to I might

-personally think condo has gone way too far in recent years and more people should go for it, but I don't presume one way or the other for theory questions

-all kinds of theory, including topicality, framework, and/or "role of the ballot" arguments are about ideal models of debate

-most of the rounds I judge are clash debates, but I've been in policy v policy and k v k both as a debater and judge so I'm down for anything

-for high school policy 23-24: I actually used to work for the Social Security Administration (only for about 7-8 months) and I have two immediate family members who currently work there - so I have a decent amount of prior knowledge about how the agency works internally, processes benefits, the technology it uses, etc. - but not necessarily policy proposals for social security reform

Long Version:

Overview: Debate is for the debaters so do your thing and I'll do my best to provide a fair decision despite any preferences or experiences that I have. I have had the opportunity to judge and participate in debates of several different formats, circuits, and styles in my short career. What I've found is that all forms of debate are valuable in some way, though often for different reasons, whether it be policy, critical, performance, LD, PF, local circuit, national circuit, public debates, etc. Feel free to adapt arguments, but please don't change your style of debate for me. I want to see what you are prepared for, practiced in, and passionate about. Please have fun! Debating is fun for you I hope!

Speaking and Presentation: I don't care about how you look, how you're dressed, how fast or in what manner you speak, where you sit, whether you stand, etc. Do whatever makes you feel comfortable and will help you be the best debater you can be. My one preference for positioning is that you face me during speeches. It makes it easier to hear and also I like to look up a lot while flowing on my laptop. For some panel situations, this can be harder, just try your best and don't worry about it too much.

Speed - I do not like to follow along in the speech doc while you are giving your speech. I like to read cards in prep time, when they are referenced in cx, and while making my decision. I will use it as a backup during a speech if I have to. This is a particular problem in LD, that has been exacerbated by two years of online debate. I expect to be able to hear every word in your speech, yes including the text of cards. I expect to be able to flow tags, analytics, theory interps, or anything else that is not the interior text of a card. This means you can go faster in the text of a card, this does mean you should be unclear while reading the text of a card. This also means you should go slower for things that are not that. This is because even if I can hear and understand something you are saying, that does not necessarily mean that my fingers can move fast enough to get it onto my flow. When you are reading analytics or theory args, you are generally making warranted arguments much faster than if you were reading a card. Therefore, you need to slow down so I can get those warrants on my flow.

Clarity - I'm bad at yelling clear. I try to do it when things are particularly egregious but honestly, I feel bad about throwing a debater off their game in the middle of a speech. I think you can clear or slow your opponent if you are comfortable with it - but not excessively to avoid interruption please - max 2-3 times a speech. If you are unclear with tags or analytics in an earlier speech, I will try to let you know immediately after the speech is over. If you do it in a rebuttal, you are 100% at fault because I know you can do it clearly, but are choosing not to. Focus on efficiency, not speed.

Logistical Stuff: I would like the round to run as on-time as possible. Docs should be ready to be sent when you end prep time. Orders/roadmaps should be given quickly and not changed several times. Marking docs can happen outside of prep time, but it should entail only marking where cards were cut. I would prefer that, at the varsity level, CX or prep time is taken to ask if something was not read or which arguments were read. I think it’s your responsibility to listen to your opponent’s speech to determine what was said and what wasn’t. I don’t take prep or speech time for tech issues - the clock can stop if necessary. Use the bathroom, fill up your water bottle as needed - tournaments generally give plenty of time for a round and so long as the debaters are not taking excessive time to do other things like send docs, I find that these sorts of things aren’t what truly makes the round run behind.

Email chain or speech drop is fine for docs, which should be shared before a speech. I really prefer Word documents if possible, but don't stress about changing your format if you can't figure it out. Unless there is an accommodation request, not officially or anything just an ask before the round, I don't think analytics need to be sent. Advocacy texts, theory interps, and shells should be sent. Cards are sent for the purposes of ethics and examining more closely the research of your opponent. Too many of you have stopped listening to your opponents entirely and I think the rising norm of sending every single word you plan on saying is a big part of it. It also makes you worse debaters because in the instances where your opponent decides to look up from their laptop and make a spontaneous argument, many of you just miss it entirely.

Stop stealing prep time. When prep time is called by either side, you should not be talking to your partner, typing excessively on your computer, or writing things down. My opinion on “flex prep,” or asking questions during prep time, is that you can ask for clarifications, but your opponent doesn’t have to answer more typical cx questions if they don’t want to (it is also time that they are entitled to use to focus on prep), and I don’t consider the answers in prep to have the same weight as in cx. Prep time is not a speech, and I dislike it when a second ultra-pointed cx begins in prep time because you think it makes your opponent look worse. It doesn’t - it makes you look worse.

Speaker Points: I try to adjust based on the strength of the tournament pool/division, but my accuracy can vary depending on how many rounds in the tournament I've already judged.

29.5+ You are one of the top three speakers in the tournament and should be in finals.

29.1-29.4 You are a great speaker who should be in late elims of the tournament.

28.7-29 You are a good speaker who should probably break.

28.4-28.6 You're doing well, but need some more improvement to be prepared for elims.

28-28.3 You need significant improvement before I think you can debate effectively in elims.

<28 You have done something incredibly offensive or committed an ethics violation, which I will detail in written comments and speak with you about in oral feedback.

The three things that affect speaker points the most are speaking clearly/efficiently, cross-x, and making effective choices in the final rebuttals.

If you win the debate without reading from a laptop in the 2NR/2AR your floor for speaks is a 29.

For Policy:

T-Framework: The fw debates I like the most are about the advantages and disadvantages of having debates over a fiated policy implementation of the topic. I would prefer if your interpretation/violation was phrased in terms of what the affirmative should do/have done - I think this trend of crafting an interpretation around negative burdens is silly - i.e. "negatives should not be burdened with the rejoinder of untopical affirmatives." I'm not usually a big fan of neg interpretations that only limit out certain parts of the topic - strategically, they usually seem to just link back to neg offense about limits and predictability absent a more critical strategy. I think of framework through an offense/defense paradigm and in terms of models of debate. My opinion is that you all spend dozens or hundreds of hours doing research, redos, practice, and debates - you should be prepared to defend that the research you do, the debates you have, and how you have those debates are good.

1. Topic-specific arguments are best - i.e. is it a good or bad thing that we are having rounds talking about fiscal redistribution, nuclear weapons, resource extraction, or military presence? How can that prepare people to take what they learn in debate outside of the activity? Why is topic-specific education valuable or harmful in a world of disinformation, an uninformed American public, escalating global crises, climate change, etc.? Don't be silly and read an extinction impact or anything though.

2. Arguments about debate in general are also great - I'm down for a "debate about debate" - the reason that I as a coach and judge invest tons of time into this activity is because I think it is pedagogically valuable - but what that value should look like, what is best to take from it, is in my opinion the crux of framework debates. Should debate be a competitive space or not? What are the implications of imagining a world where government policy gets passed? What should fiat look like or should it be used at all?

I can be convinced that debate should die given better debating from that side. But honestly, this is not my personal belief - the decline of policy debate in terms of participation at the college and high school level makes me very sad actually. I can also be convinced that debate is God's gift to earth and is absolutely perfect, even though I also believe that there are many problems with the activity. There is also a huge sliding scale between these two options.

3. Major defensive arguments and turns are good - technical stuff about framework like ssd, tvas, relative solvency of counter-interps, turns case and turns the disad arguments, uniqueness claims about the current trends of debate, claims about the history of debate, does it shape subjectivity or not - are all things that I think are worth talking about and can be used to make "try or die" or presumption arguments - though they should not be the focal point of your offense. I like when tvas are carded solvency advocates and/or full plan texts.

4. I do not like judging debates about procedural fairness:

A) They are usually very boring. On every topic, the same pre-written blocks, read at each other without any original thought over and over. I dislike other arguments for this reason too - ultra-generic kritiks and process cps - but even with those, they often get topic or aff-specific contextualizations in the block. This does not usually happen with fairness.

B) I often find fairness very unimportant on its own relative to the other key issues of framework - meaning I don't usually think it is offense. I find a lot of these debates to end up pretty tautological - "fairness is an impact because debate is a game and games should have rules or else they'd be unfair," etc. Many teams in front of me will win that fairness is necessary to preserve the game, but never take the next step of explaining to me why preserving the game is good. In that scenario, what "impact" am I really voting on? Even if the other team agrees that the game of debate is good (which a lot of k affs contest anyway), you still have to quantify or qualify how important that is for me to reasonably compare it to the aff's offense - saying "well we all must care about fairness because we're here, they make strategic arguments, etc." - is not sufficient to do that. I usually agree that competitive incentives mean people care about fairness somewhat. But how much and why is that important? I get an answer with nearly every other argument in debate, but hardly ever with fairness. I think a threshold for if something is an impact is that it's weighable.

C) Despite this, fairness can be impacted out into something tangible or I can be convinced that "tangibility" and consequences are not how I should make my decision. My hints are Nebel and Glówczewski.

5. Everyone needs to compare their impacts alongside other defensive claims in the debate and tell me why I should vote for them. Like traditional T, it's an offense/defense, disad/counterplan, model of debate thing for me. For some reason, impact comparison just seems to disappear from debaters' repertoire when debating framework, which is really frustrating for me.

