I am a speech and debate mom of 2 daughters, one does PF and the other does Extemp.

I will not tolerate bullying or rudeness.  However, I like assertive debaters who come prepared.

Please help me along the way as I learn about your topics and presentations.  I am new to debate judging and have judged speech for 4 years.

EMAIL CHAIN: katie.mcgaughey@macmillan.com

ABOUT ME: I did not participate in the activity in high school or college. However, I have judged several policy rounds and a handful of speech events in the last 5 years. I have judged everything from local Kansas City tournaments to NSDA Nationals in 2020 and in 2023. I have a Bachelor's degree from University of Kansas in Exercise Science and in Psychology with an emphasis in Cross-Cultural Communication. Now, I work in Sales at Macmillan Learning, a textbook publisher.

APPROACH: Winning an argument is not the same thing as winning the round on an argument. If you want to win the round on an argument you've won or are winning, take the time to win the round on it. Anybody can read cards, good analysis, and strategic decision-making are harder to do and frequently more valuable.

SPEED: I am somewhat comfortable with speed, but slowing down during taglines and authors is imperative because I flow on paper.

The best way to win my ballot is to be logically consistent, generate clash, and just make sense. It is more important to be right than to be the most clever. I want to see that you have a nuanced global knowledge of the topic, not just reading cards that were cut for you.

POLICY ARGUMENTS: These are the things that I will be the most comfortable evaluating. Case debate, DAs, and smart CPs that are all supported by quality evidence and analytics that reflect your knowledge of the topic will be rewarded. Generating clash through warrant comparison and setting up the end of the round through comparative impact calculus are critical for shaping my ballot. Probability and timeframe are the most important parts of impact calculus to me, and time spent explaining (or breaking down) internal link chains is never wasted.

KRITIKS, PERFORMANCE, & PROCEDURALS: These positions weren't really a part of my competitive career and I've had limited exposure as a judge. I'm willing to listen to them, but you should deploy them at your own risk. Don't assume that I know your literature base or am well-versed in the way that your offense interacts with theirs. Narrative explanation and easy-to-follow structure will be important for me to effectively interact with your arguments.

Please ask questions before the start of the round if anything is unclear.

Daughter of the judge writing here. She is a lay judge and prefers clear concise argumentation. The better you can make you more point the better she will receive it and evaluate. Do not try to spread or talk too fast.

Email chain: lfsdebate@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll be happy to answer any questions.

LD:

1. Speed: I don't like speed in Policy and I certainly don't like it in LD... I will be flowing the round (not following a file share), so if I can't keep up then you are risking a pathway to my ballot.
2. Values/VC's: I am a firm believer that this is a Value debate, and that your Value is the heartbeat of your case in the round. So, without a Value premise still standing at the end of the round it is difficult for me to vote your way.
3. Impact Calculus: A KeyVo for me in every round will be who has reiterated the greater impacts in the round. Show me clearly how your side has the greater impact on the things that matter in life and you'll be set up well for my ballot.
4. Neg Arguments:While I DO believe you can offer alternatives to the Aff stance to make your arguments, I am NOT a proponent of CP's in LD. Having said that, I do NOT consider it a CP if you simply say, "Look at what X country did and it worked well for them" when opposing the Aff stance.
5. K's: While I'd probably prefer we didn't run K's in LD, please see point 3 under my CX Paradigm for my stance on K's.

CX:

While I am an experienced Coach, there are a handful of preferences you need to know about me for CX in particular:

1. Terminal Impacts: NOT a fan... If you choose to run them, it will be in your best interest to link them to something tangible either past or present. If they are based on the future, you better have some serious links that PROVE that they WILL be happening in the immediate future. Basing terminals straight on hypotheticals are generally no bueno for me...
2. Speed: Also not a fan... If you choose to spread, you are risking my ballot. I will not be reading your case through a file share, I will be flowing, so if I can't keep up then you are risking a pathway to my ballot. However, if I am the only one on the panel that doesn't like spreading, RIP me and I'll do my best...
3. K's: Not against voting for them, BUT you better explain them as if you are speaking to a toddler so I can follow it. They also better be impactful.
4. CP's: I will definitely vote for these if you can prove your new proposal outweighs the proposed. I believe that in Policy these are one of the only ways you can gain good Offense as the Neg, so definitely will vote for them if they solve better.
5. Topicality: I will vote on T, especially if the Aff Plan is wacky and untopical. If it's clearly topical, Neg may want to go for something else.
6. Stock Issues: These are the key voting issues in my mind for every Policy Round.
7. Neg Arguments: If you decide to go for multiple arguments throughout the round, I would very much prefer that you DO NOT drop all but 1 and go for only it in the 2NR. This feels like a huge waste of time throughout the entire round. Link the whole round together and tell me how you've won and how the proposed plan fails to meet the standards of a plan worth implementing.
8. Aff Teams: Successfully support your plan throughout the round. Tell me how this plan is the best idea for the USFG. Win the Stock Issues. Make your Advantages outweigh.

