Pronoun: He/Him

I've been out of debate for a few years now. Speed is fine, but go normal speed on stuff you want me writing down. Generally anything that makes it easier for me to flow will help you win (good organization is helpful: being clear when making separate tags/args, when switching flows, what part of flow you are on, etc.)

Make my decision easy! I really like framing/impact calc stuff, please don't make me jump through a bunch of hoops to vote for you. Generally fine with whatever, if you have something you aren't sure about just ask! Big fan of T, I don't tend to go for T reverse voting issue type args unless it's really well done. K debate with good framing/role of ballot argumentation is also a plus!

I default to impact calc if not told something different in framing (I also assume T before impact calc). If impact calc is good with you please expand on how I should prioritize stuff (ie extinction first type args make it really easy to vote for you), otherwise you are likely to get a weird/unpredictable RFD.

Michelle Buchanan

Preferred Debate Styles: Policy, Lincoln Douglas (6 years Judging Experience)

How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches?

Well- developed arguments are much appreciated. Please speak slowly with emphasis on communication delivery. Arguments should each be addressed individually. Have credible evidence to back up your arguments.

How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches?

Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches. Rebuttals should extend arguments individually and provide voters.

How Should Debaters approach Evidence?

Follow the state rules and guidelines.

How would Oral Prompting affect your decision?

You may tag team, but keep it minimal and be quiet. I prefer if you write things down.

How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position?

I put a lot of emphasis on a well developed value and criteria. Reference it through the debate and use arguments throughout to support it.

What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position?

Empirical and philosophical that makes sense!

Please explain your views on kritical arguments

I don’t like them. Do not use them. Stick to the resolution.

How should debaters run on case arguments?

Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples. I want to hear a well structured plan and how it will solve.

How should debaters run off case arguments?

Unless it is part of the resolution, Do not link to nuclear war or extinction. You will lose. Do not go off topic.

How should Debaters run theory arguments:

The focus should be winning the debate and supporting your position on the resolution. Do not attack a persons style or flaws of methods.

What other preferences do you have, as a judge.

Respecting your opponent and showing professionalism from the moment you enter the room to the time you leave is critical to me. I will not vote in your favor if you are rude or disrespectful.

I'm a tech over truth flow judge, but if you read role of the ballot arguments that flow through the debate, this can change. 

As a flow judge, I do not like dropped arguments, highly value impact calculus, and want to see good clash between arguments during the round. However, I do accept strategic dropping of arguments, just explain to me why you dropped x argument. 

As a tech over truth judge, I do not vote for arguments based on whether or not you/your team has convinced me that the argument is true, but rather how you/your team handles the argument strategically. 

Policy:

Theory/Kritiks:

These are by far my favorite arguments in policy debate. I studied a lot of social theory and philosophy in college, so I will be able to follow these types of debates.

That said, make sure that you always read framework at the top of the Kritik so that I know how you want me to evaluate the social theory that you are reading. There are many different ways to interpret social theory, so without a solid framework I'm just going to leave it up to my interpretation of that work, which may or may not be the interpretation you wanted.

Additionally, please make sure that your Kritik/theory is accessible to the other team. This does not mean you have to change the text of the theory or the K, but that in CX you make sure to explain the arguments simply when asked about them. A lot of teams will use big abstract terms when explaining their K's in CX, but this can be inaccessible, especially for teams who have not been exposed to K lit. 

In terms of theory about debate, I am down for those types of arguments as well. Just make sure that you explain why these matter and define whether or not they are a voting issue (e.g. explain if the argument means I should drop the other team and why). 

My threshold for flowing these types of arguments aff lowers if all the parts of the K/Theory are not included. Make sure to include interps, violations, standards, etc. in the first speech and extend them throughout the debate. 

Spreading:

Spreading is absolutely fine with me as long as everyone is comfortable with it. If you want to spread let me know before the round and we can devise a way for everyone to let the speaker know if they are having trouble understanding what the speaker is saying.

