Nicholas Bloor

Blue Valley West High School '22

Former Debater (Debated Policy and Congress at Blue Valley West High School 2019 - 2021)

Put me on the e-mail chain nicholasbloor14@gmail.com

I am not very familiar with this year's topic. Please, do not go over the top with acronyms. If I don't understand it, then I won't flow it.

TLDR

- I flow what I hear not what is on the speech docs

- C-X is binding.

- Use your brain, evidence isn't always required. I believe that you are smart enough to answer the arguments.

- tech over truth

- indicting authors and evidence is important and you will be rewarded for that

- an argument = claim, warrant, impact

- It's okay to be competitive, but don't be a jerk. You'll lose speaker points.

- Speed is fine, but you need to be clear. Again, I will not flow what I do not hear.

- Impact calc is very important at the top. Judge instruction is very important to me. I don't want to do the work for you - tell me why I should vote for you. I am not a big fan of judge intervention, so if you want to emphasize an argument or indict the other team's cards, please do not expect me to do that for you.

- not a fan of 10 off in the 1nc (Only bring arguments if you are willing to extend them, I don't think it's cool for a team to bury the other team in arguments and say they didn't respond to one warrant

Case - I appreciate a good case debate. For the aff, I think a lot of debaters can forget to use their 1ac cards to answer things on different flows - use them. Don't be afraid to extend evidence from earlier speeches. I LOVE highlighting of other cards but don't make them your entire speech.

Disads - read them. Just because it is a broad DA, doesn't mean it is a bad DA.

Counterplans - I like counterplans. Especially good if you run them with a DA to add some net benefit to the CP.

Topicality - yes competing interps. Feel free to run T, but I will probably only vote T if the plan is not topical or if the affirmative team fails to answer it completely. USE ALL PARTS OF T. (Listed Below)

Interpretation

Violation

Standards

Voters

T is never a reverse voter.

Theory - make you sure you have an impact to your theory arg.

Kritiks - Not very familiar on literature but that doesn't mean I can't be convinced.Don't assume I know anything and explain why it matters.

General

-Debate is an activity that is driven on education so remember that while you are competing. We also need to make sure that everybody feels safe while doing this activity. Don't be a jerk or else your speaker points will suffer. Understand that your partner is very intelligent and your opponents are very intelligent.

-Debate is open to everyone. I will end the round early if anyone says anything racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc.

How to Win:

Extend evidence.

Call out your opponents for dropped args. (If this is done falsely, then your speaks will suffer)

IMPACT CALC - I will not do the impact calc for you. (If one team does impact calc, I default to that team's calc, same thing with framework)

If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me before the round start

Background

I'm a current Debate student for 3 years now, so for the most part I know what you'll be talking about. Assuming you didn't just randomly click this button because you got bored, I assume you want to know how to cater to me as a judge. Well, here's the gist of it.

Speaking

When it comes to speaking, all I care about is that you're clear in telling me what you want me to know regardless if fast or slow, loud or soft. There's no pressure to need to talk a certain way because you'd think it would work better or follow the flow of the round.

Case

Personally, this is where the meat of any round should be. Off-case will always be a thing and technically weighs more on who wins the round, but I still like that you keep in mind that the round began in the case and thus should conversely tie back into it one way or another.

Topicality

I prefer that if it's brought up, you talk about it at the beginning of your speech as it lets me know if you actually care about arguing whether the case is topical. Topicality isn't just an argument that you can run as a method of getting a win, but something you need to dedicate your speeches to. If you're not willing to put the time into telling me why the case is or isn't topical, I may as well just stop taking notes on that argument and just flow that argument cause you've convinced me otherwise about how much you care about the argument.

Disads

All I can say is, structure it right and make it significant to this round. Every piece needs to be set up correctly, but mainly focus on making sure it links and has an impact that makes sense, has warrants, and isn't a dated claim.

Counter Plans

If you can, try to pick a CP that's somewhat relevant to the case. Generic CPs are fine, but note it can be taken as you just trying to fill up arguments when you could probably argue something else. Make sure that there is net benefit to the CP than just saying "it'll solve faster" because you're not challenging the aff, just giving me a different way to do aff and gives the aff more warrants.

Kritiks

I don't really care too much for these. I'll still judge them and evaluate the arguments with the presumption that it's relevant and has a reasonable amount of work into making the argument, but generally I don't want to have to sit through one.

Impact Calc

Make sure you're actively trying to weight out the debate, even if you don't have specific evidence for the arguments, if you can reasonably weigh out the arguments in cohesive fashion that isn't just you trying to pull random information out of your head to win, than I'll go for it. I still expect you to try to take out evidence and argue it, but if push comes to shove, work it out on your feet.

I also expect that you do it, even if I can deduce which one weighs more in the end, I'm only going to follow what you try to tell me will weigh more. It's not my job to weigh in arguments you bring up.

Online Video based stuff

Please be on time for your round, keep your video on at all times, and be ready to set up an email chain or drop the speech in at the start when you can. Technical difficulties are a thing, but I expect that at the beginning we should be prepared at the start.

Miscellaneous Stuff

# of Off-case arguments: Please be smart about how you use them. Just because you only need to win one of these doesn't mean I should expect to see you dump a bunch of arguments and be inconsistant in how you argue them.

Cross-Ex: I will always presume that we'll approach it closed. However, if you want to do open cross-ex then that's fine with me, but please talk about it at the beginning of the round. As for the actual cross-ex, get to the point, I know you can use it as time to extend your points but the point of it is to ask questions, rambling tells me you have no answers.

Personal Attacks: Please be professional, this somewhat of an extension of speaking but when you talk please try to focus on the round and not your opponents. You can be aggressive, but make sure it's in the line of being a sensible person.

Speeches and Speech Docs: When making a speech, please only include cards that you'll actually be reading or make it so that we can use it to follow along as the point of having it is to keep up with the speaker. I understand that there'll be times where you mistime how long you'll actually be using to which I ask that you specifically address it and move on. Conversely, this means the only arguments I'll recognize in the debate are the ones that have been verbally discussed. To me, it doesn't matter if your speech doc has the evidence for that argument, if you don't talk about it, I won't consider it fair ground in the debate and won't take it into account when determining the victor even if you reference the argument.

Aside from all that, I hope that both teams give it there all and have fun most of all.

