Sunflower District Tournament
2020 — KS/US
Debate (Policy Debate) Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Currently Coach in Korea, They mainly do parli and LD here, so I have been removed from the policy scene for almost a year now. However I do coach some one on the Korean national team.
derby debate coach 2 years 2018-2020
debated at campus for 4 years and 1 year in college.
LD: value criterion debate is the most important, each debate should say something along the lines i achieve my V/C as well as access my opponents value better. if the V/C debate goes unaddressed by both sides i default to who spoke prettier. your case should support your V/C. Case debate is import in disproving your opponent cant access V/C. that being said if the V/C debate is close/even I will then look to evaluate the case.
PFD: very traditional this isn't policy, dis ads plan text K's are a quick way to lose my ballot. I prefer a slightly above conversations speed level.
T-aff should be topical, if neg goes T I feel like it should be all in T or no T in 2nr at all. neg needs to impact t out and weigh it also just saying they aren't topical they lose is not okay, explain why topically is bad what is the tool we use to weigh it and what happens when we don't use this tool.
K- I'm good with most K's however don't assume I know the lit of them. explain it well. the alt is the most important thing on the k, if I don't understand how the alt solves or the alt doesn't make sense I probably wont vote on it.
CP- I'm good with most cp's i don't like topical CPS, However, I am open to hearing anything as long as you can defend it.
as far as theory goes I'm good with you making theory args but most of the time reject the arg not the team is sufficient for me to not vote on the argument.
condo- is really the only thing that I would vote on if there is actual abuse. not just bad time management.
disads- I like more true scenarios. I'm okay and should be able to follow most disad story lines. parts of the disad that I value the most in order
case- case is important, one important thing to not do is on solvency; try or die doesn't makes sense to me if this is the only argument you have on Solvency. you either win the solvency flow or you don't its not try or die. Losing the solvency flow will lose you the round.
framing- if there is no framing analysis I default to impact calc. Just because you win the framing arg doesn't mean you win the round it means I weigh the round though that lens, yes it does help your odds of winning but doesn't insure it.
last notes- I find my self looking down when people are speaking its not out of disinterest its because it helps me focus better on what your saying and not on an annoying tick you may or may not have.
Use speech drop idealy, if using email chain. Archerdan82@gmail.com, please put me on.
I'm Daniel Archer I debate for Washburn University in the NFL-LD format. It is essentially the same policy maker debate style the only change is the time limits. In high school, I debated at Derby high for Lynn Miller. In high school, I predominantly did open debate. In college, I debate tech over truth speed. I am capable of handling speed and a round debated based on communication. That being said if both teams are going fast I'm going to default tech over truth, if they're going slow I'm going to evaluate more of how you're debating and a more open style of debate.
Please slow down in your rebuttles, quick but if you spread through blocks I probably won't be able to pick up on it and won't flow it. I will say clear once.
T- I don't like voting on T unless the aff is grossly untopical. Then I will happily vote the aff down. If it's close I go to the flow and evaluate everything that was said. Competing interps is a very good argument to win T.
K- I will happily judge your K. I am familiar with Neolib, Set col, Agamben, security, otherwise not super familiar. I hold K's to a high link standard, and the Alt to the same level of solvency that I'd hold the Aff. I'll vote on framework, but in your rebuttles you're going to have to slow down so that I can flow everything that you say. If not I'm probably going to miss something. I personally don't think I'm the most qualified judge to judge K aff rounds. I can and will judge them and evaluate everything from the flow. If you're wondering if it's strategic to run a K aff in front of me, probably not.
CP- I'm down for whatever type of CP you run. If they don't ask what's the status of the CP run it however you want. I think in high school condo good up to a certain point, it's your job to say what that point is. I'm fine with vague CP's. Clearly tell me your net benefits. Always love a good CP debate!
DA- Impact calc is good. Generic links are fine, but I'll probably default to more specific evidence if you're claiming parallel solvency on something.
Case- I have no problem voting on presumption.
Speed- Speed is a weapon, I'm fine you spread someone out of the round, unless there is a disability or something along those lines. The speed K is an uphill battle with me.
Overall- Run what you want in front of me, but explain why you win, the team that does the better job of explaining why the win will probably win. I also wrote this while I'm supposed to be in class and in about 10 minutes. If you have question let me know and I'll answer just about anything.
I was a fourth year debater in high school and will be fine with any arguments. I default to policy maker.
Debate how you want to debate I am pretty lenient with any argument. I like when a team directly clashes with another instead of just spreading out cards. (Basically give a little bit of an under view.)
Any speed is fine but I may ask for the flash afterward. (maybe go open speed might be rusty)
Stock Issues are important and those include: Topicality, Harms, Inherency, and Solvency.
Kritiks are fine if a team is able to elaborate on them and defend them well.
Counter-Plans are fine as well and I will live it up to the debate teams and conditional arguments on acceptable but I am open to theory arguments.
Theory arguments are fine as well but if you spread through 3 or more of them please include them in the flash to me I will leave the abuse argument to the other team if they want to make that argument.
I'll vote for whatever you tell me to vote for, but I will default to policymaker if not held to any framework. I'm good with pretty much every argument y'all throw out – if you want to go hard in the paint on something weird, whether that's stock issues or game theory, win the framework discussion and I will vote for it. except aspec and other bad-faith arguments. for these, use your better judgment. if something is clearly BS, don't run it and pretend that it's not, please.
speed is cool. please signpost/keep the flow clean. it makes everyone's life easier. I know this year is weird because everything is online & due to connection issues I might not be able to catch everything you say – if this happens, I will fill in the best that I can off of the speech doc. if I still have holes, I will ask both teams after the speech for what was said in the hope that at least some of the competitors were able to hear it. be honest, please. if I figure out that you lied about what was said (either by you or an opponent) during an internet lapse, you WILL lose. no questions asked. if only the team giving the speech was able to hear, I'm not sure what I'll do. we can hash that out in round. just know that if you end up dropping/undercovering something because of connection issues, I will give you *some* leeway in the very next speech to address it. I know that probably isn’t perfectly fair, but I think it's the best that can be made out of a bad situation.
finally, I know next to nothing about this year's topic, so please be cognizant of that. throwing around acronyms is probably going to confuse me if no one ever tells me what they stand for. during the immigration year, some teams would talk about H-1B visas for an entire round without ever explaining what they actually were. I don't need you to hold my hand, just tell me what stuff means the first time you say it and I'll catch on. the same goes for Ks, although in a different form. I'll piece together the argument the best that I can off of the speech doc, but a little 15 second elevator pitch at the end of the 1NC giving me the basics in layman's terms will be good for everyone.
feel free to ask me any questions before the round.
