NSDA DISTRICTS HOA ONLINE TOURNAMENT

A few specifics for this particular tournament:

1. The rules at this tournament are limiting on judges viewing evidence. I very rarely call cards as it is, but in the event that there is a disagreement about what a particular piece of evidence says, make sure that you clearly reference which card it is. When referencing a card that’s being questioned, please read out a more complete citation including at minimum: author first and last name (if there are several authors, the first listed name and “et al” is acceptable), the name of the article, the name of the publication, and the most specific date of publication you have. If possible, please read out any questionable rhetoric from the specified card. Per the rules of this tournament, you SHOULD NOT include me on any email chains, or email me anything directly.

2. This tournament is a no disclosure, no verbal feedback tournament. In keeping with the rules, I will not disclose my decision or provide any feedback on your performance after the debate has concluded on the google meet call. Because all ballots are online, I will provide very detailed feedback there. If you need any clarification on my feedback or have any specific questions, feel free to have your coach email me directly with your questions.

INFO

aryn.m.barnes@gmail.com for all email chain and clarification purposes

BACKGROUND

I did LD at Liberty/Liberty North HS (Kansas City MO) 2008-2012, and NFA-LD (policy style debate) 2012-2015 at Truman State. I also coached several policy/LD debaters from 2012-2017. In 2017 I took a hiatus from speech and debate and am getting involved in the activity again in 2020. I judged policy and LD on an almost weekly basis from 2012-2017, both as a volunteer and hired judge, and have judged tournaments both at the local and national circuit level. As a debater I ran arguments ranging from: traditional LD, kritiks, theory, big impact arguments (affs/DAs), to performance affs.

PARADIGM

**OVERVIEW

This is a general look into my judging style. If you want to know about more specific arguments, see below.

As a judge, I’m pretty tab. I tend to believe that debate should be a space that allows people to engage in whatever discussions they find most interesting, and I will avoid interfering as much as possible. I put effort into setting aside my own personal biases to evaluate all arguments fairly. The only things I won’t evaluate are arguments that are intentionally damaging or offensive (EG something that explicitly advocates for discrimination, genocide, or hate crimes) and reading these arguments in front of me will likely result in an instant L. For evaluative purposes I tend to default to net benefits unless told otherwise. I am comfortable with speed, but it is very important to make sure you’re signposting/tagging important arguments as I’ve been out of the game long enough that my ear isn’t quite as attuned to speed as it once was. Impact weighing is also very important to winning my ballot. I’m lazy and generally vote for the side where I have to do the least amount of work to get to an RFD. You need to be talking about how all of the arguments interact. Good impact analysis could easily be the difference between a win and a loss for you.

Arguments I like hearing: creative affs, structural impacts, kritikal/performance arguments that link to the topic, creative theory arguments, and arguments with a case-specific link.

Arguments I don’t love: inherency, generic counterplans, spec arguments, minor repair, and other super generic theory arguments.

**SPECIFICS

Aff:
Anything you want. Impact everything to extinction? Great. Talk about structural violence? Awesome. Read poems or sing all of En Vogue’s ‘Free Your Mind’? Go for it. As long as you can tell me why this means I vote for you, I’m down.

Inherency:
This is my least favorite debate. For the most part, I’m going to impact inherency arguments as solvency D unless you have specific theory/voters that go with it. Unless you read something that says the plan text verbatim was just passed, inherency alone likely won’t be enough to get the W.

Topicality:
I’m pretty neutral on T. I’m not more or less likely to vote on it versus any other argument.

Theory:
Generally, this is a mixed bag. I don’t need proven abuse to vote on theory args, but without abuse I need the arguments and implications to be clear. The more generic your theory/violation is, the less likely I am to be compelled to vote on it. On the other hand, creative theory arguments that may not come up very often are really fun to see, and I’m more likely to vote on theory without proven abuse when the argument is well thought out and interesting.

On-case debate:
Case defense is very beneficial for impact weighing, but I’m not going to vote on defense alone. On-case offense like turns are always great.

Disads:
the more specific your story, the better. I’m not opposed to more generic disads as long as they clearly link to the aff.

Counterplans:
Not the biggest fan of counterplans in general. I tend to like PICs and agent counterplans the least, as in my experience most of these args seem low-effort. This doesn’t mean I’m more likely to vote against the arguments, I’ll probably just grumble under my breath about it during your prep. Specific counterplans are great, and if you’re going to read a counterplan it’s really important that you take the time on solvency to explain why the counterplan is the best/only option as clearly as possible.

Kritiks:
Kritiks are also fine. As a debater I tended to run Ks that talked about structural violence, rhetoric/language, fem, and narratives. I’m at least vaguely familiar with most Ks that have been around for more than 5 years. If you’re going to read a kritik based on the works of a specific philosopher (EG Baudrillard) you need to be very good at explaining your argument and the literature, as I have a weaker knowledge of the lit base when it comes to these types of Ks.