Experience: I did 3 years of debate in Highschool, and I graduated in 2017. I did attend a little bit of parliament debate in college for a few weeks, but decided it wasn't for me. Regardless, I still enjoy the subject but haven't yet judged since I graduated. With that said, I know how to flow, and plan to do so in the round.

Speed: I prefer conversational debate over everything else, and I am personally not a fan of "spreading". For the most part, I don't mind if you read a piece of evidence quickly or at a normal pace, but I do expect some sort of summary at some point and a connection to your argument rather then just reading card after card.

CX: Any kind of CX is fine with me, as long as both teams agree to it.

Experience: I did policy debate all four years at Garden City High School, However I graduated in 2016. I have yet to judge this year.

Paradigm: I will default to policy making. I want debaters to clash with each other's arguments. I like the 2NR and the 2AR to tell me why they won, and how I should vote for the round. Don't just tell me, explain it to me.

Speed: I really like a debate where both sides aren't speeding through and just reading pointless cards. To me it's always quality over quantity. I don't mind a fast speed, However I better understand you and hear you well. I also find that I can flow much faster rate if you are making tonal differences between tags and evidence.

CX: Open CX is fine with me, as long as one partner isn't controlling the debate and both sides agree to it.

Disadvantages: I vote on the way that advantages and disadvantages interact more than I vote on anything else. I don't mind generic DAs, but I prefer that Neg take the time to articulate a specific link. I'm also a big fan of turns from the affirmative (or from the negative on advantages). I really enjoy a case specific DA, but they just don't happen very often. I like buried 1NC links that blow up into impacts in the block. I like impact extension/blow up in the block.

Kritikal Arguments: I'm not a fan of K's. In fact, I prefer policy over it. If you are going to run it, I need you to fully explain it to me and help me keep up with it.

T- I will vote on T, and I don't think 2NR has to go all in in the 2NR to win it. I believe topicality is, first and foremost, an argument about fairness, and I think that it's an important mechanism for narrowing the topic.

Counterplans- I'm a policy maker. I'm fine with a CP. I'm not a big fan of the theory that often gets run against a CP. I just don't find it very persuasive.

Side Notes: I still think that persuasiveness matters- especially in CX and rebuttals. It's still a communication activity. Professionalism also matters to me.

Experience: I competed in high school policy debate for three years and LD and IX for one year. I have judged a few topics since then, especially in 2020, but have not had the opportunity to do so on the 2021 policy topic.

Speed: I am unfamiliar with this year's topic, but am generally comfortable with moderate-speed speech (please don't spread; I won't be able to track what you're saying. If you're uncertain, assume I'd rather you go slower and I understand what you're saying).

Voting Issues: I'll evaluate the round based primarily on core issues you centered the debate on, but I won't ignore stock issues or blatant abuses of topicality (if topicality is brought up in the round). Communication skills are secondary to your actual argumentation; provided that I am able to understand your line of reasoning and your arguments, that's what matters most to me more than pretty speeches (though those are always a bonus).

Misc.: Roadmaps and signposting are crucial; don't trust me to inherently know what you're responding to based on context. I also prefer it if you reference a specific subpoint/tag as you respond to points + cards, because I often miss author/dates in favor of recording the substance of the card. I also have an auditory processing disorder, so clarity is important (don't worry; I catch most everything/can figure it out from context clues, but I appreciate clarity + general explanation if necessary in your speeches to help me out).

Email: wcornett@trinityacademy.org

Lincoln-Douglas

I am a pretty traditional LD judge. I want a focus on the moral obligations and the value/criterion framing. Make sure that your framing connects to the contention level. Any questions, feel free to ask.

Policy

Warrants: Whichever arguments are being read, whether evidence-based or analytical, the ability to clearly explain your warrants instead of just asserting stuff is what gets you ahead on my ballot and in speaker points. This should be obvious, but it doesn't always play out that way.

Aff burden: Defend the resolution. My bias is towards a policy plan, but if you can provide a clear and compelling framework for another way to support the resolution, you can certainly do so. If you do want to get creative, however, you will have to do work explaining your framing and why/how I should evaluate the round.

DA's & CP's: Core negative positions. Case specific links are preferable, but I'll vote on generic links if the neg explains how it applies to the aff and the aff doesn't give a good reason why the link is either untrue across the board, or there is something unique about their position that disproves the link.

It's going to take some work to show me that conditionality is abusive, but I'm willing to listen to the argument. As is true across the board, abuse claims are strongest if they are specific to what happened within the round in question.

T: I'll vote on T, but it's not my preference to do so. I try to strike a balance between competing interpretations and reasonability (i.e. it is good to explore multiple definitions and why some may be better than others, but if in the absence of the debate clearly demonstrating that one definition is preferable and the aff meets their own interp, I'm going to lean aff on T).

K: Don't trust that I will automatically know your literature. In addition, just because a literature base exist to claim something, I will need clear analysis from the neg as to why I should buy that literature base. Framework is generally going to be important for me. Is the K presenting an alternative policy action to be evaluated like a CP? Is it proposing an individual action on my part? Something else? Let me know. Framework debates will vary depending on the answers to those questions, but affirmatives have options to contest the viability of the alt, either based on the specific action being suggested or on the way debate rounds function and whether I should buy that accepting or rejecting ideas on my ballot has any real world impact (e.g. does policymaking or the k have more educational value/skill development; if neither have out of round impact, is there benefit to game playing or not?). I am more likely to buy an alt if it actually gives me a different policy or mindset to adopt instead of just telling me to reject a mindset.

Impact Framing: I find arguments that say "any chance of the link means you vote" to be rather weak. First, I find that debaters tend to describe the probability of their scenarios in terms that are not only not realistic, but have no objective basis whatsoever. It often feels like arbitrarily pulling a statistical percentage out of a hat. This isn't just about debaters overstating the odds of big impacts like extinction happening. The same problem exists (in either the aff or the k) in claiming that you have 100% solvency for racism or sexual violence. This probably puts me more in a probability first camp, less because I won't look at big impacts than because I want clear warranted reasons that your impact will happen before I look at anything else.

Voters: Assume that I will take you seriously about what you go for at the end of the round. What you go for in the 2NC will be what I focus my decision on, even if I thought you were ahead elsewhere. Importantly, even if you extend a card in the 2NC, but don't give me any analysis of why that is something I should be voting on, it probably won't be part of my decisions. Don't expect me to do the work of framing your voters for you.