Hi, I’m Kayla :)
current assistant speech and debate coach at wichita east
debated policy 3 years at shawnee heights (surveillance, china, education)
current policy debater at wichita state (executive powers, space, alliances)
please add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
how to win my ballot:
I am a big fan of teams that engage in clash and warranted analysis. Nothing annoys me more is when teams merely extend claims, and do not go in depth as to why that claim is true and what impact it has in this round. I also am a big fan of when teams do big picture analysis, especially in the rebuttals. Framing the debate and telling me which arguments to evaluate helps make my decision a lot easier. I am mainly policy centric (with minimal k background) so please don't assume that I know all the in's and out's of your k. You can read a k in front of me, but please give some additional analysis as to how the k operates and functions (I have pretty good background knowledge about cap, security, and fem so I don't need as much explanation as to how it functions). I also reward teams that I can tell are having fun in round. Make jokes, read arguments you enjoy, and be nice to your opponents and judges. Debate is a fun activity. Last thing is in an online environment please slow down a tad. You can still spread, but don't go as fast as you would in round, especially on analytics that are not typed in the doc. Below is just a more detailed analysis as to how I evaluate certain arguments, but feel free to email me or ask me questions before the round about any of this information.
I think T debates are often underutilized in policy debates; it can be a strategic off case argument if executed properly. I usually default to competing interps; however, I am willing to vote on reasonability. Other things I like to see in T debates is, case lists, tva's, in-round abuse, etc. If you are wanting me to vote on T it has to be the entire 2NR.
they are cool, but they must have a comprehensive story. I am more willing to vote on a specific link rather than a generic one. A good way to win this flow is to have a clear story and provide examples as to how the disad interacts with the case. Also, impact calc is important, esp in the 2NR.
I'm fine with almost every type of CP (not a fan of plan plus CP's), and I'm open to listen to any theory argument you may have on why that CP is a bad model of debate. If you don't have a clear net ben, I probably won't vote for the CP. I would also prefer if your planks had some sort of a solvency advocate.
I have run kritiks in the past, however I am not that familiar with a large majority of K lit. I am most comfortable with K’s such as cap/neolib and security, please don’t assume I know all of the mechanics of your K because I probably don’t. Feel free to read your K in front of me; however, there needs to be extensive analysis as to how the alt solves and how the aff links. Alt solvency in my mind is one of the most important components of the K. Blippy extensions of Alt don’t fly for me. Framework is important to a good K debate. And just like a da there needs to be a clear story that stays consistent throughout the round.
condo is almost always good, unless you can justify in-round abuse.
speech drop or email chain pls - email@example.com
Hi, I am Natalie (she/her/hers). I am currently debating (LD) at Central Michigan University. I debated (policy) at Bishop Carroll Catholic High School for 4 years in Wichita, Kansas.
Overall I will judge however you all decide to frame the round. I flow and will vote mostly on flows, I will however will look at the speech docs as well.
Affs: I think that affirmatives should be held to a very high threshold of solvency. It should be very clear. I like plan affs over K affs however, I have debated them both and think that they both can be competitive. Plan should have clear story and advantages. For K affs, advocacies should be clear and well explained. If the advocacy cannot be explained clearly in the first speech or first CX I have a very hard time voting on them though.
Theory: Most theory args I have a very high threshold for. I probably need some in round abuse or some very clear and obvious potential abuse to vote on theory arguments. However, I think I would be able to decide on the interp level.
T: I love T. Good T debates make me happy. Topicality is very important in my evaluation of the round. I will vote on T if it is debated adequately. Competing interpretations is the most compelling to me. Reasonability isn't really where I want to vote but its not impossible for the aff to convince me to vote there.
K: I will vote on Ks and I understand most of them pretty well (set col Ks is where I learned how to debate Ks). Give me a clear link story. If there is no clear link then I will not vote on it. Secondly, the alternative needs to be explained. The alternative will be held to the same solvency standard that I hold the affirmative to.
CP: I like cps a lot however I need to see a clear net benefit that outweighs the affirmative or a better path to solvency than the aff. CP theory is fine with me but my threshold is high for it. Condo is fine unless the aff can make a clear story of why condo is bad. I typically lean neg with condo but I can be persuaded otherwise. As always, cps should be competitive. Topical/PICS are cool, unless aff can convince me otherwise.
DAs: these are cool. tell me why they outweigh. i think generic disads are alright too especially if you use them strategically. I can see myself voting on a generic disad if the story is explained well.
Stock Issues: I love stock issue debate. I think that solvency and inherency can be a voting issue. I think its important to debate advantages as well, especially the accessibility of them.
-speed is fine with me, I can keep up very well.
-be kind. there is no reason to be rude. very strong stance on this.
-i think tech > truth, but can be persuaded otherwise.
-you can boost speaks by good cx, fun jokes and clean (organized) rebuttals
-please have fun and learn something, that is what the activity is for :)
email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Updated: Sept 2019
8 years debate experience 2000-2008 (Derby HS, Wichita State University)
11 years coaching experience 2007-2018 (Assistant coach- Wichita East HS, Wichita State University, Head Coach- Hutchinson HS)
I am no longer as active as I used to be and I have not coached or judged extensively for the last few years. Explain your topic acronyms and argument jargon.
I think the topic is important but what the "topic" means is open for discussion. Debate is an important forum and I support efforts to discuss ways to make the community better.
I feel that respect and inclusion are fundamental values. Be mindful of the people in the room. Be nice! I have no tolerance for rude, disrespectful, and exclusionary behavior. Don't like it? Strike me. Debate is a game. Play to win, but have fun!
I don't care what kind of arguments you make, just make it a good one. I am not impressed by teams who copy the latest trends and arguments from a college or national circuit wiki without fundamental knowledge on how to execute those arguments. I like innovative arguments and I've voted for some wild stuff, but know your argument and do it well. I appreciate gutsy decisions and well executed strategy. I miss case debate.
At the risk of being a luddite, I don't like to call for cards and I don't want to get your speech doc. Debate is a communication activity and too many debaters rely on the speech doc to make arguments that the were not made in a speech. I don't want to read the evidence unless I have to. Usually if I call for a card that means that there is a fundamental disagreement about contents, suspicion of clipping, or unclear argumentation. Evidence quality matters a lot to me. The most underutilized skill in debate is good evidence comparison. Give me reasons to "prefer your evidence". It is the job of the debater to explain their arguments in a way that is understandable and flowable. Rate of delivery doesn't matter to me, but clarity does.
I know there is lots of other stuff to discuss. Just ask me before round if you have any questions.6.2.5
Lay judge- no debate experience
Ok with speed as long as I can understand you.
Policy Maker- Impact analysis important.
Default Policy maker judge, that will judge as a stock issues if told to. Impact Analysis is very important/
4 year debater and current coach at Bishop Carroll.
Fine with speed, as long as you enunciate. Roadmaps and sign posting is important to be able to flow the debate.
- I know that there are additional challenges this year, I will do my best to fill in the blanks if internet connection issues occur and will only use speech documents for these cases.
Ok with K, but make sure the link is clear
Prefer T to be very blatant, will not vote on generic T unless the aff completely drops it.
DA's specific links preferable, I will vote for generic DAs if the link story is explained.