Performance arguments:
These are welcome. As mentioned under Affs, it’s important that you articulate why your performance is important and why it justifies the ballot.

Non-topical arguments:
I won’t reject an argument for being non-topical without your opponent telling me to (with impacted voters). In general, I prefer that your arguments are at least related to the topic in some way. If you’re going to read a non-topical argument and you want to win, it’s important that you can articulate both why your issue is so important that I should ignore the topic, AND answer all theory/T as clearly and cleanly as possible.

Anything else:
If you need clarification on any of this or you have a question about something I didn’t address, just ask me.

Hi! I have done debate for close to 6 years now and currently go to Fordham University. I am starting our policy team this year and also compete in APDA.

lbaughman@fordham.edu for email chain

Policy:

Top level:

Run whatever you want! Tech>truth, I vote on the flow. Exception: if you are discriminatory/offensive to marginalized groups, you will lose. I like creative arguments!!

I am a policy debater which means I am probably not the best judge for some Ks or K affs. If your thing is super high stuff, probably don't pref me-- not because I don't like it, I just might not be able to adjudicate as well as other judges in the pool. BUT if you get me as a judge, don't be afraid to run whatever you want!!

(More stuff on Ks below but tldr I have run and am comfortable with fem, cap, security. I'll try my best.)

In general, I probably care more about analytics than some. Carded arguments obviously outweigh BUT if you can warrant out your analytical case turns/why a dropped analytic matters I will vote on it :)

Similar to this— you will absolutely speak higher if you make smart analytics!

I'm good with speed, will clear you if I can't understand (analytics and tags). For most HS I prefer accessibility>speed, which means I won't speak you down for not spreading unless it causes you to substantially miss things in round.

PLEASE share speech docs and don't delete analytics from ur speech docs before sharing. It makes it harder to flow and isn't a great norm.

I think open cross is a good norm.

Args:

T: Generally if you think your case is untopical, don't run it (this doesn't include K affs) and if you think ur opp's case is topical, don't run T. Not a reverse voter but boring. Needs standards and voters.

Case: I actually do care about solvency. Negs pls call ur affs out for lack of solvency. Affs pls don't drop case turns bc then I'll be forced to vote on them. Please frame your impacts! Extinction doesn't always win but it does with no alternative framing. Impact defense>>

DAs: These are great, but tbh I hate generic DAs with unspecific links. If you can, please try to come up with something specific to the aff. Similarly, I don't love politics, but if you win on it i'll vote on it!

CPs: I love CPs! Run them well- in most circumstances, you need more than one line/one card.

K affs: I've never run a K aff, but I generally think they are valid/good for debate. Please make sure I understand what your arg is and why it can't be topical. Again, I'm probably not the best judge for this at high levels because I don't understand the minutia of your args, but if you want to go for it, go for it!

FWvK affs and KvK: I'll vote on either. I don't have many opinions other than negs should try to engage with the aff advocacy at least a bit.

Ks: I enjoy K rounds! So don't feel scared to run it if it's your thing. Negs: win the alt debate. Usually I don’t buy that rejection solves for huge impacts, but I’m willing to vote on debate space stuff or if you totally win your FW. Affs: win why you should weigh the aff.

Theory: I don't really care abt CP theory-- I default to drop the arg not the team. Generally won't vote that Ks shouldn't be allowed. Probably don't go for theory in front of me unless there's something egregious or it was totally dropped. If you need to run it, run it.

Have fun!! Debate is supposed to be fun :)

For APDA if anybody ever looks at this lol:

I tend to treat APDA kinda like policy as a debater so as a judge: make sure you have framework! Weigh args in final speeches! tabula rasa or wtv :)

I'd prefer you call tight beforehand because I don't want to sit through that-- but if its unavoidable, it's unavoidable.

For HS LD/PF

**I don’t know a ton of LD specific theory. I will be able to follow you but you will also have to spell some things out.

Fine with CPs and Ks, I think- but also explain to me what your args are and why you should or shouldn’t be able to run them if it becomes an issue in the debate.

I have experience judging and debating more “traditional” HS LD/ NSDA style LD with values and VCs.

I really appreciate speech docs! I’m not sure if email chains are a norm anywhere in LD or PF but it helps me follow along a ton. However if that’s not something you do that’s fine.

I am a parent judge and have been judging for nearly 15 years. I am most comfortable with, and have the most experience with, judging LD and PFD. I can hang with Policy, but I sometimes find it intimidating, mostly because of the spreading and the technical jargon (hint hint).

I believe that debate is first and foremost about communication. So, communicate! Break it down for me, be clear and concise about why your case is superior, tell me why your opponent can't win, and whatever you do--don't spread!