Also, please slow down on taglines and signposts simply because it makes it easier for everyone in the round to get everything from your speeches down on the flow.

Topicality:

I am alright with people reading topicality, however my threshold for the number of topicality arguments that can be read in one round is fairly low. I am not a fan of the strategy of reading multiple topicality arguments in one round and then kicking down to one. That said if you do go with this strategy and are winning on it, I will still vote for you as a tab judge, I will probably just give you lower speaker points because that many T arguments just is not very persuasive.

Also, dropped arguments are huge for me on topicality. When responding to and extending topicality you need to be addressing every single interpretation, counterinterpretation, standard, voter, etc.

CPs:

Feel free to read CPs, but if they aren't mutually exclusive my threshold for flowing the CP to the aff will be incredibly low. My threshold for voting neg on the CP also lowers if the CP is not well flushed out. The CP does not have to be incredibly long, but it has an unclear plan or lack of solvency (for example), then it is easier for the aff to convince me to flow the CP to them. 

PF:

In PF I value the framework debate highly. The speeches are very short, and having a good framework can help you consolidate the round and win much more easily than doing line by line. Because of this, who wins the framework debate highly impacts the way I vote.

Aside from that I value impacts and want to see good clash between both sides.

I'm alright with theory and spreading in PF as long as everyone in the round is ok with it.

LD:

Value/criterion:

Frameworks is incredibly important for me as a judge in LD.

In round, make sure that you clearly state what theory that you are using for your value and criterion, and what your interpretation of that theory is. I have my own preconceived understanding of what particular theories and philosophical perspectives mean, and will default to my interpretation if not provided with a different one. E.g. I don't want just a blanket definition of the term, I want to know how it applies to your points and the round as whole.

Carry your value/criterion throughout the debate and use it to explain why you win the debate.

Turning Structural Violence Impacts:

This is the only type of argument that I will not consider in a debate round. Saying that genocide or racism is good is never ok. I will drop you if you do this or do anything majorly disrespectful in round.

Edit in progress! It will reflect the fact that I have not coached policy in a few years. Still a fan, but I'm rusty on what all the cool kids are doing these days.

Policy:

I'm happy judging whatever crazy, creative argument you think you can make me believe (which you will do by providing awesome evidence, links, etc.) BUT you better enunciate those crazy arguments clearly. My number one pet peeve in policy debate is debaters who try to spread but stutter and stumble through their speeches. I can flow as fast as you can speak, but if I can't understand what you're saying, I will say "clear" once or twice, and then simply not flow what I can't understand.

I'm fine with tag-teaming in cx.

If the round is shared via email chain, I'd prefer you still make an effort to say actual words.

A few caveats to the "I'll buy anything" -

I'm fine with Ks, but it's got to be a pretty killer kritik for me to vote on one K alone - it's more likely I'll weigh it as part of a larger strategy.

PICs are abusive as they take too much affirmative ground, BUT occasionally there's a PIC that justifies the existence of PICs, and those make me happy.

Run topicality if it's justified. If it's not, and you're running four Ts as a time-suck, I won't buy any of them.

I prefer textually competitive CPs. If it's only competitive through a link to a DA, then I'm going to give it the stink eye. Never say never - I do periodically vote for arguments I claim not to like - but you better advocate for that CP really, really well.

IN summary with the PICs, Ts and CPs - just run a good, relevant argument. If you're throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks, I'm probably going to dismiss it as crap. But if you're confident it's an awesome argument, tell me why I should buy it; it's distinctly possible I will, just understand those arguments have a higher threshold for me.

Signpost, give me clear voters, be polite. When a team starts showing contempt for their opponents, I start looking for reasons to vote against them.

And have fun.

Lincoln Douglas:

Value/Value Criterion Clash - I expect you to have a clear value and value criterion, but I use them as a way to evaluate the round (framework), not as a voting issue (unless they're really, really bad, abusive, or maybe unexpectedly brilliant). Show why you meet your opponents' v/vc as well as your own, or why yours makes much more sense in context of the round, then move on. It's probably not going to be a big independent voter for me.