Kritiks: Both sides of these debates often involve a lot of people reading overviews at each other, especially in high school, which can make it hard to evaluate at the end of the round. Have a clear link story and a reason why the alternative resolves those links. Absent an alt, have a framework as to why your impacts matter/why you still win the round. Impacts are negative effects of the status quo, the alternative resolves the status quo, and the links are reasons why the aff prevents the alternative from happening. Perms are a test of the strength of the link. Framework, ROB, and ROJ arguments operate on the same level to me and I think they are responsive to each other. My feelings on impacts here are similar to t-fw.

I still study some French high theory authors in grad school, but from a historical perspective. In my last couple years of college debate I read Baudrillard and DnG-style arguments a lot, some psychoanalysis as well - earlier than that my tastes were a little more questionable and I liked Foucault, Zizek, and Nietzsche a lot, though I more often went for policy arguments - I gave a lot of fw+extinction outweighs 2ARs. A lot of the debates I find most interesting include critical ir or critical security studies arguments. I have also coached many other kinds of kritiks, including all of the above sans Zizek as well as a lot of debaters going for arguments about anti-blackness or feminism. Set col stuff I don't know the theory as well tbh.

Affirmatives: I think all affs should have a clear impact story with a good solvency advocate explaining why the aff resolves the links to those impacts. I really enjoy affs that are creative and outside of what a lot of people are reading, but are still grounded in the resolution. If you can find a clever interpretation of the topic or policy idea that the community hasn't thought of yet, I'll probably bump your speaks a bit.

Disads: Love 'em. Impact framing is very important in debates without a neg advocacy. Turns cases/turns the da is usually much better than timeframe/probability/magnitude. Between two improbable extinction impacts, I default to using timeframe a lot of the time. A lot of disads (especially politics) have pretty bad ev/internal link chains, so try to wow me with 1 good card that you explain well in rebuttals rather than spitting out 10 bad ones. 0 risk of a disad is absolutely a thing, but hard to prove, like presumption.

Counterplans: They should have solvency advocates and a clear story for competition. Exploit generic link chains in affs. My favorites are advantage cps, specific pics, and recuttings of 1AC solvency ev. I like process cps when they are specific to the topic or have good solvency advocates. I will vote on other ones still, but theory and perm do the cp debates may be harder for you. I think some process cps are even very pedagogically valuable and can be highly persuasive with up-to-date, well-cut evidence - consult Japan on relevant topics for instance. But these arguments can potentially be turned by clash and depth over breadth. And neg flex in general can be a very strong argument in policy. I won't judge kick unless you tell me to in the 2NR, and preferably it should have some kind of justification.

Topicality: I default to competing interps and thinking of interps as models of debate. Be clear about what your interp includes and excludes and why that is a good thing. I view topicality like a disad most of the time, and vote for whoever's vision of the topic is best. I find arguments about limits and the effect that interpretations have on research to be the most convincing. I like topicality debates quite a bit.

Theory: Slow down, slow down, slow down. Like T, I think of theory through models of debate and default to competing interps- you should have an interpretation to make your life a little easier if you want to extend it - if you don't, I will assume the most extreme one (i.e. no pics, no condo, etc.). If you don't have a counter-interp in response to a theory argument, you are in a bad position. If your interpretation uses debate jargon like pics, "process" cps, and the like - you should tell me what you mean by those terms at least in rebuttal. Can pics be out of any word said, anything in the plan, anything defended in the solvency advocate or in cx, any concept advocated for, etc.? I think there is often too much confusion over what is meant to be a process cp. The interpretation I like best for "process" is "counterplans that result in the entirety of the plan." I like condo bad arguments, especially against super abusive 1ncs, but the neg gets a ton of time in the block to answer it, so it can be really hard to give a good enough 1ar on it without devoting a lot of time as well - so if you are going to go for it in the 2ar, you need to expand on it and cover block responses in the 1ar. Warrant out reject the argument vs. reject the team.

For LD:

Prefs Shortcut:

1 - LARP, High Theory Ks

2 - Other Ks, Topicality

3 - Phil, Theory that isn't condo or pics bad

4/5/strike - Trad, Tricks

My disclaimer is I try to keep an open mind for any debate - you should always use the arguments/style that you are most prepared with and practiced in. You all seem to really like these shortcuts, so I caved and made one - but these are not necessarily reflective of my like or dislike for any particular argument, instead more of my experience with different kinds, meaning some probably require more explanation for me to "get it." I love when I do though - I'm always happy to learn new things in debate!

Phil Debates: Something I am fairly unfamiliar with, but I've been learning more about over the past 6 months (02/23). I have read, voted for, and coached many things to the contrary, but if you want to know what I truly believe, I basically think most things collapse into some version of consequentialist utilitarianism. If you are to convince me that I should not be a consequentialist, then I need clear instructions for how I should evaluate offense. Utilitarianism I'm used to being a little more skeptical of from k debates, but other criticisms of util from say analytic philosophy I will probably be unfamiliar with.

Trad Debate: By far what I am least familiar with. I don't coach this style and never competed in anything like LD trad debate - I did traditional/lay policy debate a bit in high school - but that is based on something called "stock issues" which is a completely different set of standards than LD's value/value criterion. I struggle in these debates because for me, like "stock issues" do in policy, these terms seem to restrictively categorize arguments and actually do more to obscure their meaning than reveal it. In the trad debates I've seen (not many, to be fair), tons of time was dedicated to clarifying minutiae and defining words that either everyone ended up agreeing on or that didn't factor into the way that I would make my decision. I don't inherently dislike LD trad debate at all, it honestly just makes things more difficult for me to understand because of how I've been trained in policy debate for 11 years. I try my best, but I feel that I have to sort through trad "jargon" to really get at what you all think is important. I would prefer if you compared relative impacts directly rather than told me one is better than the other 100% of the time.

Plans/DAs/CPs: See the part in my policy paradigm. Plans/CP texts should be clearly written and are generally better when in the language of a specific solvency advocate. I think the NC should be a little more developed for DAs than in policy - policy can have some missing internal links because they get the block to make new arguments, but you do not get new args in the NR that are unresponsive to the 1AR - make sure you are making complete arguments that you can extend.

Kritiks: Some stuff in my policy paradigm is probably useful. Look there for K-affs vs. T-fw. I'm most familiar with so-called "high theory" but I have also debated against, judged, and coached many other kinds of kritiks. Like with DAs/CPs, stuff that would generally be later in the debate for policy should be included in the NC, like ROBs/fw args. Kritiks to me are usually consequentialist, they just care about different kinds of consequences - i.e. the consequences of discourse, research practices, and other impacts more proximate than extinction.

ROB/ROJs: In my mind, this is a kind of theory debate. The way I see this deployed in LD most of the time is as a combination of two arguments. First, what we would call in policy "framework" (not what you call fw in LD) - an argument about which "level" I should evaluate the debate on. "Pre-fiat" and "post-fiat" are the terms that you all like to use a lot, but it doesn't necessarily have to be confined to this. I could be convinced for instance that research practices should come before discourse or something else. The second part is generally an impact framing argument - not only that reps should come first, but that a certain kind of reps should be prioritized - i.e. ROB is to vote for whoever best centers a certain kind of knowledge. These are related, but also have separate warrants and implications for the round, so I consider them separately most of the time. I very often can in fact conclude that reps must come first, but that your opponent’s reps are better because of some impact framing argument that they are making elsewhere. Also, ROB and ROJ are indistinct from one another to me, and I don’t see the point in reading both of them in the same debate.

Topicality: You can see some thoughts in the policy sections as well if you're having that kind of T debate about a plan. I personally think some resolutions in LD justify plans and some don't. But I can be convinced that having plans or not having plans is good for debate, which is what is important for me in deciding these debates. The things I care about here are education and fairness, generally more education stuff than fairness. Topicality interpretations are models of the topic that affirmatives should follow to produce the best debates possible. I view T like a DA and vote for whichever model produces the best theoretical version of debate. I care about "pragmatics" - "semantics" matter to me only insofar as they have a pragmatic impact - i.e. topic/definitional precision is important because it means our research is closer to real-world scholarship on the topic. Jurisdiction is a vacuous non-starter. Nebel stuff is kind of interesting, but I generally find it easier just to make an argument about limits. Reasonability is something I almost never vote on - to be “reasonable” I think you have to either meet your opponent’s interp or have a better one.

RVIs: The vast majority of the time these are unnecessary when you all go for them. If you win your theory or topicality interp is better than your opponent's, then you will most likely win the debate, because the opposing team will not have enough offense on substance. I'm less inclined to believe topicality is an RVI. I think it’s an aff burden to prove they are topical and the neg getting to test that is generally a good thing. Other theory makes more sense as an RVI. Sometimes when a negative debater is going for both theory and substance in the NR, the RVI can be more justifiable to go for in the 2AR because of the unique time differences of LD. If they make the decision to fully commit to theory in the NR, however, the RVI is unnecessary - not that I'm ideologically opposed to it, it just doesn't get you anything extra for winning the debate - 5 seconds of "they dropped substance" is easier and the warrants for your c/i's standards are generally much better than the ones for the RVI.