Argument Interaction: Give me clear direction as to the way that your arguments interact with one another. If you are running arguments that contradict one another, give me explanation of why doing so makes sense. If you are running T and saying that the aff gives you no DA ground, how does that interact with any DAs you are running? Are you going to just simultaneous ask me to believe that your links are trash when I am looking at the T flow and awesome when I'm looking at the DA flow? Running both of these arguments together can be strategic in a number of directions, but I'm going to need you to clarify that by the end of the round rather than just leaving it unresolved.

Speed: I'm not the fastest at flowing, so give me clear tag lines. If the tournament allows it, I appreciate being on the email chain/receiving the flash of the speech.

Typically tabula rasa style judge. Whatever the direction and style of the round that debaters take on, I can go along. High school debater 2000-2002 at Tonganoxie High School. No preferences on speed or style, but would prefer clearly made arguments as opposed to speed for speed's sake. I flow rounds so I'll keep up either way.

Most rounds I judge will come down to fundamental debate/speaking skills, knowledge of topic, stock issues.

Experience: Head coach for 8 years at Wichita Northwest. Assistant coach for 3 years at Topeka High. Debated 4 years in high school. I have judged at nationals in debate/speech events 15+ years.

Speed: Okay with moderate to quick pace. Spreading okay on evidence BUT, I prefer slower and more deliberate pace with analysis.

Paradigm: I default to policymaker. Please tell me how YOU would like me to weigh the round.

Positions: I evaluate Topicality roughly on par with other issues in the round. I am fine with generic DA's as long as the links are explained clearly. CP’s and K’s are acceptable as long as text/links are well explained and maintain competition in the round. I evaluate the round pretty evenly between argumentation and communication skills. You have to have both the winning arguments and the ability to communicate them clearly and persuasively.

Novice Rounds: If this is a novice round, I expect to hear case debate and explanations. Please do more than read evidence. Explain what you are reading, what it relates to in the round, and how it advances your position. You should avoid arguing a disadvantage/counterplan/K if you have never read it before or haven't at least talked to your coach about what it means. Overall, I want to see clash and a debate about substantive issues rather than about how the other side debated. Focus on the arguments not on the opponents themselves.

Experience: I did 3 years of varsity debate in high school. 4 years of varsity forensics and attended national tournaments in both. Broke to octo-finals at NCFL.

Please send me your evidence/cases! My email is sidnie.davidson@gmail.com

Voting Issues: I weigh disadvantages versus advantages. If the negative team makes me believe that there are more disadvantages than advantages of the 1AC, I'll vote neg. I typically do not vote on topicality, but it's not off the table. I would just like you to focus mainly on Adv/DA's, CP's, etc. I vote mostly based on answering arguments, so use cross-x to your advantage!

Please remember to be respectful and keep things moving, especially with all of this being online.

I have been a coach for 13 years and most of those have been in a 3A school.  My paradigm is pretty straight forward for the Aff team.  The Aff should be able to uphold their burden of proof and respond to all Neg arguments.  I am also not a huge fan of K Affs.

The Neg side of the paradigm is a bit more in depth.  I believe every case is non-topical in some way shape or form.  I hate Generic DA’s and will not vote on them.  DA’s should be specific to the case if you want me to vote on them.  I like CP’s.  K’s are things I despise and loath if you run one I will not weigh it in the round.  Besides these things anything else is fair game on the Neg.

I prefer a moderate speed in the debate.  I should be able to understand you and be able to flow the round and see the clash of arguments.  I am not big on abuse arguments there is a time and a place for some of them but they should not be a go to argument.

I competed in HS during the 90's.

I coached at Shawnee Heights HS in KS for 11 years

I seldom think speed is a good idea

I am largely policy maker, at least in background

I do not mind debating debate, real world implication, politics, social issues or narratives

I want clash over just about anything else

I prefer argumentation over cards

it is possible I have become a grumpy old man

I will try to answer any questions and offer any support I can to help debate, debaters, and the round I am watching

I cannot stand teams that abuse their competition

I hate most everything about the K. I understand them, and know they are a thing and you may have them as a central part of you strat., so run them if you must. Just know that there is no such thing as tabula rasa, and my extreme bias will likely influence how I view things down the flow, even as I actively try to prevent it.

oddly I DO like a discussion of out of round impacts, role of the ballot, and real world impact of the activity/arguments

have never looked at cards-never will

In my final "get off my lawn" rant, I hate the time wasted between speeches dealing with or waiting on tech. I seriously don't care if it hasn't loaded before the speech begins. See---grumpy

I am been in public education for 25 years as a social studies teacher. I have volunteered to judge our local tournament for the past three debate seasons. Although I am educated on the topics for each debate season, I am not an expert. I like to hear a good argument being made and defended. When a debate gets "bogged" down with technicalities, instead of making/defending an argument, I tend to get frustrated as a judge.

I’m a head coach.

My priorities as a judge are based on equal amounts of communication and resolution of substantive issues.

My paradigm is based on skill, and I’m closer to a Tabula Rasa judge than anything else.

Fairly rapid delivery is okay, but if I don’t understand you, I will not flow your argument. It must be articulate, include tonal differences/variation, and have clear points. Tag lines should be short and to the point. I can’t flow a whole paragraph if you’re moving fast. You should keep an eye on me to make certain I am keeping up. If not, I strongly sugges you adjust.

I dislike spreading during Rebuttals. I do NOT find that persuasive at all.

Rudeness or condescension toward your competitors is never welcome. Part of what you're supposed to learn from Debate is collegiality, professionalism, and decorum.

Offensive language (curse words, slurs, etc.) is unnecessary and in most contexts, repugnant. There are a few, very limited instances where they might be ok, but would need to have a point far beyond the shock factor or emphasis.

Prep time is 8 minutes. You should be tracking your opponents prep time. If they are stealing prep, call them on it.

Counterplans are just another argument but should be consistent in the overall Negative approach.

Topicality is an argument that I will vote on if it’s ignored or dropped by the Affirmative, but it has to be pretty blatant for me to vote on it otherwise. I particularly dislike T args that use an obviously disingenuous interpretation.

Generic disadvantages are fine so long as specific links are clearly analyzed.

Kritiks are just another argument, though I prefer that links are clearly analyzed. Simply linking the other team to the kritik is not enough for me to vote on. There has to be a clear alternative. I am not well versed in Krit lit, so explanation is welcome. Aff Ks are tough because the topic exists for a reason and ignoring it entirely is outside the bounds of fairness. Somewhere in the argument should be an alt or explanation as to why we should a. Ignore the topic and b. That it is fair and reasonable for a negative team to be prepared for doing so in this context. Framing is crucial to this end.