Ask if you have any questions.
I'm a pretty traditional judge and debated 4 years during high school with state/national caliber policy and public forum experience.
Generally speaking, I’m a hybrid stock issues/policy maker, and will default to an impact lean if not guided how to evaluate otherwise. Keep links as specific as possible and use well-thought, analytical arguments. Tell me a clear, compelling story through warranted evidence and end your rounds focusing on why things matter.
I vote based upon quality of argument/evidence. Smart, substantive debate will win my vote much more often than a speed, quantity round. I’ll flow all arguments as long as they are coherent.
There are no arguments to which I am automatically opposed---with 2 important notes.
1) I strongly prefer arguments that are defended the entire round, meaning I’d rather you not kick counterplans or Ks.
2) If you can’t thoroughly understand your argument, you may not want to run it. I’m in education now and 100% believe that if you can’t teach someone something, you do not fully understand it. Same goes for debate and how you communicate/teach me.
Be nice and have fun!
Fine with spreading and Ks
I reward investment in solvency args
I don't like squirrely plans
Neg should run a T arg in every round. You don't have to go for it just see how the aff responds.
Fairly sympathetic to time-skew arguments
Four-year policy debater at Andover
I debated for 4 years at Kapaun Mt. Carmel High School and 2 years for K-State.
For LD thoughts look to the bottom of the paradigm.
Speed is fine, but clarity is more important. If I say "clear" and you don't become more clear I will put my pen down and stop flowing until you do so.
In the era of online debate I ask that you go 70-75% of your max speed.
Clipping is cheating. If a warranted ethics challenge is made, it will be an auto-loss. If not argument is made I will scratch any evidence that was clipped in a speech.
Most of my argumentative style deals with the kritik. Policy is great but much like with the k, explain stuff and don't assume I know anything.
Don't waste your time reading theory arguments that intuitively don't make sense, you aren't prepared to go for, and/or are just a time suck. If you read conditionality you should explain what particular abuse they lead to or what they force you to choose between that results in strat skew. Bad theory arguments can only hurt your speaks. I need pen time or I won't flow your argument. I default to judge kick but making the argument as early as the block makes sleeping at night easier. "New affs bad" prolly isn't a voter.
They're great. Evidence comparison is important.
Your CP needs an internal or external net benefit that outweighs a solvency deficit if you want me to vote on it. "Solving the aff better" is not an offensive net benefit. People seem to make competition a very complicated issue. I don't think that textual competition matters that much. "Positional" competition does matter to me. I don't think there is such thing as a "cheating" CP as long as it has a solvency advocate and the affirmative gets to make solvency deficits.
Case debates are good, woefully lacking right now, and can make other arguments easier to go for. I also think that people need to debate the case for K affs in most cases. Even if it's as basic as saying "ontology wrong" or "psychoanalysis bad", say something to mitigate their ability to weigh case against your off case arguments. If there is literally nothing you can say on case without being problematic, point that out on your framework page. I love analytics on case.
Your T argument needs to make sense in my mind if you want me to pull the trigger on it. If you see me looking confused in the back, make sure you explain your violation. I default to competing interps unless told otherwise. Aff teams need to explain what they mean by reasonability and how it implicates the rest of the neg's offense.
Ks vs Policy Affs
Don't assume I know the complex theory behind your criticism. I am most familiar with queer theory and settler colonial critiques, but do not assume that I am an expert on either. Your K needs uniqueness, or more specifically how the aff makes things worse than the direction the squo is going or the alt will go. I think the aff, in most instances, gets to weigh the aff. What that means (fiated implementation, research practices, etc.) is up to the debaters.
Additionally, since I primarily read the critique, I will hold debaters to a higher standard in terms of explaining alternative solvency and link stories. Don't think that just because your judge was a K debater that you can get away with just reading the K and winning.
T vs Non-traditional Affs
If you are not reading a plan text that says "USfg should" I generally think you are wasting your time trying to meet the neg's interps. You are much better off just impact turning their standards and telling me "maybe our interp is flawed but theirs sucks so much more". Not to say that you can't read redefine "USfg", "restrict", etc. but if you do you need to be ready to debate DAs and mechanism CPs. I do think a counter interp is necessary to win these debates, but I can be convinced otherwise.
I think a lot of policy teams tend to look at a k aff, see it doesn't say "USfg should" and determine framework is the only answer. I implore you to go to the other side of the library and find some good critique of their theory. That could be the cap k or any number of criticisms that impact turn the aff (queer optimism against queer pessimism), but just relying on FW only plays into the hands of these k aff 2As.
Fairness is only an internal link to clash and/or iterative education. On its own, I think the term is rather vacuous. Make sure your rebuttals do comparative impact work.
While my track record in college is only reading non-traditional affs, don't assume that I won't vote on framework. While I had my reasons for reading a critical affirmative, I probably think that policy affs have some educational value so just be real and tell me why you think your legal education/fairness arguments matter.
Method vs Method
The only question I think teams care about for rev v rev debates concerning judges is whether the aff get's a perm. While I can be persuaded by the argument "no plan = no perm", I generally think that permutations are logical in method debates. That being said if the aff is shifting their advocacy every speech, the argument "no perms in method debates" makes a whole lot more sense.
Here are some miscellaneous tips:
I'm displeased by the way cards are read these days. If you have fortune cookie highlighting and 3 word tags, expect lower speaks. Your tags should make a strong claim with a hint of the warrants in the card, which should be highlighted to include sentences that make sense. When highlighting is like, "heg...key...stop...isis...get...nuc", it shows how little you've invested into your evidence quality.
I generally prefer tech over truth when it comes to competing claims, but my ballot will never say I vote aff/neg because any form of bigotry is good.
Reading structural pessimism arguments (Edelman, Wilderson, etc.) when you not of the structural group your evidence talks about (queer, black, etc.) against someone of that subject position is risky in front of me and kind of uncomfortable. The threshold for commodification or paternalism arguments is really low in these debates.
If you disagree with my decision feel free to ask away after the round. Just be aware that if it isn't on my flow, I don't evaluate it. If I can't explain your arguments back to you/the other team, that's usually your fault and not mine.
Value/Criterion Debate- I prefer a simpler debate here and am not a fan of vacuous v/c's. In my experience judging these rounds, they tend to devolve into debates of semantics where people are saying the same things in different ways, or people are making assertions concerning the opponent's v/c without any logic or evidentiary proof. The v/c debate, much like the case debate needs to be warranted, impacted out, and comparative to your opponent's. Refrain from clear hyperbole (e.x. "They justify the Holocaust/slavery").
Case- Aside from problematic arguments (racism, homophobia, sexism good, etc.), I am fine with you reading whatever you please. Do comparative impact work across the AC and NC flows and connect your arguments with the v/c debate and you'll be fine.
Former political candidate. Campaign worker, director of outreach. Advocate. Leader. Reporter. Former debate student.
I place a high priority on speech delivery - eye contact, poise, etc.