brianwinckler@bolivarschools.org

Lawrence Free State ‘19

University of Iowa ‘23

TL:DR--you do you, just tell me what to care about and why

You can refer to me w any pronouns

Largest influence is Sean Kennedy if you care about that

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

Please trigger warn and don't be condescending to your opponents

- Flex 2N--went about 50/50 for critical and policy based arguments (familiar with all the basic k stuff, settler colonialism, queer pessimism/futurity arguments, assemblage identity stuff, afro-pessimism, haptic touch, necropolitics, and virilio). I enjoy all kinds of arguments delivered in all styles and will listen to anything. I also rlly like hearing things I haven't heard before!

- Evidence quality > quantity. Please do evidence comparison. Coherent highlighting is good.

A handful of argument specific thoughts and subtle biases I have--

T/FW/Theory

- FW debates--why does your offense matter more than theirs? tell me :)) I see too many of these debates that lack impact comparison. I tend to view fairness as an internal link to better research/argument refinement rather than its own impact, but that shifts based on the debate/explanation of the terminal impact.

- Like FW, T debates need, and often lack, comparison between impacts or top level framing arguments. Do limits outweigh precision? Do limits turn ground? Is aff or neg flexibility more important given the research burdens on this topic? Idk unless you tell me.

- I default to competing interps--theory debates need a clear interpretation, not just "x thing is bad" or "x thing is good." Reasonability is usually deployed as defense to limits arguments, not a model for how I should evaluate the round

- Condo can be a winning 2AR--I default to viewing it through an offense-defense lens like everything else--it is possible to win that even one conditional advocacy is a reason to reject the team--I'll vote on it. When evaluating other theory arguments I will lean heavily toward rejecting the argument not the team (exception is disclosure/mis-disclosure).

Policy Stuff

- I often find that the difference in comparative risk of internal link chains between an advantage and a dissad is larger/more important than the difference in the size of the terminal impact (unless its an existential dissad versus a structural violence advantage). This is because most impacts people read are very large and universally bad, but I often find one internal link chain may carry significantly more risk of happening than the other due to evidence quality, defensive arguments, etc. 

- Turns case arguments tend to be more persuasive the earlier in the internal link chain they are triggered--"link alone turns the aff" is much better than "nuke war causes aff impact to happen for obvious reason." Turns case args are more effective when paired with a timeframe distinction (dissad makes aff impact inevitable before aff can access it).

- I default to thinking judge kick is fine unless the aff tells me I shouldn't. Those arguments should start before the 2AR

- Not a fan of new 2NC counterplans/amended counterplan texts/new planks. I kind of think this is cheating and lazy. The 1AR is hard enough and the negative team should have some obligation to stick to the strategy they laid out in the 1NC to avoid shallow debates. 

K debates

- I am unlikely to adopt totalizing frames for framework--"only plan focus matters" or "no evaluating the aff" will probably not be persuasive unless one team is v far ahead

- HOWEVER, with Ks which dispute the reading/performance of the aff it does not make sense to try to weigh those discursive ramifications against some hypothetical government policy. The aff probably has to first justify why the introduction of the 1AC was good. Winning that I shouldn't care about what you said/did in the 1AC will be an uphill battle for me. In a discursive activity I think it makes sense to care about what people say.

- The more specific the links are to the aff's mechanism or performance, the more compelling they are against the permutation. The links should function as specific reasons why inclusion of the aff in the world of the alternative is bad or impossible, which in my view requires some dispute with the aff in particular rather than the state in general. 

- In KvK rounds, link/impact framing often ends up centering my decision. I think affs should probably get a permutation, but I need a concrete idea of what the aff is/does in order to understand how it is not mutually exclusive with the negative's strategy.

- I also think presumption is viable against many planless affs. The question of "what do you do though?" is kind of a cliche at this point, but something that matters a lot for the round. I prefer affs to have a method or advocacy that I can explain in a substantive way in the RFD, especially if the debate comes down to a permutation or link question. If your aff does nothing, I would suggest that you pretend like it does something.

Some aesthetic preferences

- Don't do long overviews--I prefer overviews to consist of impact framing and turns case arguments, everything else can happen during line by line.

- Read re-highlightings, don't just insert them 

- Less reliance on blocks usually means higher speaks

- Counterplans with lit not grounded in the topic area are :((

- Like p much everyone else, I prefer fewer, more well developed arguments than the 11-off-cannon-of-garbage. I also enjoy strategies being effectively tailored to the aff you're debating--1NCs that are designed with 1) arguments specific to the aff and 2) particular block strategies based on arguments you pigeon hole the 2AC into making will be rewarded with higher speaks. I like that a lot more than reading the same 3 process counterplans and 4 dissads in every round and then going for whatever they undercover.