Narratives/Story-telling/Performative/Poetry/etc. Is interesting, as my background is in Forensics and it’s where I began my coaching career, but Debatel has structure and norms. I believe these things have their place in Debate as they are all potentially persuasive, I would also need to know why you’re using your precious few minutes on something that is not an argument.

Debate is primarily about education and partly about fun. Try your best but don't take things too seriously, as we won't implement any of the plans based on how a high school Debate round goes.

Feel free to ask me questions for clarity or specifics on any of this.

Keeping track of your time and opponents' time is your job and part of Debate's challenge.

Please add me to your email chain: dunlap_johnny@443mail.org.

Educational background:

Bachelor degree in rhetoric and communication with a focus on persuasive effectiveness (Kansas State University - Manhattan, KS)

Master degree in secondary education with a focus in English language arts (Western Oregon University - Monmouth, OR)

Specialist degree in literacy leadership and assessment (Walden University - Minnepolis, MN)

Profession:

My background has a plethora of experiences in various fields. I teach all levels of high school ELA classes at Newton High School and am an assistant debate coach. Also, I've taught undergraduate composition and speech courses at a variety of local community colleges and currently serve as a consultant for graduate-level business communication coursework at Wichita State University and Alamaba A&M University.

Judging Preferences:

At heart, I am a 'flow' judge. I expect clear and respectful speaking that addresses stock issues and does not attack an individual debater or team. (Poke holes in the argument instead.) I am not a fan of counter plans since this tactic usually does not address Aff's presented arguments. Communication skills and the resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance to me. I prefer a moderate contest rate so long as the presentation is clearly enunciated. Please provide real-world arguments and if addressing topicality, be sure to pair it with other major issues addressed in the round.

For policy debate:

I am a stock issues judge with a focus on solvency. I will listen to topicality, justification, and prima facie arguments. I like to see a good analysis of case arguments in rounds.

I will take DAs into consideration for my decision. The more specific the link, the better, but generic DAs are acceptable if links are clearly analyzed.

I do not like CPs; they have to be run with strict adherence to the CP rules, and they are a last resort for negative teams.

I will never listen to Kritiks.

Even though I debated all four years of high school, I would like teams communicate their points without relying solely on debate jargon. Speed is discouraged, but tolerated if teams articulate clearly.

Hello

I am currently the assistant debate and forensics coach at Topeka Seaman School District. I have three years of High school experience in debate and over 9 years of judging/coaching experience. Generally speaking, I consider myself a tabula rasa judge. I vote on the arguments or framework presented in the round itself. Outside of tabula rasa, I tend to default towards a policy maker mindset. In terms of speed, clear communication and professionalism are important in determining who is the better speakers. In terms of speed, clear communication should be prioritize over how much information can be delivered in a speech. Counter plans are acceptable and should be non topical. When presented, they should be competitive to the affirmative case and mutually exclusive. Topicality is very important voting issue. To win topicality, negative team must present a compelling reason why their interpretation and violation meets the burden of the off being untypical. Generic disadvantages are okay as long as specific links are analyzed, but on case disadvantages are preferred. Kritics are acceptable in round if links are clearly analyzed. I prefer to hear case specific kritics rather than generics ones.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

4 years of high school debate; state novice, 1 year on state two-speaker, 2 years on state-four speaker. Judged for 5+ years.

Policy-maker.

I like to see impact calc during rebuttals.

I do not weigh an entire round on T alone. You may run it, but know that you will need to make other arguments as well. I don't like K at all. Any other type of Neg argument is fine to run.

Any speed is fine.

This is petty, but I can't stand it when someone says "is anyone NOT ready?" (Consider this a litmus test to see if you've read my paradigm).

I debated at a fairly high level all through high school in Garden City. I also actively judged for several years during college. However, that was twenty years ago. My ability to catch speed and terminology will hopefully come back quickly. I will default to policy-making but am open to anything. Please give me a clear roadmap, and I will flow along.

I am a data scientist, so I really like to hear your facts and hear your discussion of them. I prefer when a roadmap is laid out for how you plan to spend your time talking. I have no preference on speed, but just make sure to use your time so you can speak clearly and confidently. Please be nice and good sports, but always question the facts. The better questioning skills the better your argument is to me.

Side note: Decorum - Please pretend this is a normal debate. Be formal and be professional.

I did four years of 4A debate, and three years of mixed styles of collegiate debate (NPDA, IPDA, NFALD). We did fast debate, we did not do speed. I understand the difference. However, flashing me speech docs/email chains and being clear about when you switch cards has made my adaptation to you easier. I also understand that I'm not the target DCI/speed/critical judge, so I'm fine with being sped away from rounds if it's a strategic decision; I do my best to keep up, and I haven't squirreled because I've missed something yet.

I'm fine with all argument styles, there isn't anything I reject at face value argument-wise. I'll always give more weight to specific link analysis, especially if this is continuously pulled through with analysis through the debate. I'm also a big fan of impact framing and actually comparing the impact framing of the aff/neg as an additional lens to impact calculus. Putting lots on the flow is good, working the flow to your advantage is much better. However, I'm also very likely to vote on how you treat your opponents in round. For example, if you read a 15 card block to why I shouldn't care about trigger warning args, but ask the team "So, how triggered are you really?" in CX, I'll vote you down if the opp team makes it a voter.

I work for Pfizer. I do have a bias to not buy medicine/science DA's that aren't really rooted in science. Also, if you make claims like "AlL BiG PhArMa BaD" without any nuance or warrant, I probably won't be very happy. Sorry, they pay my bills.

I'm a lay judge and new to policy debate. However, I have done debate in the past so I have some understanding of arguments and how they should go. I don't like debates that are overly speedy. I will be primarily judging on arguments that follow facts and make sense. I will listen to almost anything, it just needs to make sense. Explain everything to me, I am a policy maker.

Hey so if you're viewing this little page on tabroom, hi, this is my paradigm. I'm much more official now.

Debate Experience

- Debated four years in high school (China, Education, Immigration, Arm sales)

- Debated and medaled at state a few times

My general paradigm is policymaker with a stock issue emphasis. This does not mean that if this is not your style you have to appeal to my policymaker and stock issue mind, it just means that if you do and if you're good at it, my heart will be happy. I believe that debate is a space that is creative, so I am open to listening to any argument as long as you explain it well. Please do not feel bound to those preferences, because this activity is supposed to be fun.