Disclosure Theory: This is not a section that I would ever have to write for policy. I find it unfortunate that I have to write it for LD. Disclosure is good because it allows schools access to knowledge of what their opponents are reading, which in pre-disclosure days was restricted to larger programs that could afford to send scouts to rounds. It also leads to better debates where the participants are more well-prepared. What I would like to happen for disclosure in general is this:
1) previously read arguments on the topic are disclosed to at least the level of cites on the opencaselist wiki,
2) a good faith effort is made by the aff to disclose any arguments including the advocacy/plan, fw, and cards that they plan on reading in the AC that they've read before once the pairing comes out,
3) a good faith effort is made by the neg to disclose any previously read positions, tied to NC arguments on their wiki, that they've gone for in the NR on the current topic (and previous if asked) once they receive disclosure from the aff,
4) all the cites disclosed are accurate and not misrepresentations of what is read,
5) nobody reads disclosure theory!!

This is basically the situation in college policy, but it seems we still have a ways to go for LD. In a few rare instances I've encountered misdisclosure, even teams saying things like "well it doesn't matter that we didn't read the scenario we said we were going to read because they're a k team and it wasn't really going to change their argument anyways." More intentional things like this, or bad disclosure from debaters and programs that really should know better, I don't mind voting on. I really don't like however when disclosure is used to punish debaters for a lack of knowledge or because it is a norm they are not used to. You have to understand, my roots are as a lay debater who didn't know what the wiki was and didn't disclose for a single round in high school. For my first two years, I debated exclusively on paper and physically handed pages to my opponent while debating after reading them to share evidence. For a couple years after that, we "flashed" evidence to each other by tossing around a usb drive - tournaments didn't provide public wifi. I've been in way more non-lay debates since then and have spent much more time doing "progressive" debate than I ever did lay debate, but I'm very sympathetic still to these kinds of debaters.

Especially if a good-faith attempt is made, interps that are excluding debaters based on a few minutes of a violation, a round report from several tournaments ago, or other petty things make me sad to judge. My threshold for reasonability in these debates will be much lower. Having some empathy and clearly communicating with your opponent what you want from them is a much better strategy for achieving better disclosure practices in the community than reading theory as a punitive measure. If you want something for disclosure, ask for it, or you have no standing. Also, if you read a disclosure interp that you yourself do not meet, you have no standing. Open source theory and disclosure of new affs are more debatable than other kinds of disclosure arguments, and like with T and other theory I will vote for whichever interp I determine is better for debate.

Other Theory: I really liked theory when I did policy debate, but that theory is also different from a lot of LD theory. What that means is I mainly know cp theory - condo, pics, process cps, perm competition (i.e. textual vs. functional, perm do the cp), severance/intrinsicness, and other things of that nature. You can see some of my thoughts on these arguments in the policy section. I've also had some experience with spec arguments. Like T, I view theory similarly to a da debate. Interpretations are models of debate that I endorse which describe ideally what all other debates should look like. I almost always view things through competing interps. Like with T, in order to win reasonability I think you need to have a pretty solid I/meet argument. Not having a counter-interp the speech after the interp is introduced is a major mistake that can cost you the round. I decide theory debates by determining which interp produces a model of debate that is "best." I default to primarily caring about education - i.e. depth vs. breadth, argument quality, research quality, etc. but I can be convinced that fairness is a controlling factor for some of these things or should come first. I find myself pretty unconvinced by arguments that I should care about things like NSDA rules, jurisdiction, some quirk of the tournament invitation language, etc.

Tricks: I think I've officially judged one "tricks" round now, and I've been trying to learn as much as I can while coaching my squad. I enjoyed it, though I can't say I understood everything that was happening. I engaged in some amount of trickery in policy debate - paradoxes, wipeout, process cps, kicking out of the aff, obscure theory args, etc. However, what was always key to winning these kinds of debates was having invested time in research, blocks, a2s - the same as I would for any other argument. I need to be able to understand what your reason is for obtaining my ballot. If you want to spread out arguments in the NC, that's fine and expected, but I still expect you to collapse in the NR and explain in depth why I should vote for you. I won't evaluate new arguments in the NR that are not directly responsive to the 1AR. The reason one-line voting issues in the NC don't generally work with me in the back is that they do not have enough warrants to make a convincing NR speech.

email chain -- ramyachilappa19@gmail.com

I debated at Blue Valley North for four years, and am currently a sophomore at Dartmouth College.

Here are a few predispositions I have about debate –

1). Affirmatives should be topical – I generally believe that means they defend the implementation of hypothetical government action in the instance of the resolution. If this is not your vision of what it means to be topical, you must provide a counter interpretation of the topic with offensive justifications for why it should be preferred.

2). Arguments need to have warrants. I am hesitant to say tech over truth is absolutely true, even if applicable most of the time, because if you cannot explain why a dropped argument is true then there is no reason for me to believe it is.

3). Evidence is important – quality shapes the truth of your arguments, and quality is determined by author qualifications, the source, bias, date, etc., as much as it is by the content. A few good cards will always be infinitely more valuable than a ton of terrible ones.

4). Reading straight into your computer for 5-8 minutes at a time is not debating – you should be flowing, responding to the other teams arguments, doing evidence and argument comparison, and not just repeating the same thing 50 times as fast as possible (which almost always makes you impossible to understand).

A few things you should know –

-I’m not going to be the greatest at following you if you go top speed without stopping, especially on analytics and in the rebuttals – I need time to flow and process arguments.

-I am tired of terrible two card arguments in the 1NC that don’t say anything but then blow up into real arguments in the block. I obviously can’t force you not to do this, but keep in mind that I will be significantly more sympathetic to new affirmative answers if the 1NC was a piece of trash that the 2AC (rightfully) dismissed.

-Judge kick is a logical extension of conditionality – there’s no reason I wouldn’t default to it unless explicitly told otherwise.

Please be kind – debate is an educational activity that is infinitely more valuable if we are all engaged and having fun.

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.

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.

Background- I debated for 4 years in high school in Overland Park, Kansas doing DCI as well as KDC getting to out rounds at state and major tournaments.

Speed- I can flow with whatever speed suits you.

Speaker Presentation- I admire respectful debate rounds, so any rudeness or over-aggressiveness will take off speaker points.

Paradigm- For the most part, I see debate as a policy-based activity, so policy-making is what I tend to default on for framework. I can be convinced otherwise, but it needs to be appropriate. I do love good impact analysis, so if you do enough of that then I will likely vote for whatever impacts you identify (in-round and out-of-round).

Disadvantages- My favorite negative argument, minus pointless 30 second disads that don't give a full story (no internal link or uniqueness) that get kicked out of in the 2NC.

Counterplan- I feel like this is the most underrated argument for the negative, and I will gladly vote on a counterplan that makes sense. Make the text of the counterplan very clear and show its competitiveness, then you will have no problem getting a vote from me. I am indifferent on different arguments like 50 state fiat bad, so if you argue the reasoning well, I will vote for or against it.

Kritiks- I traditionally do not vote on many kritiks, but there are certainly places where they can be appropriate. If you plan to just bring the K into the 2NR, I will need a lot more convincing than just "the aff links to our kritik while the alt doesn't, therefore, we win". The framework needs to be there and the world of the alt has to be clearly defined.

Topicality- I do not like T being used as a time skew argument where the neg does 20 seconds and the aff does a minute. That being said, I understand you can't always take it to the 2NR or even the 2NC/1NR. I respect debate teams that spend 5 minutes of the 2NR on Topicality; anything less and I will not vote on it, unless it is BLATANTLY not topical.

Theory- I will vote on theory arguments that make sense for the debate. My threshold to vote against a team for a single argument voter such as a severance perm is way higher, obviously, but if the debate comes down to that perm being vital, I will certainly evaluate it as a vote. Arguments that are more built around the case such as solvency advocate theory or inherent barrier theory are ones that I will consider voting for or against a team regardless as these are prerequisites to good debate.

I like to think that I'm a tabula rasa judge. If you tell me how to vote and show me why you win, then you'll be in a good spot. If no one does that, I default policy maker with an exception of T/Theory.

Update: This is still accurate. I am actively coaching / cutting cards on the HS topic.

Put me on the email chain: david.kingston@gmail.com --- Makes life easier.

Hi, I'm Dave.

I debated 4 years in High School in Albuquerque, NM. I graduated in 1989.
I also debated for 4 years in College at Arizona State and transferred to UMKC. I won CEDA Nationals and graduated in 1994.
After that, I was a grad assistant at the University of North Texas and coached debate for 2 years.
and then got married and took my wife's last name changing mine from Genco to Kingston.
and then was a grad assistant at KU for a couple of years.
and then was the Assistant Director at UMKC until 2000.
From 1994 until 2000 I taught at a bunch of camps.
I've helped out several college teams here and there in the last 5-6 years.
I am currently cutting cards and coaching Blue Valley Northwest on the high school topic.

If you have any questions ask.

TL/DR: I really don't have a preference for what you do in a debate round. I've judged a ton of them over the years. I suggest you do something that you do well.

K: Everyone wants to know if I'm ok with "the K" or "the criticism" or a "performance". Sure. That sounds good to me. I understand those types of arguments. I've become more up to date with some high theory and race/structural Ks. You do you. I don't hold them against you.

CP: You don't have to answer the aff if the Counterplan solves all of the aff and you should point out what disads/turns are net benefits to the counterplans. I do not default to judge kick. I default to you're stuck with what you go for unless you make some argument about it. If you make an argument about the counterplan being condo, then you have to kick it unless you make judge kick args.