Stock issues matter.
Evidence is the key.
Make me believe what your facts are.
I have judged debate off and on for the last 5 years.
Debate is, first and foremost, a communication activity. Arguments should be clearly laid out in a way that allows me to understand, but also shows that the debaters have a firm grasp on their evidence and why it is being used. Pretend I know nothing. I am not a flow judge, but I do take notes in the round.
I don't ask to see speech docs. My decisions will be made off of what is said in the round.
I encourage you to speak at a conversational pace.
Please put evidence in documents, not the email chain.
I keep track of time in all speeches/prep.
Quality of evidence is important.
Condo: implies judge kick, and will do it unless told not to and given good reasons.
Speaking: Speaking style is important; however, it does NOT require sacrificing speed. Being fast can be important, especially in debate. It’d be easiest if you were as clear as possible, or else it makes things harder on me. It also helps with speaks - I will start at 28.5 and work my way up and down.
Cross-ex: yelling, being annoying, or acting like a jerk sucks to watch. Weaponize CX. Make arguments and answer questions - if there is something unclear I will speak up or ask questions. CX ends when the buzzer beeps.
Rebuttals: I will give more thought to genuine smart analysis and card comparison. 2NRs/ARs that lack comparison between evidence and impacts will be less likely to win.
Tech v. Truth: both are important. If someone conceded a DA they concede it. However, if you’re going for a link argument that just isn’t true even if it’s conceded, I will be less likely to vote for that argument; truth is important to some degree with specific arguments.
Case: if you make the right arguments it helps a lot, a good case debate is the best. Highly undervalued in debate. You shouldn’t ignore it. Also, I think judges give way to much leeway on case for the aff, a DA and case strategy can work. Killing a case can boost speaks.
Counter plans: Perms don’t make any sense unless they solve the net benefit, or if the NB links to the CP. Intrinsic and Severance perm theory aren’t voters, but are reasons why rejecting the perm solves. A good cp will make the debate easier. You can also check my thoughts for other opinions on which CPs are legit. Judge kick is implied in condo, I believe that absent the aff giving good reasons why I shouldn't judge kick, I will.
Kritiks: I don’t know every K lit, I went for the K, and it can be strategic. Explain your links and impacts, why the alt solves or why it doesn’t need too, and just make sense. Be clean.
Kritikal affs: they are fine and good. To vote for a kritikal aff, 1) I must know what it does, and 2) why this discussion is good/outweighs. I do tend to lean policy, just based off experience - keep that in mind.
FW/T: either are fine, will vote for both.
Hi! My name is Chase! I competed in high school forensics for 4 years at Andover High School in Kansas. In 2019, I was the State Champion in Original Oratory. I was also a National Octafinalist and Quarterfinalist in OO at the 2019 & 2020 National Tournaments.
Though I may look like a tough judge on paper, I would love to talk about your performance after the round! I sincerely believe that every voice has the opportunity to do something amazing and would love to help you find that voice! For any information that may seem unclear on the ballot you receive, feel free to email me at email@example.com and I'll do my best to explain!
Speech: While an inherently interesting thesis or structuring of a prompt/question is important, I am big on delivery. Regardless of event, you are not just a speaker, but an advocate. Appropriate inflection gives your argument the rhetorical flourish needed to set you above your competition. Every gesture or movement should have a purpose. Make that purpose clear with verbal and nonverbal cues. Tension management is very important to me. During your speaking time, you are the master of the room. It is in your best interest to control it in the way that makes your impacts land with conviction. But above anything else, be authentic. I want to not only hear your voice, but see it. The persona you choose to share via your Hook/AGD/Vehicle should be an extension of your personality, not an act to pander to me.
Interp: Though acting events are not typically known for explicit advocacy, the opportunities for implicit argumentation make a big difference when exploited to their greatest potential. As long as the casting is ethical, I am a big fan of this style of interp. Tech is also a big thing I watch for when judging. Be sure your movements are executed with purpose and confidence. But the most important part of interp to me is character differentiation. Distinct character traits should come through with your neutral postures and lines. Your snapping should be quick and fluid to make this distinction easier to identify.
I am a Kansas HS assistant debate coach. I am a science teacher that values logic and scientific fact. My background is not in debate however, I have been coaching for 3 years. I have judged for high school debates for 36 years. I believe that most anything is debatable however some styles of argument work better for me than others. I am more of a CP/DA Case debate kind of judge. Speed of my flow is far lower than what I would call fast. Clear tags/authors and quicker on text is fine. Also please tell where things go and how they apply. I enjoy most debates but not a fan of T debates. If the aff is not topical run it. If the aff is center of the topic then do not run T. IF they are off topic, I am easily swayed on T. Theory debates are kinda like T for me. Rather not see it unless there is a legitimate violation. I do not penalize teams for style choices. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I need to be able to understand the words.
MSU '24 (1A/2N)
Trinity Academy '20 (State champion and 7th at NSDA's in LD)
Please put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
TLDR: Do what you do best and I will evaluate what happens in the round as best as I can. PERSUADE ME! I love evidence debates and in-depth clash. Interact with the other team's arguments rather than rely exclusively on your pre-written blocks and your speaks will show it. If no framework is articulated I will default to offense/defense since it is the fairest and applies most consistently to all kinds of debates. Death is never good! Speaks will start at 28.5 and either go up or down from there.
Speed is fine but if you aren't understandable it will hurt your speaks (especially online). Please go slower on tags and theory.
Infinite Condo----X----------------1 conditional cp
Debate has value-X------------------Debate is bad
All Cards-----X---------------No cards
Super long framing contentions-----------------X--Several good cards
Evidence Quality--X------------------No evidence standards
In round conduct: Be a good person. Debate is an inclusive event so don't actively try to make it a painful experience for someone else. Don't be racist, colonialist, homophobic, or discriminate towards people of other genders, backgrounds, races, or religions. Don't say it was dropped if it wasn't!
Case Debate: Case debate is very important; don't forget it! I love in-depth clash on the case. Most impact turns are fine with me, but DO NOT read spark or wipeout. Impact framing plays a role in my decision.
Topicality: I lean towards competing interps and will read your evidence after the debate. Organization in T debates is really important---the better you signpost and stay organized the easier it makes my job. Standard comparison and impact calc is quintessential to strong T debate. A degree of aff flex seems valuable to me but, as a 2N, I believe in the importance and value of a limited topic. If you go for T it needs to be most of, preferable all, the 2NR.T is NOT an RVI---please don't make this argument!
Disads: I think the link level is the most important part of a disad and where most disads are either won or lost. Give me good impact and turns case analysis about why to weigh the disad before the other team's impacts and I will have an easier time voting on them.
CP's: If you go for a counterplan that doesn't have a neg benefit it will not be a winning argument. Judge kick is a logical extension of condo and I will judge kick unless the aff wins I should not. I would prefer if counterplans have a solvency advocate/explanation---don't make me have to do tons of work to figure out what the cp does/ is supposed to solve for after the debate. Conditionality is good.