Random Thoughts that will benefit you to read

- any racism, homophobia, sexism, xenophobia will not be tolerated and I will vote you down if I see this behavior and speak to your coach.

- If you complain about new oncase in the 2NC, will not listen because it is a constructive speech, and you just waisted time you could have answered arguments. However, offcase complaints? Will agree, because offcase in the 2nc is abusive

-Topicality is fine! Just run it well and I'll listen. It IS a voting issue

- If you like K, read it! I am not familiar with K literature, so don't expect me to do the work for you. This is a communications activity

- I don't love theory responses to CPs or theory in general, but I will listen to it. For the love of god, if you make me listen to it please make it good. I hated theory debate in High School, but will not let that bias play into my decision

Essentially, just do your thing, don't be a jerk, and have fun! I am so excited to judge, and hope that I can be helpful with my comments on the ballot. :)

-

I have had minimal recent experience judging debate (but not none). I am highly educated and informed on most if not all common debate topics.

I am generally open minded and aware of my own biases which allows me to not be influenced much by them. I will caution against basing your entire argument on debate specific procedural/technical arguments. Absolutely bring them to my attention but then move on and argue the case on it's merits. The flip side of that means if you happen to make a procedural error, you still have an opportunity to win since I will not over-weight that one mistake.

One more thing - slow down. I know talking fast is encouraged but effective communication isn't exclusively getting the most information conveyed. Have a strong argument, present it succinctly and persuasively.

I did 3 years of debate at Garden City High School 10ish years ago, this semester has been my first time judging. I'm an attorney if that's relevant to you, but I would classify myself as more of a lay judge so I just have some general comments/preferences.

I am a stock issues judge, with a little bit of policymaker.

Of course I want you to read your cards and cite your sources, but I need a full analysis. Debate is about persuasion and reading me your evidence is the opposite of persuasion. Look at me and tell me why I should vote aff/neg.

I need roadmaps and signposts. It helps you stay on track and it is critical for my flowing.

I don't mind speed, but if I can't understand you I'm probably not voting for you.

If you're on the fence about arguing topicality just for a time filler, don't do it.

I don't mind kritiks, but I need you to break them down for me pretty well.

Don't drop arguments.

I look forward to seeing you!

Please include me on the evidence chain at: mcdubs06@gmail.com

My Background and Experience

I debated in high school from 1991-95 at Shawnee Mission East, in one of the states that has a Kansas City. I was a sponsor and assistant coach at East from 1996-2008 and 2019-20. I judged policy at NFL / NDSA Nationals in 1999, 2000, 2006, and 2008; and at NCFL Grand Nationals in 2006, 2011, 2012, and 2013. I judged PFD at NCFL Nationals in 2018. I’ve judged policy debate, LD, PFD, extemp, informative, and original oratory at invitational, state, and national qualifying tournaments for over twenty-five years.

For additional insight on my perspective, I have judged for several years the high school moot court (mock Supreme Court argument) competition held by American University School of Law as part of the Marshall-Brennan Constitutional Literacy Project. I also judge high school and undergraduate mock trial and undergraduate and law school moot court competitions.

I am an attorney for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; I am literally a policy-maker well versed in navigating the challenges of making policy under frequently conflicting congressional mandates. The first thing you learn in law school is that the answer to every question is "it depends." Justice Breyer recently answered the question "is a hot dog a sandwich?" by responding "sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't."

Policy Debate, Generally

Speed: I am handling speed better now we have evidence chains (in legal oral argument, you always submit written briefs to the judge). That said, the responsibility is on you to ensure you are intelligible, especially when using virtual platforms. I am also of the view that all things being equal, rebuttals should be presented at a slower pace than constructive.

Strategy versus Tactics: “Seven Off-Case” is not a strategy. Negatives would benefit immensely from having a bigger picture strategy that frames the story you want to be telling at the end of the round. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t run multiple alternative arguments – you should, however, be thinking three moves ahead. Also, time-suck arguments have strong tradeoffs. Both teams get equal time allotment so if the opposing team is wasting time on it that means you’ve wasted time you could have used making winning arguments.

Topicality: T is a jurisdictional issue and nothing more. As a lawyer, I believe in precision, but I am also of the view that high school policy debate affirmatives are not capable of being drafted with the precision of congressional legislation (nor should they be). So I’m willing consider reasonable interpretations. I also am willing to entertain arguments that the Aff is effects topical. I don’t get as excited about extra-topicality because Aff can always drop the offending advantage (by analogy to severability provisions in legislation where only offending provisions are thrown out by the courts, not the entire legislation).

Conditional Counterplans: I an attorney, the concept of burden of proof is fundamental. In my view, when the Neg runs a counterplan, it shifts the burden of proof from Aff to Neg. I liken it to an “affirmative defense” in a criminal trial. Neg can argue inconsistent alternatives because it does not have the burden of proof. If I am the defendant, I can argue that you failed to prove I did it, or that maybe Graham and Maddie did it. I cannot argue that I did it in self-defense, but if you don’t believe that, then Graham and Maddie did it.

There is no rational justification for allowing Neg, which starts the round with the benefit of presumption, to “take back” a bad strategic decision to run a counterplan solely because they are losing. If conditionality were sound debate theory, we wouldn’t spend seventy percent of the last two rebuttals arguing about it. If we view conditionality as a “rules” modification to enhance competition, there ought to be a mechanism for settling that before the round. We don’t change the rules of basketball with five minutes left in the game to benefit the team that’s losing.

Critical Argument: I have never voted for a Kritik. Over the years, I have developed a much better understanding of the various philosophies underlying most critical theory. My legal training also allows me to better evaluate and apply your arguments to the Aff case. Someday I will get there on Ks, but for the time being you run them at your own peril.

My biggest hangups: (1) the lack of a meaningful alternative; (2) related, as a policymaker I do not like being in a “why bother” position – if there is a harm that can be solved, why not do something? (3) Many philosophies underlying critical arguments are extremely complex; most high school debaters (and many college judges) don’t understand what they are arguing or hearing, apply extremely broad theories to extremely narrow policy questions; or just flat out misapply the theories to affs; and (4) As a policymaker I am predisposed to utilitarianism and economically rational decision making. The limitation of Kantian ethics is that the moral compass always points true north, but it tells you nothing about all the obstacles and dangers between you and where you’re trying to get. All along the way you have to make decisions that deontology is, in my view, ill-equipped to guide.

