Hello, this is my email: thebomiller.k@gmail.com – If you are using email chain/speech drop or other file sharing tools, please add me to it. If you any follow up questions on RFD or other items of discussion, feel free to email me and I can explain more.

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Paradigm:

Experiences: I have done speech and debate all four years of high school at Shawnee Heights High School (5A) in Tecumseh, KS (2017-2021). I was able to compete at the National Speech and Debate Tournament twice in World Schools Debate (2018 & 2019), once in Congressional Debate (2020), and once in United States Extemp (2021). I have competed at State for policy debate twice. I won the State runner-up title in the 2020-2021 season for 5A Kansas 2 speak Policy Debate. I also placed 6th at State in United States Extemp in the 2021 season. I have also competed at state for forensics in Info 10 and United States Extemp.

SUMMARY

Intro:

For starters, I am a Tabula Rasa judge.

I was primarily a policy debater but did experiment with running in the critical world my senior year. I only did high flow debate my senior year, so I am not as highly experienced with it. I enjoy flow rounds but view quality over quantity.

Content warnings are a must for disturbing/triggering topics

I will also vote against any personal attacks in the round. Let’s all be human beings and treat each other as such

Evidence is only good if you can explain it

Abbreviations are helpful to clarify because I don’t judge a lot annually

Theory is always fun to see

Dropped arguments can be important but will not always be a factor of winning, just depends on how substantial the argument was

Won't flow CX

Also will likely not vote on credentials/dates arguments

Don't abuse the power of fiat (i.e. fiat doesn't solve for off case answers unless hyper focused on)

I believe that most topics (at least present in a debate rounds) are partisan in some fashion or another

Impact calc and/or Impact Framing are both items that should be ran in every round

Run whatever you planned on running; I’ll keep bias out of the way.

Topicality:

The better the abuse is laid out, the more cohesive T is

Prove in-round abuse

Aff should provide the reason to vote aff, Counter interps and competing interps with C/V&S

If going for this in the 2nr, this speech must be only T

T is sufficient to run against case if you don't have any evidence.

Counterplans:

CPs are always fun but i'll only vote for competitive (untopical) CPs

I will presume the CP is conditional at the start of the round unless told otherwise

I don’t enjoy delay or process CPs

Always include a net benefit, preferably links to DAs

Provide specific solvency links to the aff

Disadvantages:

I always enjoy politics DAs but I’ll need the most up-to-date evidence

Provide specific impact evidence that the DA will occur, make it flow like a story

Case specific links > Generic links

Non-Generic DAs are cool also – I like seeing new arguments that differ each season

Kritiks:

I am not as experienced with Ks as I didn’t start reading them until my senior year – be a little slower and explain more on this arg

I enjoy most Ks but tend to not vote on generic ones (Neolib, cap, etc.)

Case specific links are a must

I enjoy philosophy debates in round at times

I believe that one of the block speeches needs to focus on this arg if it’ll be present in the 2nr

I love topic specific Ks (Ex. CJR – Abolition K, Arm Sales – Militarism K)

Case:

I always love seeing framing debates

Neg should spend more time on case instead of off case that will be kicked, Topicality does change this

Any topic works with me for the aff as long as its relevant

Solvency is a must for the neg to argue

Non-unique is cool to see if proven correctly

hello! my name is hannah-- pronouns she/her/hers

add me to email chains! hannah.joelle.mott@gmail.com

I did policy debate & forensics (info, oration, prose, IX, DX, impromtu) for three years at usd 345! octo finalist & 9th speaker at 2022 ndt in world schools! I now debate at KU (rock chalk!)

jiyooon.park@gmail.com

Washburn Rural '22

KU '26

Assistant coach for Washburn Rural and Greenhill

I will judge solely on the technical debating done and will avoid intervening. As I judge more debates, I continue to vote on arguments I vehemently disagree with, but were executed well on a technical level. The only requirement for all debaters is that an argument has a claim and a warrant. This means a few things:

- I will decide debates based on my flow, but do not care whether you go for the fiat K, politics, or warming good. The main caveat is my bar for an argument is claim and warrant*, the absence of the latter will make it easier to discount or refute. I would prefer strategies reflective of the literature with good evidence, but debate is a game so you do you.

*If you say only "no US-China war" and the other team concedes it, that is functionally meaningless. If you say "no US-China war, interdependence and diplomacy" that holds more relevance if dropped, BUT not as much as you'd think given it was not a complete thought. The logical progression of this example is that you should fully flesh out your arguments.

- I will read evidence out of interest during the debate, but it will not influence my decision until the debaters make it matter. This can be through establishing a metric for how I should evaluate and elevate certain types of evidence and then naming certain authors/relevant cards for my decision. If a metric is never set, I favor better highlighted evidence, complete warrants, and conclusiveness. Argument made analytically can hold similar weight to evidence if warranted and smart.

- The last thing that will boost you chances of winning is clear judge instruction. Flag your clear pieces of offense, dropped concessions, and say where I should start my decision. This also means when extending a claim and a warrant, explain the implication of winning an argument.

- I will not vote on anything external to the debate such as personal attacks, receipts, prefs, or ad-homs. Ethical/external issues should be settled outside of the debate.

- The only caveat to me deciding technically and offense-defense is cowardice and cheap-shots. I will not vote on hidden-SPEC and am very willing to give new answers. Similar ones like floating PIKs also probably don't meet the bar of a complete argument. If there is uncertainty make it a real argument...

That said here are some of my debate thoughts that could shape your strategy:

- For K-AFFs, it makes far more sense to go for a form based impact turn, rather than a content one or a counter-interpretation.

- For framework, contextualize your offense and defense to the debate/case you are debating or just go for fairness.

- Performative contradictions, when going for the K/the 1NC is multiple worlds, matter a lot to me and probably implicate your framework arguments.

- The fiat K/interpretations that zero the 1AC make more sense to me than trying to make causal links to the plan and huge alternatives because the perm double bind becomes truer.

- I have never seen an AFF reasonability argument on T that I found persuasive, I can obviously be convinced otherwise, but it seems like an uphill battle.

- My default is no judge kick/I will not do it, unless explicitly told to.

- Non-condo theory is almost always a reason to reject the argument not the team.

- Absolute defense, zero-risk, and presumption are most definitely a thing.

- AFF intrinsicness arguments on DAs have rarely made sense to me.

- Establish a metric for competition and have standards. I would like to see a counterplan that competes on the unique resolutional mechanism, rather than certainty and immediacy.

Things that will boost your speaks:

- Flow, i.e. correctly identifying dropped arguments, strategically going for dropped arguments, writing/typing when the other team is speaking, etc.

- Debating off paper and being less laptop dependent such as giving the final rebuttals with only paper.

- Having fun, debates are more fun when they are light hearted and you seem like you're enjoying it.

- Fewer off and a more cohesive strategy.

- Strategic and funny cross-exes. Most cross-exes are FYIs and reminders, don't do that.

- Down-time moving faster such as sending speeches out, starting cross-ex, etc. Asking for a marked doc when it was only two cards marked will annoy me and marked docs don't include cards not read. Just flow pls...

Miscellaneous things include:

- Keeping your camera on during online debates makes them more bearable.

- I will clear you twice and after that I will vote against you for clipping/stop flowing your speech, but for educational purposes I won't halt the debate.