Kritiks: For the most part run them. I have experience with lots of literature bases, especially settler colonialism and security, but don't assume I have read your literature as much as you have. I don't think you need an alt for me to vote on the K but would prefer if you have one. Links can be disads to the aff but I need an explanation why. NOTE: In order to go for the K without an alt you need to prove/have non-status quo links that outweigh the aff. PIKs are probably bad.
*If you like to make a meme of rounds by reading multiple paradoxes or high theory/nihilism K's do not pref me---it won't go well for you.
K-affs: They are fine with me (I have run them before). If you run a k-aff, make sure you solve/accomplish something; I am skeptical of claims that not doing anything is enough because I don't think it is. I have become more policy leaning in these debates because I feel that lots of K affs seek auto-wins. Having a clear role of the ballet and an explanation of your advocacy and how it resolves your impacts will help clarify the debate and significantly help your cause.
FW: I believe that debate is better when there is some inherent fairness and set ground conditions. Framework, in particular, is an argument that needs a really good explanation from both the aff and the neg on impact implications. I do not explicitly think the aff outweighs framework and I do think framework is a valid argument. I will not be convinced by arguments that one side is not allowed to debate. Clash and testing is really persuasive to me. A set topic is valuable.
Theory: Run theory just know I have a very high threshold for voting on it. If it is really mishandled or there is a clear standard with real evidence of abuse I will vote on it, but I am not the judge for you if you are a theory team. Outside of condo, theory is mostly a reason to reject the argument not the team.
Final thoughts: I will listen to anything you say, but please be creative and strategic in your selection of which arguments to read. Make use of evidence interactions and cross-examination. Run the arguments that you like and think give you the best chance to win and the debate will likely go well for you. Most of all, HAVE FUN!!!
Things to boost speaks:
- Great cross-examination
- Excellent argumentation and off the flow debating
- Being funny [joke about me = +0.3, joke about sports= +0.1]
- Being strategic
- Not just filling speech time, but accomplishing something in every speech you give
Debated four years at Maize High School 2020
Assistant Coach at Wichita East High School
Duke 2024 (not debating)
Tech > Truth, and evidence quality matters to me. I find a lot of cards are atrociously highlighted. That said, I don't wish to read through all your cards, so make arguments about them, so I don't need to default to ev.
I'm good with speed if speeches are organized. Clarity > Speed - note, this is even more true for online debate
Don't clip/steal prep. Let me emphasize again -- DON'T CLIP, actually physically mark cards when you say to mark cards
Evidence comparison/argument resolution good. Shadow extension/no clash bad.
I would rather listen to a politics+CP debate than a kritik debate, but I would also rather listen to you debating your strongest argument than you adapting to my preferences. Ks must pass the make sense test
a well explained, logical, argument trumps an unexplained argument merely extended by it's "card name"
cross x is a speech-I figure it in as a substantial factor in speaker points
- Great, I go for politics and DA's like allied prolif a lot. Although, I do recognize DA's like politics prolly has a bunch of internal links missing, so spin is critical
- Disads are about story telling - If I can't explain the story of the DA back to you then I won't vote on it
- Do turns case and comparative impact calc. Canned overviews without any change round-to-round are bad. Judge instruction is good. Impact calc about risk is also pretty convincing since I'm often left with two existential impacts
- Great, but like most judges, I prefer case-specific over generic counterplans, but we can’t always get what we want.
- CP's like consult or conditions that compete off certainty aren't great, but the aff can't blow it completely off either
- Floating PICs/Word PICs are pretty iffy for the neg--reading it as a K should solve most education impact, but I have yet to see many of these debates
- Blocks are good but no substitute for the line-by-line.
- I find a bunch of T-interps are arbitrary. Precision/predictability should prolly outweigh a marginal limits impact. However, negs that coherently connect their interpretation, violation, and standards with tangible impacts will be rewarded
- Default condo good. Somewhat high threshold but I do recognize how forcing the aff to double turn themselves can be problematic
- Perf Con is better utilized as a solvency takeout rather than a theoretical issue
- Impact calc matters a bunch here
- I read both fairness and education impacts, but fairness v K affs makes more sense to me.
- K affs in the direction of the topic are better for me
- new-ish to these debates
- I most likely only have a surface level understanding of your Kritik. Even less for postmodernist theories. More common K's like Cap and Abolition make more sense to me.
- Impact turning is often underutilized. Extinction first/heg good can be persuasive if done right
- I do recognize the importance of Ks on this topic and think they make sense a lot of sense if explained correctly
- Go more in-depth with each aff argument rather than shotgunning a billion perms. That increases my burden on the negative to disprove your arguments
I prefer traditional debate with clash and reasonable speed. I've done this for awhile so you can run what you run as long as the analysis justifies why I should vote. Not a big fan of K debate but if you can do it well, go nuts. Tabula rasa but I'll default to policy maker if not given a reason to vote.
*I teach AP American Government. It would be in your best interest to either 1. Argue funding/enforcement/federalism accurately structurally or 2. Avoid them like the round depends on it (it often does). I'm unlikely to vote on funding/enforcement/federalism arguments that are misunderstood or misapplied. Telling the judge how government works while not knowing how government works hurts the credibility of your argument.
First and foremost, tabula rasa on everything except wildly abusive debate theory arguments. Tabula rasa prevents my bias or preconceived ideas from corrupting the round, but the teams will also have to work to make a coherent argument; although I do have former knowledge to draw from, if I make a connection between arguments and the team(s) do not, I will actively ignore the connection. Do not make me work to connect the dots between your arguments. Cross-apply this to clash; if you're answering something the opponents said, say so.
Spreading is fine as long as you're clear. If you're spreading analytics, perms, or anything else without evidence, then be ready to give me a flash drive with the arguments. Speaking of which, I may ask for evidence. [Edit in 2020: Not sure how this will work, but if there's a way for me to request evidence, I likely will-- especially if there's contradictions or the quality of the evidence comes into question.]
I'm fine with Kritiks, Counterplans, and theory discussion. Go abstract, complex, all-out with your arguments; any argument the team understands AND can adequately articulate, they can argue.
Topicality, Harms, and Solvency are only voter issues if the negative team says so. If neg runs inherency-- you'd better have empirics or evidence that proves the affirmative isn't inherent; unless the aff is wildly abusive, I'm not voting on inherency.
I debated in High School and in college. I also coached 2 years of college debate. I am a tabula rasa judge. The only firm rules I believe in is time limits. I will listen to and vote on CP’s and Kritiks if explained well and impacted well. Most importantly tell me what paradigm you want me to base my decision in. If there are conflicting paradigms offered in the round, tell me why your paradigm is best. Always strive to answer the questions “Why should this matter to me, or why should I vote on this?”
On a side note, everyone has some sort of bias. I tend to be biased against Topicality arguments. Unless case is a blatant violation, please don’t waste our time and educational benefit by running this time sucking argument.