DA: They're good. Uniqueness, link or impact defense, and foundational warrant comparison are all good ways to help resolve things. Please don't read generic impact stuff that doesn't take the context of the round into account. It helps my decision and comments if you differentiate your warrants or find ways to compare your link to the turn or vise versa. Do I believe in zero risk? Kinda. Dropped args are probably zero risk. But I default to the arguments made about risk. Generally though, I default to some risk on a contested debate unless the resolution of the arguments is made very clear (Uniqueness goes the wrong direction, dropped args with some analysis, deeper warrants etc.)

T: If you have a good interp you can defend and can do standard debating well, I'm willing to hear the debate.

K Affs: I have been more in touch with this style of debate in recent years. I'm pretty neutral in FW debates. If you're aff vs FW, isolate a couple pieces of offense and you should be all right.

Theory: I don't care about how many or what kind of condo if you can defend it.

Round Comments:

I try to stay neutral in my judging and vote on things said in the round, not things that I make up about things you say. I'll make things up if that's the only way to resolve stuff, but I never feel good about it. Don't make me feel bad, plz.

I don't care how fast you go as long as you don't have mush mouth and I can understand it.

I try not to be a jerk about prep time, please don't be a jerk about it either. That being said, we do have to have a debate and it does have to finish on time, so don't steal prep.

Also, don't clip cards. I read along in the speech doc.

Don't flash docs that contain a ton of cards you're never going to read, and don't mess with the speech docs (remove navigation, purposefully try to avoid sharing, or do other random crap that is borderline cheating). The other team gets to see everything you read, and vice versa.

None of that doesn't mean that you can expect me to ignore arguments that aren't in a speech doc. If it was said, it's an argument. You should FLOW.

I don't like posturing between speeches and during CX in debates. If you have comments to make about the way the other team is debating or the arguments they choose, then you should make them as an argument in a speech.

Speaker Points: I'm trying to achieve more clarity about how I assign speaker points. This should give you a good idea about what I'm thinking when I assign them. This is a bit of an upward departure from points I have given in the past. Basically, I'm looking at points as a consideration of whether or not I think the debating you did was of elim rounds quality or that your performance was worthy of putting you on track to win a speaker award. I have my standards, but my points will probably end up being .2 or so higher than I have given in the past.

Bonus speaker points if you find a way to win that doesn't assume you win all of your arguments.

Have fun and Good Luck!

Jan 2024 Update:

Extend your arguments. Extend your arguments. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS! (THIS IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT FOR ME THAN WHAT TYPE OF ARGUMENT YOU READ) Some of the debates I've watched this year have me so frustrated cuz you'll just be absolutely crushing in parts of the debate but just not extend other parts needed to make it relevant. For example, I've seen so many teams going for framework this year where the last rebuttals are 5 minutes of standards and voters and just no extension of an interp that resolves them. Or 2ARs that do so much impact calc and impact-turns-the-DA stuff that they never explain how their aff resolves these impacts so I'm left intervening and extending key warrants for you that OR intervening and voting on a presumption argument that the other team doesn't necessarily make. So err on the side of over extending arguments and take advantage of my high threshold and call out other teams bad argument extension to make me feel less interventionist pulling the trigger on it. What does this mean? Arguments extended should have a claim and a warrant that supports that claim. If your argument extension is just name dropping a lot of authors sited in previous speeches, you're gonna have a bad time during my RFD. The key parts of the "story" of the argument need to be explicitly extended in each speech. For example, if you're going for T in the 2NR then the interp, violation, the standard you're going for, and why it's a voter should be present in every neg speech. Whatever advantage the 2AR is going for should include each part of of the 'story' of aff advantage (uniqueness, solvency, internal link, impact) and I should be able to follow that back on my flow from the 1AR and 2AC. If the 2AR is only impact outweighs and doesn't say anything about how the aff solves it, I'm partial to voting neg on a presumption ballot

Ways to get good speaks in front of me:
-Extend your arguments adequately lol - and callout other teams for insufficient extensions
-Framing the round correctly (identifying the most relevant nexus point of the debate, explain why you're winning it, explain why it wins you the round)
-Doc is sent by the time prep ends
-One partner doesn't dominate every CX
-Send pre-written analytics in your doc
-At least pretend to be having fun lol
-Clash! Your blocks are fine but debates are SOOO much more enjoyable to watch when you get off your blocks and contextualize links/args to the round
-Flow. If you respond to args that were in a doc but weren't actually read, it will hurt your speaks
-Utilize powerful CX moments later in the debate
-If you have a performative component to your kritital argument, explain it's function and utilize it as offense. So many times I see some really cool poetry or something in 1ACs but never get told why poetry is cool and it feels like the aff forgets about it after the 2AC. If it's just in the 1AC to look cool, you were probably better off reading ev or making arguments. If it's there for more than that, USE IT!

WaRu Update 2023: I think debaters think I can flow better than I can. Slowing down on pivotal moments of the debate to really crystalize will make you more consistently happy with my RFDs. If you're going top speed for all of the final rebuttals and don't frame my ballot well, things get messy and my RFDs get worse than I'd like.

Krousekevin1@gmail.com

Background:

I participated in debate for 4 years in High School (policy and LD for Olathe East) and 3 years in College Parli (NPDA/NPTE circuit). This is my 6th year assisting Olathe East debate. I've done very little research on this topic (emerging tech) so please don't assume I know your acronyms or the inner workings of core topic args.

I have no preference on email chain or speechdrop, but it does irritate me when debaters wait until the round is supposed to be started before trying to figure this stuff out.

Speed:

I can keep up for the most part. Some teams in the national circuit are too fast for me but doesn't happen often. If you think you're one of those teams, go like an 8/10. Slow down for interps and nuanced theory blocks. 10 off rounds are not fun to watch but you do you.

Argument preferences:

In high school, I preferred traditional policy debate. In college I read mostly Ks. I studied philosophy but don't assume I know everything about your author or their argument. Something that annoys me in these debates is when teams so caught up in buzzwords that they forget to extend warrants. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. Not just author names, but extend the actual argument. Often teams get so caught up in line by line or responding to the other team that they don't extend their aff or interp or something else necessary for you to win. This will make me sad and you disappointed in the RFD.

I'd rather you debate arguments you enjoy and are comfortable with as opposed to adapting to my preferences. A good debate on my least favorite argument is far more preferable than a bad debate on my favorite argument. I'm open to however you'd like to debate, but you must tell me how to evaluate the round and justify it. Justify your methodology and isolate your offense.

I don't judge kick CPs or Alts, the 2NR should either kick it or go for it. I'm probably not understanding something, but I don't know what "judge kick is the logical extension of condo" means. Condo means you can either go for the advocacy in the 2nr or not. Condo does not mean that the judge will make argumentative selection on your behalf, like judge kicking entails.

K affs- I don't think an affirmative needs to defend the resolution if they can justify their advocacy/methodology appropriately. However I think being in the direction of the resolution makes the debate considerably easier for you. I wish more negs would engage with the substance of the aff or innovated beyond the basic cap/fw/presumption 1nc but I've vote for this plenty too. I have recently been convinced that fairness can be impacted out well, but most time this isn't done so it usually functions as an internal link to education.

I'm of the opinion that one good card can be more effective if utilized and analyzed well than 10 bad/mediocre cards that are just read. At the same time, I think a mediocre card utilized strategically can be more useful than a good card under-analyzed.

Any other questions, feel free to ask before the round.

LD Paradigm:

I've coached progressive and traditional LD teams and am happy to judge either. You do you. I don't think these debates need a value/criterion, but the debates I watch that do have them usually don't utilize them well. I'm of the opinion that High School LD time structure is busted. The 1AR is simply not enough time. The NFA-LD circuit in college fixed this with an extra 2 minutes in the 1AR but I haven't judged a ton on this circuit so how that implicates when arguments get deployed or interacts with nuanced theory arguments isn't something I've spent much time thinking about. To make up for this bad time structure in High School LD, smart affs should have prempts in their 1AC to try and avoid reading new cards in the 1AR. Smart negs will diversify neg offense to be able to collapse and exploit 1AR mistakes. Pretty much everything applies from my policy paradigm but Imma say it in bold again because most people ignore it anyways: EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. Not just author names, but extend the actual claim and warrant. Often teams get so caught up in line by line or responding to the other team that they don't extend their aff or interp or something else necessary for you to win. This will make me sad and you disappointed in the RFD.

Hello - Is this thing on?

What did the Zen Buddhist say to the hot dog cart vendor?

Make me one with everything.

What do you call the wife of a hippy?

Mississippi

Do you know the last thing my grandfather said before he kicked the bucket?

"Grandson, watch how far I can kick this bucket."

For the person who stole my thesaurus, I have no words to express my anger.

I have been and English teacher for 30 years - I have judged debate (as an assistant Coach) for 6 years. Therefore I like reason and intelligent argument debaters who have researched enough to know what they are talking about.

I prefer actual conversational debate, but speak as fast as you like (as long as I have your speech/evidence in front of me) speechdrop, please

I am basically a TABULA RASA judge. Counterplans, kritiks, disadvantages, topicality - it is all possibly a winning move if it is done well.

I respect debaters who know their evidence well and can concisely clarify during cross-x.