If you're doing circuit LD - please don't make it dumbed-down policy. Arguments still need to be fully developed, relevant to the topic, and coherently articulated.

If you're doing traditional LD - I appreciate someone who can talk pretty, I really do, but I want to see CLASH. Weigh arguments. Compare sources, and delve into what cards actually say. I like to vote for debaters who can help me see the big picture in the round, but can also weave a convincing narrative out of all the minutiae.

As with all debate - be confident, be aggressive, but don't be a jerk.

Public Forum:

I'm fine with speed in PF - but same as other debates, enunciate clearly!

More than any other debate, I expect PFers to be respectful of opponents. Be confident, be aggressive, and never show contempt.

Please maintain a consistent strategy between both partners' speeches - you need to be on the same page as to what you're going for and how you argue things. If I see two different debates from one partnership, I don't know what I'm supposed to vote for, so I'll usually vote for the other team.

Most (not all, but most) topics benefit from a framework, so have one! Tell me how to evaluate the round so I can judge the debate on what's debated, not on my preconceived notions of what's important.

I am okay with paraphrased evidence, but make sure to represent the facts and perspectives of your sources accurately. If I ask for a card after the round, I want to see the paragraph before the portion (highlighted) read, the paragraph after, and of course, the evidence itself, with all non-read portions viewable as well. Do not send or show me a 30-page journal article.

I prefer that you begin to narrow the debate in your summary speech, and then highlight voters in your final focus. Maybe that's obvious?

Anyone, good luck, have fun.

Be Polite

You need to have your evidence and share it.

No big fancy words and talk so I can follow you.

Don't play with your tie, pen or hair.

make eye contact with me The Camera.

Likes:
All arguments except topicality and stretched nuclear war impacts. I do like Kritik.

I need slower, more clear taglines, but go ahead and speed through your card text.

Signpost, signpost, signpost.

Teams who time themselves make my life way easier.

Dislikes:

Topicality abuse doesn't really fly for me; I won't vote on it unless the other team is blatantly not topical.

Unrealistic impacts usually don't tip the scale for me.

POLICY:

Experience/Background

Former high school policy debater at Central High School in Springfield, Missouri (graduated in May 2019). Attended camp at MSDI (Missouri State Debate Institute) in 2016.

Topics I've debated: domestic surveillance, China, education, immigration.

Achievements: Second in State (2019), top 40 in Nation at NSDA Nationals (2019)

Preferences

Overview: Think of me as a flay (flow-lay) judge. I'll vote on DAs, CPs, Ks if explained well, solvency deficits, T, and even inherency if it's made big enough of an issue.

DAs/Case: This is where I'd prefer most of the debate takes place. I like link stories that make sense and can be clearly explained. I think a lot of value can come from the more traditional style of policy (case attacks and stock issues), but I'd like it if most of the clash was centered on impact calc and world comparisons: tell me why your impacts are more important than your opponents.

CPs: Totally willing to vote on it if you can prove there's a net benefit.

T: Very much willing to vote on it. Neg needs to do a good job of explaining what the interpretation, violation, standards, and voters are if they want to win on this (not voting on throwaway T in the 2NR), but generally I slightly learn toward reasonability. Neg needs to prove they lost something or something is wrong with the aff interpretation

Ks: I have the least experience here. I've cut a Freire K that I used a few times, but VERY RARELY encountered them. Don't assume I have prior knowledge about any specific K, but I will vote on the K, a perm, a solvency deficit on the alt, significant offense on the K, a de-link, etc. I'd definitely prefer it if you didn't run one unless you can do it EXTREMELY well.

Speed: Around 240wpm is where I'd like a max to be, and even a bit lower if I'm judging online.

Miscellaneous: Structure and order in speeches are greatly appreciated: I'll ask for an order before your speech and all I want to hear is "Solvency, Advantage 1, the DA, then the CP." Don't make arguments at this time. Also, I won't do any work for you, if, for example, one team contradicts themselves, it's the other team's burden to point it out and explain why it's bad/an issue. This applies to drops: if both teams drop something, I'm not going to vote on it with no further explanation.