My kids (who are your age) call me old. I’m a therapist, a college professor, and a Liberal/Progressive pastor. I believe in what Socrates taught, “that in the market place of ideas ultimate truth wins out.”
I hope all this helps on some level. If it doesn’t, I apologize. Please feel free to ask me any questions you feel are relevant before, during and after the round.
I save most of my flows for a couple of months. If you would like to communicate more in-depth about a decision, please let me know.
Dr. Justin Meier
I have been an assistant coach for Andover for 10+ years and did debate in HS. I am fine with speed if you are very clear. I do not like open cross-ex and will mention that as part of my RFD if you continue to try it after it has been agreed on to not occur in round! I’m not a big fan of Kritics but it better be great and really convincing if you run it. Otherwise, policy maker is my default, stock issues is my second level when needed. Topicality is everything in a round. If you drop it or violate, you lose. Lastly, please have specific links to generic disads. If I have start hearing the exact same DAs run over and over with literally zero changes from the last round, I know your arg has alt causes and I can't ignore that.
Update 2020: Haven't judged a round all season!!! Proceed with caution.
Email chain: email@example.com
Debate Background: 4 years policy in Kansas DCI circuit. 4 years Parli at Washburn University. Former assistant Coach at Garden City, Kansas (2 years). Currently in law school. Probably don't know much about the topic. It's been a minute since I've had to listen to a round.
Overview: I try to be reasonably deferential to both team's wishes to debate to the style they feel most comfortable with. I will listen to and evaluate almost anything. I consider myself a traditional high-flow judge. I’ll default to a net benefits paradigm unless you specify an alternative framework. Speed isn’t a problem however I’ll only yell “clear” twice if I can’t understand you. I tend to believe that debate is still a speaking event, so basic stuff ethos, pathos, logos stuff matters a lot if you want to get the 1 in the round.
Topicality/Framework-I’m a big fan of the T debate. I give the aff a decent amount of leeway when it comes to reasonability. If you go for T, the procedural debate needs to substantively articulate the abuse (whether real or potential) that happens in the round. How does the T interact with your other arguments?!
The neg needs to do work on the standards debate beyond “the aff steals our ground”. The 2NR needs to spend a decent amount on T if you want me to vote for it. I’m the minority of people that do believe that T is inherently a voting issue. Tell me why that’s not the case, aff.
Counterplans -Counterplans are fine. Make them either textually/functionally competitive. I’ll vote for most types of CP’s but there’s a few types that start behind for me (Consult CPs). I have a soft spot for Adv. CPs and PICs.
Disadvantages- I'm a sucker for Politics DAs. In general, the difference between a good DA to a bad one is that a good one has a fleshed out bottom half that constructs a timely, and nuanced internal link with a clear impact. I don’t think enough DA’s do that.
Neg team, how does the DA interact with the aff case beyond the link level? Does triggering the DA problematize the coherency of the aff?
Kritiks-I’m down for a K debate. I enjoy listening to them and truly believe in their potential to open up a meaningful dialogue about real world policies and the debate community writ large. A big let-down is when the link level of the K is weak. Crystalize the actual reason you chose to critique something within the round beyond reading a card that says “cap bad”.
I am not a walking encyclopedia. I don’t know all there is to know about Bastaille, Baudrillard, Zizek, Object Ontology, etc. I’ll keep up on the flow level but keep a coherent narrative and simple thesis. Explain the narrative of the K and expand on it. I don’t assume that the K is an apriori issue. I’ll evaluate the impacts of the Aff against it unless I’m told not to. Impact calc is very important. Keep the flow of the K in a neat order for me.
Theory-Just as with Topicality, I’ll usually default some sort of reasonability-type argument (i.e reject the arg not the team). However I’ll vote on condo/dispo bad stuff if you want me to. You just need to do a lot of work on this if you are going for it in the 2NR.
*Performance-I’m cool with it but be warned that I haven’t seen enough performance rounds to vote in a consistent way. Because I come into the round as flow judge, I probably have some presumptions about the how debate “ought to” work. I am impartial enough to be swayed differently, but I still need a substantive reason to vote for you as an individual team beyond your cause.
It's still a debate round. Give the other team a reasonable path to able to interact with your performance so they can debate against you.
****Brynnalese is pronounced (Brin-ah-lease) Maize high debater 2016-2020 - Newton High School Assistant Coach****
Please add me to the email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
I try to be as unbiased as is possible. So if you think that I am being biased in any way. PLEASE call me out on it! I want the activity to have a fair and even playing field for all competitors.
I'll just get straight to what you want to know: I'm not really a k judge and I prefer policy rounds. However, for some terrible reason I have ended up judge mostly k rounds this year so I do have an abundance of experience (20+ rounds) judging the abolition k. The specifics of my knowledge and preferences as they relate to k debate are listed towards the bottom of my paradigm.
Tech > Truth. I care about evidence quality and appreciate properly formatted cards. If you can be persuasive then I'll vote on anything. Even if you read the most ridiculous t interp of like the . or the : I will vote on it if you can convince me to the point that I feel I can justify it during an RFD.
Presumption ballots are underrated. I enjoy in-depth case debates. Spend your time reading more case cards instead of some trashy da/cp/t-interp that you know you are never going to go for.
I love T debates. I think T is a question of models so I'm not a big fan of reasonability. I will vote for an extremely untopical aff in rounds where the aff is ahead on the t flow (I fell like this should be a given but I guess not every judge feels that way).
I'm not the biggest fan. Vagueness and plan flaws are iffy and I'm not sure I'll ever feel comfortable voting on them unless it is dropped in the 2ac. SPEC debates of any kind are boring and bad. I think that most of the time it's a reason to reject the argument and not the team unless it is explicitly said in the round that I MUST drop the team. I don't mind condo debates and I don't really have a salient opinion of condo being good or bad yet.
I really like disads. Ptx are the ones I am most familiar with - 60% of the time the 2nr was PTX my senior year. I think the link debate is the most important part of winning a disad and, of course, I enjoy specific links. I like some solid case turns at the top of the 2nc and 1nr mixed in with impact calc.
The more your counterplan is cheating, the better (sorry 2as). The 2a needs to perm, provide a solvency deficit, and read some type of theory. Judge kicking the counterplan is a logical extension of condo. The neg should probably only get 3 counterplans per round. If you feel some strange desire to read 4+ counterplans be warned that I will probably err aff in that condo debate.
I don't mind K affs but they need to be topic directional. As long as you're ready for the impact turn and framework debate you should be fine with me as your judge. Please link it to the topic.
K v K:
K v K rounds are the ones I will feel most uncomfortable adjudicating. I've only partaken in one of them ever. I will be able to understand the basic aspects of the round but I will be very lost in the nuances. I think that if I'm your judge you would be better off reading framework and impact turns like heg good.