A big plus for actually understanding how government works so that you can formulate a reasonable plan/counterplan - know what the IRS is actually responible for - know the powers ennumerated to the federal government and therefore what is relegated to the states

I generally do not enjoy nuclear annihilation arguments - unless they link clearly. Sometimes it does, but most of the time it does not.

Blue Valley Northwest '20

KU '24

Coached @ Blue Valley Northwest

Debated @ KU

zmancity101@gmail.com

alot of my debate opinions come from my friends arvind shankar, william soper, lex barrett, and zakariya ahmed

I care a lot more about the flow and technical execution than whatever style of arguments you make. You should read what you feel most comfortable with rather than catering your debating to me. I read primarly K arguments in highschool and read policy arguments in college. I lean alot more policy nowadays. I don’t know anything about the topic so I’ll spend time reading through the cards a bit longer.

The name of this activity is policy debate. As such to win you must debate about policies. I think DA's and CP's can debate about policies just as much as a good K with specific links can, so dont be deterred from reading what you are good at. However, arguments that are completely extraneous to the topic should not be read, whether thats the aff or the neg. I prefer in-depth case debates, with author indicts, and good evidence comparision rather than long drawn out overviews that avoid clash.

Heres some old stuff from when I was judging more often that might help but its been a pretty long time lol:

Policy v Policy: 4(Aff) - 3(Neg) - I enjoy these debates the most. I have voted on T a couple of times and am persuaded by limits arguments even if the interp was somewhat arbitrary. I have never voted on presumption or considered risk to be zero absent arguments resolved by fiat. I have voted on theory but absolutely did not enjoy it, and solely did it because it was not responded to. Framing contentions are best when they are not just dumped with random cards, rather ones that are specficic to the aff. Big stick affs are substantially better than soft left in these debates. It would be beneficial for you to read complete arguments. I am sympathetic to 2A's shrugging off incomplete 2 card DA's and 1 card K's. If the DA is bad it prob needs a CP. Nonetheless, I see the strategic benefit of trying to flood the 2AC. Teams need to read more adv CP’s to test internals. Process CP debates are fun if both teams understand what’s going on. Most high schoolers don’t so it’s not fun.

Policy v K: 1 (Aff) - 2 (Neg) - When I voted aff it was because the permutation solved the links and had multiple net benefits. Not saying multiple net benefits are necessary however they help outweigh any residual links of the K. When I voted neg, the neg had won a larger theory of power to explain how the world operated, and won framework offense. That being said I was very persuaded by aff arguments defending their specific method of discourse through carded evidence. Teams that read specific K's to the actual componenets of the 1AC will be rewarded, and in those debates Aff's doubling down and defending their reps as good with external impacts instead of wasting time with fwk will also be rewarded. In scenarios where it’s a fiat K, aff teams should not have trouble winning framework. A lot of teams end up having trouble answering fwk because the neg throws around complicated words and then the block and 2NR say aff dropped “offense”. Most of the time it is not actual offense but recognizing this is the tough part. When in doubt frame it through fairness, plan focus good, clash, education etc. That encompasses a lot.

Planless v K: 0 (Aff) - 1 (Neg) - The negative won by creating clear competition and having a broader explanation of how the aff's violence operates with a clear external impact and materially explained alternative. Aff's should be able to sidestep alot of links with strong explanations of the permutation and their theory of power in general in order to win.

Planless v T: 4 (Aff) - 3 (Neg) - The affirmative won by generating impact turns based off the 1AC but also playing defense to alot of the negatives topicality claims. Another round the affirmative counter defined the words of the rez and had sufficient offense based around thier defs. I told the negative that they failed to explain why the affirmative's interpreation specifically is unlimting and lacked offense intrinsic to thier model of debate. It is tough for me to see a legitimate aff interp that solves the negs offense but its not impossible. Good responses to "debate has competitve incentives" and real answers to fairness should be priortized sufficiently by the aff because those on face value are very convincing to me. The more I watch and judge these debates the more I realize the strategic utility of fairness a lot more than clash. And the impact turns to fairness are substantially worse than the impact turns to clash so going for fairness in front of me is most likely better.

Speaker Points

-i decide speaker points

-be funny and youll get extra points

-be cringey and youll lose extra points

Experienced former competitor and coach in debate and forensics. While my experience is primarily in forensics, as a policy debate judge I’m familiar with and open to all types of arguments (disads, counterplans, critiques, etc.). I consider myself a tabula rossa judge, in that I will vote on any argument to decide a round assuming the teams have framed it as a primary voting issue. That being said, I rarely vote on procedural arguments like topicality. When it comes to speed reading I can’t keep up like I used to. It’s ok to read fast, but try to keep it around a 7/10 so I can keep up.

jessealankc@gmail.com

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

Email: mjmcmahon3739@gmail.com

Assistant coach for Blue Valley North

Debated 4 years at Blue Valley North, currently in 4th year at Kansas

One thing that may be instructive for having me as a judge is my speaker points are equally likely to reflect how much I enjoyed judging a debate as the skill of each debater. Debate is a fun activity. The most fun debates are ones where debaters are engaged, impassioned, and noticeably enjoying what they’re doing. I love seeing debaters smile and give speeches like they have a personal investment in what they’re saying. I know debate is hard and tiring and takes a lot of work and detracts from school. But you’re here for a reason, and if I can infer that reason during the debate, I’ll reward you for it and everyone will have a better time!

Here are some opinions I have about arguments and the state of debate. None of these opinions are fixed obviously, I just think it’s important you all know.

Conditionality is getting a bit out of hand these days… the 1NC with a 20 plank advantage counterplan and uniqueness counterplans atop every DA will frustrate even the most poised 2A. I am probably a better judge for condo bad than others. I think debate might actually be better if the 2AC could punish the NEG for a sloppy 1NC. It’d be interesting to see how dispositionality would actually play out

I don’t think 2NC counterplans out of 2AC straight turns are legitimate if they disagree with a core premise of the 1NC. For example, if the 1NC says “X bill rides the plan, that’s bad”, and the 2AC impact turns the bill, I can be easily persuaded the 2NC doesn’t get to counterplan “pass X bill”, because they already said that bill was bad and the 2AC made a strategic choice to develop offense there instead of elsewhere

Small(er) 1NC’s that disagree with the core premises of the AFF will always be better than giant 1NC’s whose only goal is make the 2A suffer and extend what’s undercovered. I get it, I know why it’s strategic, but well-developed offense intrinsic to the AFF is so much more fun to judge and educational for the debaters. If you have the goods to spend an entire 1NR link turning an advantage, that would be infinitely better than a process counterplan that needs 4 minutes of AT: Perm do the counterplan just to appear competitive

Evidence quality and highlighting matters so much. I cannot stand evidence with highlighting being scattered and not forming coherent sentences. I swear some cards these days don’t make a comprehensible argument, and I will not fill in the holes in your highlighting for you

Probably better for reasonability than most. I find the argument “precise evidence shapes the predictability of a limited topic” persuasive.

K’s can be incredibly potent, and I love them when deployed correctly, but too often I judge debates where the K is just one big solvency push. “Reform bad because it makes the state look good” and “AFF fails because nebulous theory of power true, vote NEG” are too defensive. Get specific, tell me why the AFF is bad, not imperfect

Not good at all for any genre of K that says death is good or we should accept unnecessary suffering

The less jargon you need to explain your K’s theory the better for me personally. I need to understand your argument before I can decide if you won it

Really really love impact turns

I think there are only a handful of debaters and coaches in the country who actually understand counterplan competition. I’m in my 8th year and Bricker is still coddling me through this aspect of debate. It’s very fun and interesting, but confusing, so if you can debate that theory well, I will have the utmost respect for you

Regarding framework, fairness can be an impact. It can also be an internal link to a host of other impacts. I think non-topical AFFs should choose whether they want to impact turn framework or read counterinterps to play some defense. I've found attempting both rarely helps the AFF.

Some of the things I wrote above might lead some to conclude I only ever vote AFF lol (you can tell I’m a 2A), that’s false. You can make the block only an impossibly limiting T arg, psychoanalysis, and con con with an internal net benefit and I’ll vote on any and all of them if you debate them well. The opinions above are only there to say it might not be my favorite debate.

Alex McVey - Director of Debate at Kansas State University

Yes Email chain - j.alexander.mcvey at gmail

Online things - Strong preference for Camera On during speeches and CX. I'm willing to be understanding about this if it's a tech barrier or there are other reasons for not wanting to display. But it does help me a ton to look at faces when people are speaking.

If I'm physically at a tournament and judging a debate with one online and one in-person team, I'm always going to try to be in the same room as the in-person team, if the tournament permits. Within those parameters, Zoom teams should let me know if there's anything I can do to make myself more present for them in that space. I respect what online debate has done to increase access for some teams, but I value in-person connection with debaters too much to go judge from an empty classroom or hotel room.

I flow on paper. I need pen time. Clarity is really important to me. I'll always say "clear" if I think you're not being clear, at least 1-2 times. If you don't respond accordingly, the debate probably won't end well for you.

I tend to be expressive when I judge debates. Nodding = I'm getting it, into your flow, not necessarily that it's a winner. Frowny/frustrated face = maybe not getting it, could be a better way to say it, maybe don't like what you're doing. I would take some stock in this, but not too much: I vote for plenty things that frustrate me while I'm hearing them executed, and vote down plenty of things that excite me when first executed. All about how it unfolds.