“Performance Affs”: I rarely vote for critical affs. I have never voted for a performance aff. My views on performance affs are evolving and transitioning, but I am still working on a coherent paradigm so you assume the risk if you run one. Hang ups include: (1) I don’t like “why bother?” debates; (2) I don’t like to be guilted into voting for one team or the other; and (3) I am not a fan of dismissing the conventions of policy debate as a meaningless academic simulation. The high school moot court competition I judge is tailored to inner city students in the DC area. The problems involve first and fourth amendment issues. Even though the competition is an academic exercise, participating students are better equipped to advocate for themselves, their peers, and their families, and these students are significantly more likely to have encounters with police and other authority figures implicating free speech, illegal detention, and improper searches.

Policy Debate – Kansas Novice and Open

Please be respectful to one another. Also, a “brief off-time roadmap” should take less than ten seconds. Just state the title of the position so we can organize our flows: “T, counterplan, politics da, advantage 2, solvency” Lastly, I am a policymaker. I view the stock issues not so much as a paradigm but as the elements of a prima facie case. If the aff doesn’t solve at all, it’s pretty straightforward. On the other hand, if the affirmative has a propensity to solve, neg needs a disadvantage to outweigh. Lastly, view every round as a free learning opportunity. At work, we joke that we always reserve the right to get smarter.

Public Forum Debate

My only specific observations are that PFD is not intended to be a college style policy round in a faster amount of time. Also, in online debate only one person can talk at a time. It takes a bit of fun out of the Grand Crossfire, but online when multiple people talk over one another no one is intelligible.

Lincoln-Douglas

[To be provided.]

Background

I'm currently a second year law student, who graduated from Northwestern University in 2017 and from Dodge City High School in 2013. My major in college was Sociology, with a concentration in Social Inequality:Class, Gender, Race, while my minors were in Psychology and Latin@ Studies.

In high school I was a varsity policy debater that qualified for State every year, but I did not continue debating in either college or law school. I have judged a few times over the years, but I have not judged this year's resolution, although I would consider myself well-versed in the topic of criminal justice reform.

Preferences

Actual Arguments:

Evidence dumps are not appreciated. While a team may get points deducted for not addressing big issues that their opponents raise, I do not believe that a team automatically wins because their opponent did not address every single miniscule argument.

Reading an evidence card is not making an argument. Tell me how the evidence applies or does not apply to the case.

Address the case at hand before jumping into off-case arguments. Tell me why or why it should not matter, don't just ignore it entirely.

I'm a bit rusty on policy debate lingo so play it safe and give me a quick rundown of what it is you're presenting: T, Ks, Disads, Counterplans, etc.

Courtesy:

All debaters are to be courteous, polite, and well-mannered. Not only to the judge, but to their opponents.

Please be on time.

Please be quiet and respectful when others are presenting.

Speed:

Speed is fine with me as long as you enunciate, speak loudly, and make clear when you are going on to another argument.

That does NOT mean you read every evidence card at your disposal; I want actual APPLICATION of the evidence to the case at hand.

Timing:

I allow speakers to finish their evidence card and/or argument within a reasonable time of their time being over.

I expect each team to time their own case prep and speeches, but I will keep an eye on this and will deduct if this is abused.

Questions/Miscellaneous:

Feel free to ask me any questions before or after the round.

I'm happy to provide feedback right away if asked, but I will not talk about the scoresheet to teams.

I have been an assistant coach for Andover for 15+ years and did debate in HS. I am fine with speed if you are very clear. Ks are fine, but you better make it relevant somehow. Otherwise, policy maker is my default.

If you run T, make it good. It is everything in a round and yes, grammar matters. Make it a voter and don’t drop it.

Have specific links to generic disads. If I 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. Counterplans can be topical but don't have to be; also you must convince me that you absolutely cannot effectively perm. The more generic the counterplan, the less I will give it weight in the round. Convince me that this CP is actually the best alternative for the specific harms that Aff addresses.

Don’t try to run nonsense “rule violations” that aren’t actually violations, as a strat. And if you try to tell me that the other team is “violating the rules of debate” be prepared for me to ask if you actually want to bring a formal complaint and stop the round.

Lastly, as a policy maker, I will take a very, very, hard look at the plan text (yes, including grammar and word choice). I don’t expect you to have answers for every single nuanced thing, but at least have basics covered (specific AoA, answers to funding, timeframe…etc.).

email: andreadmoya@gmail.com

I debated 4 years at gchs, I was an LD debater for Washburn University for a year.

I'm pretty traditional and very technical.

T- I love topicality arguments

Speed- I don't have a preference just slow down when signposting.

Kritiks- I don't have too much experience with K's and I'm really only familiar with intersectional fem and cap k's. If you can explain the alt well enough though, go ahead and run it.

CP's- Prob won't vote for a delay cp, run literally any other cp

I will not tolerate any sort of bullying, hostile, or inappropriate behavior.

Secret Permenter, B.A. in History and Political Science.

FORENSICS:

I have experience judging different events in Forensics. Do not have much experience with Lincoln-Douglas Debate, but ready to learn and grow! I have knowledge on the subject at hand and I know what is expected in an LD judge, so...

DEBATE:

3 years of debate experience. I am typically a Tabula Rasa or policymaker judge, but I am very fluid in my paradigm. If Neg is not presenting a counterplan, I will likely not judge as a policymaker. How you debate will determine how I judge. I am very open-minded in my judging.

Speaking Speed -- I do not mind fast talking/reading in a round, as long as the words are able to be understood. If you are talking so quickly that I cannot understand what you are saying/arguing, then the other team may not as well.

My biggest pet peeve is burden of proof. The AFF has burden of proof. It is up to the AFF team to Prove that their plan is worth winning and that their plan isn't as bad as the Neg team may say it is.

Another pet peeve I have is people who argue who is more credible than another. If your only argument against the other team's evidence is that you have a more credible source, it is not necessarily a strong argument.... Obviously you can argue that point, but it shouldn't be the basis of your entire argument.

Below is some information to help you understand how I feel about certain key components of debate. You are always welcome to ask questions!

Topicality/Theory - I am informed on what the current debate topic is, and I have experience in its relevance to the current world. Aff needs to have plans that are topical. Neg- if you argue topicality, don't just give me definitions because definitions can be argued to no end. Give me reasons as well. Why is your definition the best definition. How does the definition prove non-topicality.