I'm average in terms of my experience with Ks. I didn't read them very often but when I did it was the generic security, bio politics, and cap stuff. I'm familiar with anti-blackness, fem, set col, and queer K lit from answering those Ks on the aff. Overviews are usually a waste of time and y'all almost never contextualize them to the round. I like perf con arguments.
1. Correct and non-inappropriate humor and jokes are appreciated. This should go without saying, but DON'T make jokes at your competitors expense.
2. I'm not gonna throw a fit if you curse during round because I know that sometimes it just happens; however, please refrain from cursing as much as possible.
3. Clipping is an automatic loss and 0 speaks, I don't care if it is an arg brought up in round or not. This is one of the few instances where I think judge intervention is acceptable.
4. If you plan on reading an aff with triggering context please give a trigger warning. I would like to mentally prepare for it and I think your competitors should also get that opportunity.
Total Rounds judged all time: 72 Total - Rounds judges on CJR: 52 - Total Aff CJR: 22 - Total Neg CJR: 30
email@example.com - add me to the email chain
I did policy debate and forensics for most of high school at Newton High.
What I value most about debate is that it provides an open space for debaters to develop and test ideas.
There is some wisdom to the cliché of asking debaters to ‘write my ballot for me’. Since I think debate belongs to the debaters, I appreciate when a debater can tell me not just how a card relates to an argument but how the argument relates to the debate and the ballot as a whole. It is hard to evaluate a debate where both sides are winning something and no one compares the importance of those two things. If you do that comparison, you’ll definitely make it easier for me to be on your side of the issue.
I try not to arbitrarily reward or punish debaters for running specific arguments. If a disad is weak or if a counterplan is illegitimate, it is the job of the debaters to prove it and forward that argument. I try not to ‘lean’ on one side of an issue or the other, deferring instead to the analysis made.
On the issue of paperless debate, I do not believe flashing/emailing speeches counts as prep – within reason. If the amount of time it is taking you to flash speeches gets excessive I will change this policy.
Clarity > Speed
Dropped doesn’t mean you win. Dropped means that the other team has conceded that the premise of that argument is true. Your job is to explain the significance of that premise for the rest of the debate.
Being disrespectful is a one-way ticket to my bad side. BE GOOD HUMANS.
I am an old school "Get off my lawn" kind of judge. I have been an assistant debate coach for 17 years and I was a high school debater but not college. I prefer real world arguments with normal impacts nuke war and extinction really annoy me. I hate spreading and will stop listening if you word vomit on me. I can handle speed but double clutching and not clearly reading tags will be a problem. I am being forced to do an electronic ballot but that DOES NOT mean I want a flash of your stuff. I HATE KRITIKS but will vote on it if it is the only thing in the round. I prefer nontopical counterplans and will tolerate generic DAs if the links are specific. I like stock issues and policy impact calculus. I like quality analytical arguments. Teams who read good evidence not just camp and wiki stuff will get my vote.
Andrew Potter Judging Philosophy
4 years high school policy at Buhler on the UN, Civil Liberties, National Service, and Sub-Saharan Africa topics(2004-2008). 4 years NPDA/NPTE parliamentary debate at William Jewell College. 2 years of coaching NPDA/NPTE at Texas Tech University.
Initial Thoughts (My philosophy on debate)
My thoughts on how specific arguments are ran and function in the debate round has not changed since I last judged, so this is the only part that will be different if you have read my philosophy before. During 2015-2020 I judged one college parli tournament. It was refreshing to say the least. That is not to say that I think debate is bad or that I do not like debate any more. I love debate, but taking a step back from debate was a good time to reflect after 10 years straight of debate nonstop. I hope that you love debate too. I hope that you are doing your best to debate as hard and as respectful to the other team as you can. I understand those ideas can be in conflict with each other but I truly believe they are not mutually exclusive. Debate is about the people in the room more than it is about the topic. In my career is it helpful that I researched the United States’ military capabilities and knew how to run multiple impact scenarios to a sick Heg DA? Yes and no (sure makes for interesting water cooler talk, am I right?). But it is more important that I learned how to communicate those ideas and create a space where ideas can be discussed safely and with respect. I think that the most important lesson that debate can teach us is empathy and I hope that does not get lost in the minutiae.
/END GRANDPA POTTER RAMBLINGS
Defense may win championships in sports but offense is what wins debate championships. However, that does not mean to cast off defensive arguments because those can be damn useful when weighing impacts. Use both offense and defense strategically and you will likely get higher speaker points and access to my ballot.
Status of Counter Plans/Kritiks
I am prone to believe all positions are dispositional. Each piece of paper has an impact on the round once it is said. A good example is a DA. Team A runs the DA. Team B answers the DA Once the argument has been answered there are one of three scenarios that are true with regards to said position. 1)Team A avoids the impacts, 2)Team B avoids the impacts, 3)There are no impacts for either team. It is up to both teams to tell me which of these three scenarios I am supposed to believe. Every position (CP, K, DA, T, Theory, Adv, etc.) ran in the debate is prone to these three scenarios.
Now, this does not mean I will not vote for a conditional CP or K. What the former paragraph means is that I am swayed by dispo but I will give all arguments their fair shake.
My definition of dispo is: If you straight turn the CP, we have to go for it. If you prove it is not an opportunity cost to the plan i.e. a perm, CP links to the DA, Net-Benefit has no impact, then you reserve the right to defend the SQuo. I also believe the status should be said right before the text as in “The CP, the Unconditional Text, US Congress will pass and President Biden will sign blah blah blah”
I flow the Resolutional Analysis, Background (Inherency), Plan, and Solvency contention (if there is one) on one piece of paper. All subsequent advantages/off case positions get their own sheets of paper after that. I break up Counter Plans and the Net-Benefit into separate sheets of paper. I flow the K on one sheet.
I flow answers to positions in a long column starting with 1,2,3 etc.
I’ve been out of the game for a few years so my ears aren’t what they used to be when listening to speed. My general tendency towards speed is that if you are going too fast for me to flow, then I will yell “clear.” I do not believe speed is the issue, it is clarity. There is nothing wrong with going slower but being more clear. You will probably win more rounds and get better speaker points if you do so. Also, I do not like seeing speed used as an exclusionary tactic. If you are clearly faster than your opponents and they yell clear but you do not slow down or try to accommodate them, then your speaks are gonna suffer. However, I do not find “Speed Kills” arguments persuasive because it feels like some sort of intervention would have to happen on my part to vote on that position and that is not a position I am comfortable judging.
Also, here is how you can make sure I get all your arguments. For example, if you are answering a DA then it should go something like this “1, Non-Unique, Dems capitol low b/c blah blah blah. 2, Non-Unique Biden capitol low b/c blah blah blah. 3, No-Link, plan doesn't affect capitol. 4, Turn, plan increases Dem cap blah blah blah......”
Yes, please! I will have a high threshold voting on positions that are lacking substantial warrants. I will also have a tough time voting on positions that are one thing in the 1NC or 1AC and another thing in the 2NC/1NR and will be pretty sympathetic to new 1AR characterizations of 2AC responses to fit the transformed position. I do not like adding warrants for the argument based off of my own knowledge, and I like being able to repeat the position I am voting for (the story of the Adv, DA, or theory position), so add warrants.