The more I judge debates, the less ev I'm reading,  the more I'm relying on 2nr vs 2ar explanation and impact calculus. If there are cards that you want me to pay attention to, you should call the card out by name in the last rebuttal, and explain some of its internal warrants. Debaters who make lots of "even if" statements, who tell me what matters and why, who condense the debate down to the most important issues, and who do in depth impact calculus seem to be winning my ballots more often than not.

Debating off the flow >>> Debating off of speech docs (ESPECIALLY IN REBUTTALS). I'd say a good 25% of my decisions involve the phrase "You should be more flow dependent and less speech doc dependent." Chances are very little that you've scripted before the debate began is useful for the 2nr/2ar.

My experience and expertise is definitely in kritik debate, but I judge across the spectrum and have been cutting cards on both K and Policy sides of the legal personhood topic. Run what you're good at. Despite my K leaning tendencies, I’m comfortable watching a good straight up debate.

Don't assume I've cut cards in your niche research area though. I often find myself lost in debates where people assume I know what some topical buzzword, agency, or acronym is.

Theoretical issues: Blippy, scatter-shot theory means little, well-developed, well-impacted theory means a lot. Again, pen time good.

I have no hard and set rules about whether affs do or don't have to have plans. Against planless/non-topical affs, I tend to think topicality arguments are generally more persuasive than framework arguments. Or rather, I think a framework argument without a topicality argument probably doesn't have a link. I'm not sure what the link is to most "policy/political action good" type framework arguments if you don't win a T argument that says the focus of the resolution has to be USFG policy. I think all of these debates are ultimately just a question of link, impact, and solvency comparison.

I tend to err on truth over tech, with a few exceptions. Dropping round-winners/game-changers like the permutation, entire theoretical issues, the floating PIC, T version of the aff/do it on the neg, etc... will be much harder (but not impossible) to overcome with embedded clash. That being said, if you DO find yourself having dropped one of these, I'm open to explanations for why you should get new arguments, why something else that was said was actually responsive, etc... It just makes your burden for work on these issues much much more difficult.

Be wary of conflating impacts, especially in K debates. For example, If their impact is antiblackness, and your impact is racism, and you debate as if those impacts are the same and you're just trying to win a better internal link, you're gonna have a bad time.

I intuitively don't agree with "No perms in a method debate" and "No Plan = No Perm" arguments. These arguments are usually enthymematic with framework; there is an unstated premise that the aff did something which skews competition to such a degree that it justifies a change in competitive framework. Just win a framework argument. That being said, I vote for things that don't make intuitive sense to me all the time.

I like debate arguments that involve metaphors, fiction, stories, and thought experiments. What I don't understand is teams on either side pretending as if a metaphor or thought experiment is literal and defending or attacking it as such.

A nested concern with that above - I don't really understand a lot of these "we meets" on Framework that obviously non-topical affs make. I/E - "We're a discursive/affective/symbolic vesting of legal rights and duties" - That... doesn't make any sense. You aren't vesting legal rights and duties, and I'm cool with it, just be honest about what the  performance of the 1ac actually does. I think Neg teams give affs too much leeway on this, and K Affs waste too much time on making these nonsensical (and ultimately defensive) arguments. If you don't have a plan, just impact turn T. You can make other defensive args about why you solve topic education and why you discuss core topic controversies while still being honest about the fact that you aren't topical and impact turn the neg's attempt to require you to be such.

RIP impact calculus. I'd love to see it make a comeback.

RIP performance debates that actually perform. My kingdom for a performance aff that makes me feel something.

Affs are a little shy about going for condo bad in front of me. I generally think Condo is OK but negatives have gotten a bit out of control with it.  I'm happy to vote for flagrant condo proliferation if the neg justifies it. I just don't think affs are making negs work hard enough on these debates.

Negs are a little shy about making fun of 1ac construction in front of me. Ex: K affirmatives that are a random smattering of cards that have little to do with one another. Ex: Policy affs where only 2 cards talk about the actual plan and the rest are just genero impact cards. I feel like negative's rarely ever press on this, and allow affirmatives to get away with ludicrous 2AC explanations that are nearly impossible to trace back to the cards and story presented in the 1ac. More 1nc analytical arguments about why the aff just doesn't make sense would be welcome from this judge.

In a similar vein, many affirmative plans have gotten so vague that they barely say anything. Negatives should talk about this more. Affs should write better plans. Your plan language should match the language of your solvency advocate if you want me to grant you solvency for what is contained in said evidence. I'm going to be trigger happy for "your plan doesn't do anything" until teams start writing better plans.

Debaters should talk more about the lack of quality the other team's evidence and the highlighting of that evidence in particular. If you've highlighted down your evidence such that it no longer includes articles (a/an/the/etc...) in front of nouns, or is in other ways grammatically incoherent due to highlighting, and get called out on it, you're likely to not get much credit for that ev with me.

Be kind to one another. We're all in this together.

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.

Background: I did (NFL/ NDSA) policy debate in high school and (NDT/ CEDA) in college but have been away from the activity since the 2014 War Powers Topic.

Overall I will vote on any argument (short of being blatantly offensive or intentionally harmful to other people in the room-) and I do not have a strict framework to evaluate the round. Policy arguments, K's, Framework and Topicality, all are fine if you think it is your winning argument-

Some more detailed thoughts:

I will not vote on an argument that I don't understand-

For K's and K affs- Do not assume I know your author or their arguments in depth- You need to explain the theory/ idea and why it clearly LINKS to the opponent's argument. If you are just reading blocks at me, not ideal. The more clash and direct analysis you can do of your opponent's arguments, the better. Why does your theory or idea make the opponent's impacts inevitable? How does your theory or idea function as a link turn to your opponent's argument? If you leave me to fill in the blanks for you on those questions, you will probably not like the results.

Disad's - my favorite kind of debate when I debated- Affirmatives will do well focusing on the link and internal link debate to reduce the risk of an impact - generic link cards from the negative team and a wall of impacts are not how these debates should be done in my opinion. If you are just blasting a stream of impacts at me in the block while the 1AR articulates the weaknesses of the internal link story, I think that's a debate the affirmative is often going to win. "Zero risk of a link" is an argument I will vote on.

Case debate- not sure if this is very big anymore, but it is definitely important in my mind- Negative teams should spend time telling me why the internal links and impacts of the affirmative are not true or are not likely etc. If there is a lack of case debate by the negative team, I feel the negative is always fighting an uphill battle without some sort of CP or Alt.

Theory arguments are creative ways to win debates in my opinion. If you want me to vote on a theory argument by itself, it should generally be the only argument that you go for in the 2NR/ 2AR. If not, I will have a pretty good reason for treating your theory argument as a reason to reject the opponent's argument, not the team. I will not kick a CP or K for the negative unless the negative explicitly tells me I should do so.

Speed: please be clear and slow down a tad- its been 5 years for me since I debated and judged

Please ask questions if you have them, I do not mind clarifying.

Judging philosophy- KDC style at medium-fast speed

Preferences- when it comes to things like CPs, DAs, topicality and kritiks, I don't generally have a preference. Meaning as long as you are able to make it make sense to me through your presentation of your argument and debate skills it is good for me. That being said in the past I typically have issues with the link between extreme DAs (nuclear war, economic implosion, etc,). OCASIONALLY (very) a team will use some of these and get a winning ballot because they were able to make a clear link and defend it very well. I keep my political onions and past rounds experiences from interfering with the round I am judging and try my best to be a "blank slate"

Judging experience- I have been judging debate for the past 5 or 6 years and have judged from regular tournaments all the way up to state tournaments. Novice and experienced.

Educational background- I hold a Bachelors in Business Administration from Pittsburg State university where I majored in Finance and marketing with a minor in international business and I am currently enrolled at The University of Kansas School of Nursing where I will graduate with by BSN in 2025.

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)

Olathe North '20 - 4yrs DCI and KDC

airiannaodonohue@gmail.com -- add me to the chain:)

Name Pronunciation: Air-e-on-uh O-Dawn-uh-hue (names are important to me, if I mispronounce yours please correct me!!)

Pronouns: (she/they)

General:

I believe that the aff must engage with the resolution. Whether that be with a plan or a critique of the res. itself, just make sure you’re responding to it in some way. I am very comfortable with speed, but make sure you’re still articulating. I will clear you, but pls don’t make me. above all else debate should be an inclusive environment. If you inhibit the inclusivity of this activity by reading something that is racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/classist I will vote you down.

Framework:

I really enjoy framework and think that it adds a lot of ground for clash when done correctly. If a team drops f/w (and the other team pulls it through and is actively meeting the role of the ballot) then I am inclined to vote in favor of the team who extends it. If you’re debating fairness I think that it should be used in the context of how education is being lost.

Kritiks:

I absolutely adore a good k debate. I am most familiar with anti-blackness since that’s what I commonly ran while in hs, but i’ve also ran/am familiar with neolib, bio-power, settler colonialism, fem, and queer theory. On the uniq. side of the debate, the neg should prove how the aff is a unique link. (please do not run a K you are not familiar with, it makes the round clunky and if the other team knows the lit better than you it gets r e a l l y awkward.)

Disadvantages:

If you’re going to run a generic DA pls have specific links. I think that there are better strategies than running a crap ton of disadvantages to try and overwhelm the aff. That being said, each round is unique and whatever you can do to get the debate to lean in your favor you should do. if you are running multiple DA’s (and plan on carrying them through) make sure you do proper extension. the phrase “extend all args made in my partners last speech” haunts me and it should haunt you too.