Disads - Every plan, no matter how good, will have disadvantages. If you are upright about disadvantages, it shows me your case has actually looked at more than the positive sides. If you can't fit disads into 1Aff, then 1Aff should be prepared to offer them up in Cross if asked. If you claim to have no disadvantages, then your topic is not as researched as it should be.

Counterplans - I am not for or against counter plans. Counter plans can work well and win, but they need to be executed well. Do not enter the debate with a counterplan as your only course of action, and don't use it as a last resort. Good Neg teams will show that the Aff argument is bad and that there is a better route (i.e. counterplan).

Kritiks -- There is a time and place to do Kritiks and they can be a good argument, but explanations of Kritiks are going to be key. I may not know what K you are talking about, so it is important that you get me and the opposing team on the same page as you. If I as a judge am unable to understand the Kritik, how can I judge based on that?

Personal Stories/analytical arguments -- I do not mind the use of personal experiences in a debate, as long as you use evidence as well. Many personal stories can be supported by statistics and facts and therefore these things should be included. Personal experiences should not be the bulk of your speech or the bulk of an argument, but simply an anecdote to help your argument. Analytical Arguments are typically made when you know a specific set of facts/statistics, but might not necessarily know where you learned said information. These are okay if you have other points that back it up. I am not taking your personal word over the word of evidence found from credible sources.

Speaker points-

There are a few criteria I take into consideration when giving speaker points:

1. Whether or not you speak fluidly in a way that is both easy to hear and easy to understand. (Mumbling, speaking too quickly or too slow, and speaking too quietly can have negative impacts on speaker points)

2. How kind you are. I have been in debates where my partner and I received the highest speaker points because the other team was being rude, disrespectful, and yelling at us in Cross. I will not give high points to those who are disrespectful and rude in their cross, speeches, or otherwise. We are here to talk facts, not to belittle our opponents. I penalize rudeness toward other teams, toward eachother, etc.

3. Using your time. If you have 8 minutes to talk, I expect you use up as much of it as you can. Reiterate points I may not have caught the first time. Aff -- Sell your plan more. If you have finished counterarguing, make your plan look great. Neg -- explain your points, have more than one.

4 and final. Whether or not you have explanations. Both AFF and NEG need to read evidence AND explain how it applies to your argument/counterargument.

Current head coach for a high school debate team... I focus on the clash of a debate and enjoy seeing personal debate styles shine. Show me what you know!

Like I said, clash of the stock issues is important. If you are going to bring up DisAds, CP's, T arguments, make sure they have all of the fundamental parts.

If arguments are dropped, I will not automatically flow it to the other team unless it is brought up in the debate.

Overall, just have a fun debate! Good luck!

About me: I debated for 3 years at Mill Valley (2015-2018).

Please include me on the email chain: lauren.rothgeb@yahoo.com

Top Level:

Tech > truth, but I still like to see warrants of arguments extended and explained. I won't evaluate anything outside of the debate round.

Please remember that, although it's ok to get passionate during a round, a debate never warrants being mean. Be kind and polite towards your competitors. I take this seriously – you will lose speaker points if you are rude to others.

Delivery:

With things being online, I will need you to slow down. If there are technical difficulties with the audio that impede my ability to understand your argument, I will let you know. In general, I'll need you to slow down with more technical arguments. In the end, I believe debate is a performative activity at its core and should be treated as such. In addition, I prefer to see a few really well developed arguments rather than a flurry of barely supported arguments that simply serve to bombard the opposition. Build your argument strategically and deliver it in a performative fashion – don't let speed or a need for as many arguments as possible get in the way of that.

T:

I default to competing interps. I'm generally not the biggest fan of reasonability. I'm not super familiar with this year's resolution, so please make sure to keep your flow clean, to explain your impacts, and to be clear on what your interp includes or excludes and why that is a good thing.

Performance-based:

I'm not the most familiar with these args, but absolutely feel free to run one if you want. Just make sure to walk me through what your performance does, why it should happen in a debate round, and why it can't happen elsewhere, or is less effective elsewhere.

CPs:

Make sure if you run these that they are specific and include solvency advocates, and they need to be competitive.

K:

I am rather unfamiliar with this arena of debate, but if you enjoy this approach I would love to see it. Assume I'm unfamiliar with the specific texts you're reading. Be prepared to allot more time explaining your arg to me.

DAs:

Love these. The most important thing to me in a good DA is a strong link – really sell it to me.

Framework:

Make sure you explain specifically what the framework does to the debate round.

General stuff:

It's been a little while since I've been in a debate. I love to see all the different fun things you can introduce in a debate round, but just make sure you are explaining everything (especially the more technical things) clearly and concisely. This means slowing down and creating a story that is compelling.

If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask. Good luck and have fun!

This is my 3rd year judging debate.

I am mostly a lay/ stock issues judge.

Talking quickly is okay, as long as you speak clearly and pronunciate. Please be polite to one another; Refrain from talking over each other during CX, it makes it even harder to hear you, because debate is virtual this year.

I will vote on stock issues, but explain your arguments and do not drop them!

Please tell me where to put your arguments on my flow.

I DO NOT like counter-plans or kritiks, I will not vote on them.

Most importantly have fun & good luck!!

Thank you!

I am either lazy, or something of an in-round activist (or both potentially): after 1AC -- and assuming no glaring holes/prima facie case -- I am leaning affirmative, i.e., that is my presumptive framework. It's the negative's job then to give me impacts to voting aff., i.e., dissuade me, and/or offer counter framework for me to evaluate the round under.

Breadth over depth is fine in 1NC, but please be judicious in what you end up "going for" in rebuttals.

My goal is to be as impartial as possible, so tell me what your evidence says/means and do the decision calculus for me.

Background/Preferences

- I did cx in high school and college, and moot court in law school, but have not judged a round in ten years or so.

- Although I can follow it (and did it in college myself), please don't speed read. It's not real world, and will likely give you all sorts of bad habits you will have to break after college -- trust me!

I debated for four years in high school and did forensics in College.

I am currently the assistant coach at Moundridge High School in Moundridge Kansas.

Policy Debate:

I tend to vote policymaker, if there are no policy options in the round I will vote stock issues.

Individual Issues:

Counter Plans: I will vote for a counter plan both nontopical and topical.