I ran theory a lot in college and feel like I have a decent grasp on the ins and outs of theory. However, that does not mean I will fill in blanks for theory. Every theory position should have an interpretation that is read twice and preferably slower than other arguments, a violation, reasons to prefer, and voters. I view theory debates similar to CP/Plan debates. There are texts, DA or Advs to those texts, and impacts for voting for or against a certain text. I would say I have an average threshold on voting for theory but if you can run it well and win it, then my thoughts should not detract you from making that strategic decision.
I feel like this is the most straightforward part of my philosophy. Disads need to be unique and warranted. I feel this is a question more on Econ or Politics debates. On Econ, instead of just throwing numbers my way, why not make some comparison why your numbers are more important/predictive of economic trends. Politics is the same way, do not just throw out Dems high, Bill gonna pass, you stop it, bill woulda done some good things, WE ALL GONNA DIE. Instead, I like Politics that focus on key members of the Senate or House who would be influential in the bill's success or demise and EXACTLY what the bill does. That will give me a better idea of how to evaluate the claims of the debaters.
Run any impact and make it important. I usually default to Timeframe 1st with Probability and Magnitude 2nd and 3rd. I like good impact analysis with Timeframe because if you win the impact to a disad/adv before the other DA/Adv happens, then it probably changes the impact story of the other DA/Adv.
CPs need to be functionally competitive and have a net-benefit, whether that is an advantage the CP captures that the plan does not or a DA that is avoided while gaining the Solvency of the Aff. I feel like I have a decent grasp on what textual competition is and I have determined it is not nearly as important as people have made it out to be. Functional competition is the way to my heart.
Types of CPs to be ran in front of me:
Alt Agent (mmhhmmm they warm my soul)
Alternate Plans that avoid the DA but solve the Case (Example: Plan regulates Ag pollution with an Environmental Adv. CP is to clean up ag pollution and run a regulations bad DA.)
These were not really my thing in debate. I ran them occasionally but it was nothing super tricky or too post modern. Basically I ran Biopower. However, I have judged multiple K rounds and I have found them a lot easier to judge than I expected. I have voted for criticisms and voted against criticisms both on the aff and the neg. I will just say that if this is some new kind of K that is supposed to catch the other team off guard, then you should explain it well because I am not the most well read in that area.
I debated for three years in high school, including at state and districts. I am fine with almost any argument (stock issues, advantage/disadvantage, counterplans, Ks), but you must explain why I should vote on a specific issue. If I do not have a specific reason to vote, then I will be forced to default to policymaker, where I vote for whichever policy (plan, CP, Squo, K) has the best DAs/advantages. I judged a fair amount (4 or 5 tournaments) during the arms sales topic, but do not have much experience with the 2020-2021 topic, so do not expect me to know the relevant case info by default.
Errs: If the counterplan and the plan solve the case identically and neither have a net benefit, I will prefer the plan over the counterplan unless given some reason to do otherwise.
Err: If the plan and the status quo solve equally (i.e., the aff loses completely on solvency/harms/advantages), I will vote for the status quo.
I am fine with generic links, unless the aff can explain why the link is flawed.
I will generally not buy 'rule of the game' arguments.
I will generally weigh topicality and theory arguments over case, but if the neg runs T in the 2NR, it is highly recommended that they go all in.
I don't care one way or the other on condo.
Ks are fine, but I am more experienced with the generic Ks like cap compared to case-specific Ks.
Spreading is fine.
I will not consider new in the 2 to be problematic by default, but I will consider it to be a voting issue if the aff makes it an important issue.
If you have any specific questions, just ask before the round.
I understand the basics of debate
You need to tell me why I should vote for you and give me a good rundown of the debate in your rebuttals.
Being Aggressive and clashing is absolutely fine, as long as you aren't disrespectful.
I don't have any preference for arguments, as long as you explain everything thoroughly to me.
I've been judging for four years now.
Asst. Debate coach 3 years, Debate in High School, Head Forensics Coach 4 years. Theatre Teacher
The biggest thing I look for in a debate is clear and precise speech. I am ok with spreading as long as you can annunciate every word and make sure that your speech is understandable.
Areas that I tend to give the most weight are as follows:
I will flow throughout. The biggest thing I do not like in a debate is if it get's too far off topic and the plan is not debated at all or touched on very little.
To me debate is about being able to know what you are talking about and having clear answers and to have facts available at the tip of your tongue. It is not about reading. Know what you're talking about and you will be fine with me.
Email Chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Please add me to any email chain made in round because that will ultimately help me dissect your argumentation and relay that importance to round.
I am the South High School assistant debate coach and I did policy debate for 4 years at Salina High School South. I did KDC and DCI circuits in high school so I'm well versed in most styles of debate. In regards to round etiquette , first rule is to make a safe environment for every debater in the room. No one wants to walk into a round that is filled with hostility. Use the correct pronouns for people...point blank, please be respectful to others. When it comes to argumentation I am open to listen to anything. I flow the round and will be in tune with everyone debating so please make sure to extend and have a clear direction of where you want to take your argumentation in the round. When it comes to my judging style I tend to vote on stock issues, but again I am completely open to anyway the round goes so be critical but also make sense. When it comes to speed I can handle spreading as long as you are clear with your taglines and please make sure to signpost. On a line by line basis slow down to articulate your argumentation. I'm not a fan of time sucks, if you're reading an argument tell my why it's important in the round or I won't vote on it. I love theory and K's as long as they clearly relate to the debate. I read Fem and Queer theory in high school but am willing to listen to anything. If there are any other questions please feel free to ask before round.
I am much more experienced in forensics than I am in debate.
I have been judging all types of debate for a few years now, so I know the basics, but I generally prefer to be treated as an inexperienced judge (in other words, please speak fairly slowly).
I care most about competitors speaking clearly, acting professionally, making logical arguments, and having solid evidence to support those arguments. I have found that I am difficult to be persuaded on Topicality arguments.
I was in debate for 4 years in high school and 1 year at Emporia State University.
I can keep up with a flow style debate as long as taglines are clear
I greatly appreciate trigger warnings for sexual and violent content.
I love T debate, lots of work on solvency and links. I will listen to anything including performance debate. I am not as familiar with this style- so my feedback may not be as valuable as others, however I believe the debate space is a special place for folks to talk about their own important issues with 0 interruption and 100% open ears. I look forward to hearing you.
I don’t believe that there are true 100% tabula rasa judges, but I am about as tabula rasa as it gets. Give me a framework and a reason to prefer and I will probably but it if it makes sense. I am high flow and I evaluate stock issues. I am ok with speed for the most part and can generally keep up with most styles. Just make sure I get a tag and the author/date so I can keep the flow organized and give me weighted reasons to prefer/impact calculus.