Counterplans:

I am still very familiar with them. personally, I loathe consult or delay cp’s. (PIC’s are cool) If you’re running a counterplan (and you aren’t planning on kicking it from the beginning) make sure you’re proving to me why this solves better and circumvents all of the arguments you’ve made against the aff (i.e. disadvantages, K’s, etc.) or tell me why that doesn’t matter. If you can explain it well enough i’m down to vote for it. on the aff, respond with more than just “perm”

Topicality:

I will rarely vote on this ! unless the aff is blatantly untopical (**without reason, love myself a good k aff) then I think that the debate is kinda wasted on this issue. if you're running T be confident that you are absolutely going to demolish its execution. I prioritize education and fairness, make sure you carry through your voters.

if u have any other questions about my preferences/experience/etc. don’t hesitate to ask before round !!

✿ last updated: December 16th 2023 ✿

Put me on the email chain please: lexi.ellis227@gmail.com

General Stuff:

-I will not evaluate arguments that are about something that happened outside of the debate round.

-unless otherwise argued, I default to judge kick is okay. If you want to get into specifics like cp planks, then I would prefer you make an argument about why judge kicking one part is okay.

-I believe that affs should be in the direction of the topic

-Impact out theory debates

~More specific arguments~

Kritiks:

-I don't think that a link of omission is a link. My threshold is pretty high for this so if you do so feel compelled to go for this argument, just know you will need to dedicate a lot of time to it.

-I like to see a lot of work done on the alt debate in the block. I need to see clear arguments as to what the world of the alt looks like and why the alt solves better than the aff.

Framework:

-I think fairness is more an internal link than it is an impact. (i.e. fairness is an internal link to topic education, clash, etc)

-In addition to framework there needs to be some sort of argument to indict the aff's methods. In rounds where this doesn't happen by the neg, I find the aff's argument to weigh the impacts more compelling. Read arguments as to why their theory is wrong.

Topicality:

-Limits are universally good.

-You should slow down

-T-USFG is more persuasive to me than a framework arg.

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.

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'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.

Lauren Carter, Assistant Coach at Olathe East High School

lncarter@olatheschools.org

I debated for three years in high school (two years as a policy debater and one year in public forum debate) at Liberty High School in Missouri. I didn't debate in college, but I have been coaching and judging since 2017.

General debate preferences:

Please be polite to each other! Being rude is not a good look if you want good speaker points.

I do my best to flow all arguments made in the round. That being said, if your argument isn't clear and/or I don't know where to flow it because you're jumping between points and aren't clearly sign-posting, it may not make it on my flow. Please stick to your roadmap as much as possible if you give one.

I'm not a huge fan of scripted/pre-typed speeches, aside from the first speech of the round. Going off-script shows me that you have a good handle of your arguments and will reflect well on the ballot. Being a good reader and a good debater are not one and the same.

I'm not comfortable giving oral critiques or round disclosure after the debate. I will put comments on my ballot.

Policy: I'm okay with some speed (not your top speed) but would prefer that you slow it down a bit during analytics and explanations of arguments/cards.

I learned a more traditional, stock issue oriented style of policy when I debated, so that is what I have the most experience with. However, you are the debaters and know which arguments work best for you. If you can teach me something new while in your round, go for it!

I especially love to hear good disads, but I also think that CPs and T are effective when argued well.

I don't mind kritiks and theory, but I don't have the background to follow them well without very clear explanations. Please don't throw around technical terms and arguments and assume that I know what you are talking about.

While you should respond to all arguments, I do believe that quality over quantity often comes into play when it comes to reading a bunch of evidence. A card isn't an argument, so please don't give me a laundry list of cards and taglines without taking some time to justify their purpose in the round.

I generally don't spend a lot of time looking at your speech docs. If I open your doc, I'll mostly look at it as a quick reference to help me keep track of my flow. If I have to continuously look at your doc to follow you, you aren't being clear or sign-posting enough. If a card is called into question I will look at it, but I don't take evidence credibility or inconsistencies with cards into consideration unless you as the debaters bring it up.

LD: I prefer a more traditional style of debate for LD and like to see rounds that bring out the distinct style of debate that represents LD. I would prefer to see debates centered on your case values, philosophy and logic.

Public Forum: I've judged PFD at local tournaments and prelim rounds at nationals.

You don't have to speak super slow for me but I don't enjoy hearing spreading during PF rounds. In this style of debate, I appreciate debaters who use their time well and know when to develop and expand on arguments and when to narrow the focus. You have longer speeches at the beginning so use this time wisely early on, especially for you second speakers.

arvind.debate@gmail.com

I vote for teams that take the activity seriously and have come prepared to debate the core topic arguments. I have no patience for shenanigans and will not sit idly by as you set a dumpster on fire, regardless of "technical execution." Finally, I am unwilling to vote on T/theory unless a facially unreasonable practice has occured, will judge kick at my own discretion if debated shallowly, and conduct risk calculus based on the likelihood of the overall internal link chains rather than simply the magnitude of the impacts.

Hi, I’m Will Soper. He/him/his. Wsoper03@gmail.com.

I debate for the University of Kansas. I'm currently coaching for Blue Valley North. I worked with a lab at Michigan for a little while this summer and judged a lot of practice debates.

Grumpy stuff. Do not ask for a marked document. If the number of cards marked in a speech is excessive, I will ask for a marked document. Asking what cards were read is either CX time or prep time. Prompting needs to stop. Past the first time, I will not flow the things your partner prompts you to say. Send the email before you stop prep.

I dislike bad arguments. I think most debaters understand what these are: hidden aspec in the 1NC, reading paradoxes as solvency arguments, counterplans which assassinate anyone, etc. If your ideal negative strategy involves more nonsense than specific discussions of the affirmative, we probably don't think about debate the same way.

Presumption/Vagueness. I am willing to (and have) voted negative on vagueness and that the affirmative has not met its stock issues burdens. Similarly, if the negative is reading a CP with an internal net benefit and doesn't have evidence demonstrating that the inclusion of the plan prevents the net benefit, I am willing to vote on "perm do both" even if the aff doesn't have a deficit to the CP. I am willing to dismiss advantage CP planks which are overly vague or not describing a policy.

Evidence matters a lot. Debaters should strive to connect the claims and warrants they make to pieces of qualified evidence. If one team is reading qualified evidence on an issue and the other team is not, I'll almost certainly conclude the team reading evidence is correct. I care about author qualifications/funding/bias more than most judges and I'm willing to disregard evidence if a team raises valid criticisms of it.

Kritiks. The links are the most important part of the kritik. If I have a hard time explaining back exactly what bad thing the 1AC did or assumed, I will have a hard time voting for you. Here are some things to increase your win percentage in front of me if you're extending a kritik. 1. Make link arguments that are specific to the affirmative. If debaters spent even 5 minutes before the debate reading through the 1AC, identifying themes or premises that are kritik-able, and made those into link arguments, their win percentage in front of me would skyrocket. 2. Rehighlight aff evidence to make these arguments. 3. Tell me how your link arguments disprove the case or make affirmative advantages irrelevant. I cannot remember the last time an "ontology" argument was relevant to my decision.

Planless affs. I basically always vote for the team that slows down and starts comparing their impact to the other team's first. The more a team reads blocks into their computer, the less likely I am to vote for them. I am a poor judge for fairness/clash/debate bad.

Topicality against plans. I am more willing than other judges to take a "you know it when you see it" approach to topicality. Overly limiting interpretations that most affs at the tournament would violate are not very persuasive to me. For example, I have voted that adopting medicare for all is not Social Security. I have not, however, heard a compelling reason aff's can't deficit spend. I'm not immovable on either issue, but your debating should be as aff-specific as possible.

Things which will make your speaker points higher: exceptional clarity, numbering your arguments, good cross-x moments which make it into a speech, specific and well-researched strategies, developing and improving arguments over the course of a season, slowing down and making a connection with me to emphasize an important argument, not being a jerk to a team with much less skill/experience than you. I decide speaker points.

You're welcome to post-round or email me if you have questions or concerns about my decision.

I debated for four years in High School at Olathe North and am currently assistant coaching there. I have not judged a whole lot of rounds and that is due to the college classes I am also taking at Johnson County Community College and the University of Kansas.

Please share what you plan on reading

email for email chains: swansonator01 @ gmail dot com

Speak clearly especially if you plan on going fast. If you are not clear in your spread...don't spread. I care more about the quality of your arguments rather than the quantity and I also care about how they fit into the flow of the debate.

I am fine with Ks and K affs and I especially care about HOW we achieve the alt if you run a K. ex. Revolution. Also, condo is good.

I will try my best not to intervene save for if you are rude and toxic in the round. Tell me how to vote and why. Run what you want to run and not what you think I want you to run.

If you run T, make sure it is reasonable and I will most likely not vote on it unless it is dropped.

(LD Paradigm below Policy paradigm)

I'm a pretty traditional judge.

I am willing to be persuaded based upon quality of argument/evidence. I do not give wins to quantity of evidence over quality of evidence.

There are no arguments to which I am automatically opposed---save for 2 caveats

1-I don't like fiat carried to Harry Potter/"magical" levels. There has to be some solid grounding in reality for me. Taken too far it gets into "how many angels can dance in the head of a pin?" territory. Most of the topics deal with serious issues that have serious real-world ramifications and they deserve being treated with due seriousness.