Disadvantages: I will vote for a generic DA. Saying the DA is generic is not an answer that will win.

Topicality: Topically must be argued more than just in a 1NC Shell. If you drop standards and voter I no longer care about your Topicality.

Theory: I will vote on theory arguments if you have evidence along with standards and voters.

Kritik: I will vote on a K. I prefer ones that are in a policy framework but will consider any alt as long as the team defends the position.

I will not vote on just defensive arguments as a policymaker, if there is no reason not to try the plan then I will vote for the plan.

Lincoln Douglas:

I will consider the value and criterion debate first when weighing the round.

Your criterion should logically support your value.

Speed- LD is intended to go deeper rather than broader and more philosophical, your debating about interpretations, not plans. I don't think speed supports this kind of debate. Don't lose depth for the sake of speed.

Evidence- I think that evidence is important, however, a lack of evidence does not mean a loss. Empirical examples can be just as weighty as traditional evidence.

Both debaters are responsible for clashes, don't ignore your opposition's value or criterion. I don't want to hear a debate in a vacuum.

I am a former debater and have five years of judging experience with debate. I am a stock issues judge. Disadvantages are okay/allowable as long as their links and impacts tie to the Affirmative case. I never think Kritiques are acceptable/allowable in a round. I will only listen to counterplans if they are run properly and can be shown as to how they tie out from the Affirmative plan.

kmwhite@olatheschools.org

Policy:

I've been coaching in KS for about 15 years and debated in high school and college before that. It's been quite awhile since I've done much coaching and judging on the national circuit. I'm opening to listening to almost anything but don't assume I'm familiar with specific authors.

You're likely to be the most successful in front of me by debating in your comfort zone and doing it well. I'll list some preferences below but they are all flexible based on what happens in the round. Particularly smart, original arguments can persuade me to vote on just about anything.

I DO NOT want to listen to you be rude to each other. We're all in an activity that we enjoy. Please don't be rude or condescending.

Delivery - Speed is fine. I'll say clear or slow once or twice if you're too fast, but then if you don't adjust I won't keep it up. Please slow a bit during transitions to give me a second to process where you're going.

Round progression - Please narrow the number of arguments but deepen those arguments as you go along. Give me reasons to prefer your arguments that are based on analysis and warrants. Avoid answering developed arguments by just repeating a cite.

Topicality/Theory - I enjoy these types of arguments if they are well-developed and have warrants and impacts. I don't like blippy lists of theory or cheap shots where you read six quick perms and crow because they dropped #5. Tell me very clearly what I should do with your argument if you win it.

Policy impacts - I'm most comfortable evaluating rounds as a policymaker. If you don't specify another method, that's what I'll use. Focus on offense and impacts. I do believe it's possible to mitigate an impact or weaken the link to the point I shouldn't consider it. I have a slight preference for real-world, high probability impacts over low probability terminal impacts.

CPs - These are fine. I have a fairly high standard for competitiveness.

Ks - I like philosophy and enjoy listening to good K debates, but I'm not up on a lot of the literature. Please clash with the opposing arguments and explain exactly what I'm voting for and why. On the neg, apply your ideas directly against specifics from the aff case so I can tell you understand how the arguments interact.

Evidence - I prefer not to look at speech docs unless there's a specific point I'm trying to clear up. Debate is a verbal activity and I want to primarily judge what I hear you say. I will look at evidence if it comes into question.

I'm bothered by the increasing use of heavily biased evidence that hasn't been through an editorial process so please feel free to make source arguments or call their evidence into question. If I end up in a position where I'm comparing evidence directly because you're both telling me your evidence is the best, I will definitely take author's quals into account.

My speaker point midpoint is about a 27.5. If I think you had decently ok speeches, that's where you'll be. Noticeable strategic errors in argument choice or time allocation or delivery will reduce that, insightful arguments and solid strategy will bring it up. I don't mind open cross-x but if you stand up there silently while your partner answers all your questions instead of prepping, you'll both lose points.

LD:

My preference is for LD to be a discussion of philosophy and morality. That can definitely include evaluating outcomes, but don't assume that I'll always vote for the person who proves the "best" outcomes over somebody with a strong philosophical justification for their position.

I dislike both affs and negs who seem to be advocating a specific plan and whose argumentation seems mainly about poking very small and specific holes in each others' plans.

Due to the time constraints, I am much less likely in LD to vote on "gotcha" drops than I am in policy.

4 years of debate in HS, 1 year in college

Topicality is A Priori

Speed is whatever

No generic arguments

CP/Ks are fine if they fit the neg strategy

Email: dyates@usd313.org

I prefer speechdrop but do what you must.

Experience:

Head Coach @ Buhler High School

- Former Head Coach @ Nickerson HS 2019-2023

- Assistant Coach @ Salina South 2017-2018

- College: 4 Years Parli Debate, NFA-LD, and Limited Prep @ Kansas Wesleyan University from 2014-2018.

- High School: 4 Years Debate/Forensics at El Dorado HS (2010-2014). Did pretty much everything.

I am a huge advocate in you doing you. I will list my preferences, but know that I do find myself open to nearly any argument/strategy/style within reason. Please do not feel like my paradigm below should constrain you from doing arguments that you believe in.

• Be respectful and debate with integrity. Overt rudeness and exclusionary/offensive language and/or rhetoric will lose you my ballot.

• Substantive arguments and clear clash/organization is a must. I will not vote for unethical arguments (e.g. racism good). Please weigh arguments clearly and have a nice technical debate. Clean flows make happy ballots.

• Tech first, but not only tech. Immoral arguments will not win my ballot even if they are won 'on the flow'. Please provide a FW for weighing and evaluating the round. Don't make me have to decide why you won - you may or may not agree with my conclusions.

• I am receptive to framework and theory. I do not usually vote on procedural arguments on violations alone - extend and weigh your impacts on the procedural if you go for it in the 2R

• Kritikal arguments are good. I guarantee I like them more than you think I do. Explain your alt to me. RotB arguments take a second for my brain to process because I am a big ol' dummy, so I will want clear warrants for how and why the claim is true that my ballot does something.

• Alternative approaches (Performative Affs, K Affs) are okay but I am in all honesty less familiar with these approaches. Please explain to me the reasoning/justification for your methodology in plain-ish language if you go this route. Like the K, I like these arguments more than you might think. Please don't take my lack of exposure as a lack of willingness to vote on it.

• Please be clear on the flow. Also, please flow.