MOST IMPORTANTLY: Don't be mean, hateful, misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic, transphobic, etc. I will end the round immediately if I think this is an issue. Otherwise, try to learn something from the debate and enjoy yourself.

If you have any more questions, ask me before the round begins.

I have been out of the game a while, but I still love and know how debate works.

Policy

I graduated from high school back in 2017. I did policy debate for the strong majority of my high school career. On the neg, I'll vote on anything, but the T debate has to be solid. I go back and forth on K affs; I love them when they are well done and I hate them when they are not.

As far as spreading, speed is great even awesome, but you go to be clear and go slow on the tags and extra slow on the plan text. I am not as fast of a writer as I used to be, so take it notch back.

I honestly don't know a lot about the topic this year, so be careful with relevant terminology. Ex: define OTEC as ocean thermal energy conversion.

See tips below Especially number 2. Please, come on guys. All of you should do this.

LD

I haven't judged very many LD rounds, but I know debate. Keep a good flow. I value argumentation over how you say it, but don't be rude. From my policy perspective, I'll see the value as the framework for evaluating the land. The criteria should uphold your value. You can go ahead and go a little faster, but don't do something you aren't comfortable with.

Tips: 1. Keep a neat flow or you'll probably lose and it makes judging harder.

2. Voters, voters, voters, impact calc. You have to explain why your args have greater value whether they be education or nuclear war. Who knows maybe education outweighs nuclear war. Crystallization

3. Don't run something you don't know anything about. Don't run a K to impress me please.

4. Road map and sign post please!!!!

Experience: took second in the state of Idaho and qualified to nationals in policy in 2017

I'm probably a flow judge--make sure to cover all the points, but also maintain good communication skills.

I look for the debaters to be concise and confident in their arguments.

Pronouns: He/him/his

For email chains/post-round questions: yikwill@gmail.com

TLDR: I did policy for all four years in HS, but it has been a few years. I consider myself a tabs judge, so debate the way you think will you the round. Be sure to do the analysis for me on the flow because I won't accept just name dropping evidence as a response to an argument. As long as you read your tags slow enough and your spreading is somewhat coherent, I can keep up with any speed you read at. Be kind.

Long

Please, please, please signpost. My biggest pet peeve when judging is people not telling me where they are on the flow. This is more than just saying "on the DA". Say what argument you're responding to or say you're going down the flow and stick to it. It makes it very hard for me to judge rounds when I don't know where to flow your arguments.

Background:

I did policy for all four years of high school. While it has been a few years since I've competed, I should be able to keep up with whatever you're saying at any speed. This means as a judge, I want to enable you to be your best self. Debate the way you think will win you the round. As a former debater, I know what I feels like to have to change your style to fit a judge's paradigm/prior experience.

Specifics:

* I am tech over truth except if you try to impact turn oppression, racism, genocide, etc.

F/W: It's dope if you do it right. If not, it's a hot mess. Give me clear interpretations and defend those interpretations with standards.

Theory: Basically the same as my opinions on f/w.

Ks: While my knowledge of K literature is not the best, I am quite familiar with how they work. Thus, if you're going to run a K with a rich literature background, you'll have to do the work in explaining it to me.

CPs: All good with me. I default to unlimited conditionality for the neg, but that doesn't mean I can't be convinced otherwise. I also default to "PICs are legitimate", but again, my mind can be changed with a good theory arg.

DAs: All good with me. I love a good impact calculus debate. Why should I prefer nuke war? Why should I prioritize probability? What does that mean in the context of the round? That doesn't mean I won't look at the uq, link, and I/L though if they're challenged.

Speed: Please make your tags distinct in some way from your evidence (slowing down, raising your voice, etc.). Go as fast as you'd like on the evidence but make sure you're somewhat intelligible.