2-Having personally spent years arguing that literally nearly everything leads to nuclear war/global death/genocide/extinction etc. etc. , I will not flow said augments. I will NOT-I Repeat WILL NOT punish anyone for making them, as I said, I have done so myself. I simply will not flow such arguments.

Again, quality of argument matters more to me than quantity.

I'm ok with whatever speed debaters want to use. But if you really can out-speed my flow---well, if I can't flow it, then it makes it hard for you to win.

I am not a "blank slate" judge, I will not pretend that I don't know things.

I prefer clash on substantive points. I prefer dealing directly with the topic at hand. I often find highly technical "small ball" debates about debate itself to be unpersuasive.

I also greatly dislike it when debaters miss frame, take out of context or otherwise distort/spin/ etc. their evidence.

Any other question debaters might have, please ask.

LD Paradigm

I am "Old School" when it comes to LD Debate.

Pretty straightforward when it comes to LD--and other styles of debate

The only thing of note would be a deep disappointment with people that attempt to make LD into something like Policy Debates "little brother" or Policy Debates "mini-me."

LD is its own style of debate--it has it own rules, structure, methodology, delivery etc. etc

It is no more appropriate to try and crush Policy Debate methods/arguments/terms/delivery into an LD round than it would be to try and pass off ones Poetry selection as an Extemp speech. You CAN force round pegs into square holes---if you pound hard enough----but it tends to mangle things pretty thoroughly, an unappealing result.

Spreading and cranking up the speed (in general) despite being currently in-fashion, in places, is not really appropriate in LD where Delivery counts. Nor consistent with its historical context and purpose.

Plus if everything is essentially/effectively Policy Debate then there is really no reason at all for any other formats/styles etc. of debate.

Different events require different approaches, methodologies, styles and delivery. Inability or refusal to adapt ones case and methodology to fit the event or the paradigm IMO leads to poor quality debate.

I am not a "blank slate" Judge and as such I will not pretend that I don't know things. Attempts to get things "past" ones opponent that are not factually or logically correct will be noted.

Sincerely sorry if that sounds harsh but being able to adapt ones case/methods to fit the event and judging paradigms is a crucial skill for any competitor--esp. a debater.

Trevor Turner

He/them

Yes email chain: trevorturner2001@gmail.com

Rip my old paradigm - tabroom made me get rid of all my "profane language".

No camera preference.

Debated at Raymore-Peculiar High School for 4 years

Fifth year debating for Kansas State - 2x NDT Qualifier

MArch '24 - Ask me about the projects I'm currently working on!

Usual things - do whatever makes you happy, don't let my paradigm convince you otherwise. Feel free to ask questions if anything in here is nonsensical and you need clarification lol.

I'm not one for "wearing a poker face", so if it looks like I'm not understanding you/confused, that's probably the case.

Obviously any acts of racism, sexism, etc. will be voted down on face. My threshold for tolerating two white individuals running afrofuturism/pessimism is also really really high - as a POC it's pretty hard for me to sit through two white people trying to prescribe the implications of anti-black violence to me and telling me what I should be doing about it.

I don't judge LD or PF very often and I'm not going to make a whole section dedicated to them so sorry - some of these things will apply to you some won't.I find myself always telling debaters in these rounds that they need to spend more time expanding the depth of their impact calculus, so do that. Impact calc is not just a policy debate thing.

Truth = Tech (my coach clowned me for this but I'm sticking to it lol - good truth abilities is technical).

Onto the semantics-

K Debate: I decided to put this at the top because I feel like it's one of the first things teams search for when looking at paradigms. I do prefer sitting in the back of K aff rounds is opposed to policy aff rounds, but that does not mean I will vote for a K aff 100% of the time. I often think these affs lack substantive solvency mechanism, that allow for easy presumption neg ballots (though I always grown when signing a presumption ballot - more K aff teams need to spend time impact turning presumption as a concept). I'm far from an expert on K literature (throwing out random "woke" phrases or author names to seem smart does nothing for me or anyone so don't do it). So, if the debate turns into a high theory debate, make sure you're using the 2NR/AR to really pump the breaks and break it down - this should be an opportunity for me to go back through my flow and make sure I got everything that you were talking about. (Specifically important for the 2NR to isolate link(s) and impacts). I think judge intervention (though inevitable) is unequivocally bad, and should be avoided at any cost - which means I really want the last 30 secs of the final speeches to be the top of my RFD.

FW: Coming off the heels of that paragraph about how much I love listening to K affs, you can probably tell that I'm not super inclined to vote on FW. I don't think an aff is required to be "in the direction" (whatever that means) of the topic, but I'm not totally unsympathetic to those type of FW args. I totally get FW in the 1NC and even 1NR as a test of competition, but just get a little sad inside when it gets carried through to the 2NR. That being said, I'm not an "absolutely no FW" type of guy - if aff really fumbles FW coming out of the block, by all means go for it. But if you have something better and there is no damning concession, I really urge against going for it. Lack of a (quality) TVA makes me really sympathetic to aff arguments. I also really enjoy out of the box FW interpretations - it doesn't always have to be the Ericson evidence. What kind of models should debate allow for that don't always require the use of the USFG?

T: I'm a lot more willing to vote on T than framework, and I don't think I stray too far from the beaten path when it comes to T. Have all four components solid and ta-da you win. Obviously I'd prefer not to listen to a T debate but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. I do need really really specific ground loss examples if you're going for ground though, and why the ground that you want to access is actually good ground (k/2 the core of the topic or whatever)

Theory: I think theory is often underutilized in debates - specifically condo. Condo is the internal link to a lot of different things and shields from neg blowing up dropping 2AC args. Undercover a sheet in the 2AC and drop some args? That's offense for condo being a voter, and condo justifies new 1AR spin. Neg caught in some perf cons? Condo is the internal link. That being said, voting for condo makes me a little sad but if they fumble it you can go all in in the 2AR I guess. Just make sure if you utilize it for the things mentioned above (or anything similar) you give it a light 15 sec extension in the 2AR. If you can somehow convince me that dispo is good, I might bless you with a few extra speaker points (that requires you to have a coherent interp of what you think dispo is). If you ask me to judge kick something, I will probably just laugh (see above, judge intervention bad)

CPs & DAs (And case lol): Again, not far from the beaten path here. I'm okay with them all. Have all the parts. Please do something on case. Case turns are fun. I debate for K-State so I'm a big lover of PICs. Also read a DA (or random case cards) to prove offense on T - makes for a more fun debate.

List of random gripes:

If you're reading unhighlighted cards please tell me if you are reading the whole card, just underlined, or just bold before you start reading the card.

I really distain underviews. I get they are useful for lay judges, but please don't do them in front of me. You should probably be using that time on impact calc instead :)

Read the theory section if you haven't already. What happened to teams running condo???

Updated 10/20/23

(If you have any questions about anything below, please feel free to ask me before the round).

Please note that I have not judged a lot of rounds on the fiscal redistribution topic. So please be thoughtful about your use of acronyms or technical terms without definitions. Thanks!

Please add me to the email chain - andrew dot vanderlaan @ gmail dot com - or provide me with the code for the SpeechDrop room.

I debated for four years on the national circuit in high school, and more recently I’ve been judging a handful of round every year on and off since 2012.

As much as possible, I try to be a tabula rasa judge; my goal is to be as open-minded as possible, and maximize ground for the debaters. I am open to on case arguments and off case positions including disads, T, counterplans, and kritiks, and I have cast ballots based on each of those arguments. Debaters are also welcome to argue what my judging philosophy should be - stock issue, policymaker, game player, etc.

Having said that, we all have biases. Here are mine:

1. Clash is the MOST important aspect of a policy debate round. The hardest rounds to judge (and the most boring!) are those in which one team dumps a block of cards, and the other team groups them and reads a response block. I much prefer debates about evidence quality and relevance, close textual analysis of a key card, and smart framing of how the cards interact and how I should weigh them.

2. I can flow, and it is unusual (though not impossible) for me to be spread out of a round. I will not yell clear, but I will put my pen down and stop flowing. Speed over clarity is not effective communication.

3. Theory is a really interesting part of debate, and I’d like to hear your arguments. Please don’t blip through your T standards, K framework and theory, and CP perms; give these arguments the time they deserve. I am 20+ years removed from my high school debate career, and I'm not on the cutting edge of the latest debate arguments. If your argument is new and fancy, please take the time to explain it. I didn't debate K's myself, so that's probably where I need the most guidance on particularly esoteric arguments. And you should always assume I don't know the literature underlying your K.

5. The crucial parts of any disad debate are the link and uniqueness, focusing your efforts here will pay off (true for either team).

6. If you don’t argue to shift my paradigm, I’ll default to a policymaker and weigh advantages vs. disadvantages of the arguments in the round.

7. I rarely read evidence before casting my ballot; evidence really matters, but I need you to be able to make good arguments with your cards. I can recall asking for a card only once, when the entire round collapsed to one crucial card and each team offered a radically different interpretation of what the evidence said. (And if you ask me to read a card, I will.)

8. Passion and competitiveness are important, and so are civility and respect. Please treat the other team well, there's no faster way to lose speaks and possibly even the round.

Thanks for reading, and have fun!

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!