I also believe in professionalism. I am all for a spirited, passionate, even aggressive debate, but rolling your eyes, getting snotty or condescending, stampeding over your opponents' answers during cross, and/or laughing at your opponents is unprofessional and it will be very unlikely that you will win the debate if do those things. Also, part of professionalism is showing up prepared. If you come in scattered, don't know where your materials are, can't find your evidence, don't know your time limits, don't bring writing utensils, don't wear shoes (seriously, I've seen all of those things!), you're probably not going to win.

I heavily consider HOW you present your case, but I don't only consider the performative stuff. As an author and school librarian, I love a good framework, and have a deeper-than-surface-level understanding of how research and reliable sourcing works. I WILL pay attention to your evidence. If it's old, vague, partial, or especially if it's sketchy/unreliable/weird, you can trust that I will catch it. I like creative arguments, but I don't like dubious evidence.

Debate is fun and adrenaline-pumping, but it is also about learning and becoming skilled at critical thinking, communication, and public speaking skills that you will carry through life. Knowing how to research effectively and get your ideas across clearly and succinctly, all while acting in a respectful and professional manner will get you far (in both your next round, and in life).

Did I mention that you shouldn't spread? Don't spread!

Did policy in hs, two years removed now. I'm down for whatever, but if you're gonna spread give me the speech docs. You gotta tell me why you deserve to win (e.g. tell me why topicality is a voter and why I should consider it before everything else). Also please remember I have no idea what this topic is so explain jargon if ur gonna use it.

I'm a PFD Debater so my paradigms will apply mainly for PFD but can extend to LD.

Try to keep the debate professional, I don't care how well you argue as soon as I sense rudeness in questioning or in general from you I will immediately vote the other side on the debate.

As for actual debate, I don't enjoy frameworks, unless you can prove to me that is the sole voter of the debate and the only thing that matters don't try arguing it with me as the scope of all debates typically extend far beyond one voting issue. Keep framework to policy. I prefer stock args and creative args but make sure you can impact your arguments. Anything non-topical I won't even write down in my flow unless you can prove without a doubt it affects today's debate. Work on staying within your time, I allow a ten second grace period but anything after that I will mark down on my ballot and it will affect your speaker ranking. I'm not a cards debater, if you just read me card after card then I will stop listening. Explain to me why that card is impactful and the logical reasoning behind why it should be valued more than the opponents cards. Quality>quantity of arguments.

As for RFD, I weight debates on a few key points. First, what gets brought up all the way through the debate. Obviously arguments will get dropped or not touched on throughout the debate but try to keep the flow of your own arguments and extend them all the way through final speeches. Second, quality of cards. There are going to be some extremely biased sources and while I won't fact check every card you have nor does that bias affect me it's the way you're able to argue these cards that will affect this decision, try to make impacts from every card and bring them back up in final focus. Third and finally, speaking ability. I don't count against things that are obviously out of your control (ex. lisp, tourrettes, ticks, etc.) but try to sound smooth, even if the confidence you portray is false you'll look way better to me if you seem confident in what you're saying.

At the end of the day, debate is a competitive event and I expect both sides to come prepared and ready to argue for whatever side they get. I'm sure everyone will do great. Good luck!

Speech/Debate Experience - Director of Debate at Liberty Sr. HS in Liberty, MO. Debated policy debate in high school and have been coaching now for 6 years. I can follow above average speed (it's your responsibility to signpost/be clear) but I acknowledge this is a communication activity and see more value in quality of argumentation as opposed to quantity of arguments. I will be flowing but don’t expect me to do the work for you in extensions or weighing. Your speeches are the priority when determining what to evaluate.

In order to weigh something on the flow, you need to include warrants with your claims. You can tell me to vote on something but if I don't have a clear (and well extended) reason to accompany it, I will look elsewhere for a claim that does have a warrant included. A complete argument should include claim, warrant, impact. Extend warrants with authors - sure, they dropped Smith '22, but why does Smith '22 matter to the round? is a question you should be answering on every extension. Each side should identify and impact calculate the offense in the round as early as they are able. Do not expect me to do the work for you or to be as well versed on the topic as you, it is better to assume I do not know a term than to jump straight in and leave the judge behind.

I typically lean more towards traditional debate in that it presents topic specific education and clash. However, kritikal arguments are fine so long as the thesis of the argument is clear and the clash is evident. Case debate is my preferred style of argumentation and if the K can provide a good link story into the affirmative world. Alternatives of do nothing in general are boring. That's not to say that they can't win a round (Solvency takeouts alone function in a similar manner) but I always wonder how much more creative the alt debate could be beyond "stay in the squo".

Prep Time: If someone is not speaking, someone is running prep time. Per the event rules there are speeches, cross-ex and prep. Especially now that high school prep is 8 minutes instead of the original 5... please don't attempt to steal prep. It is your responsibility to exchange evidence efficiently (if online, establish an email chain before the round if you think you'll need it). I will not stop prep if you "say stop prep, I want to request evidence from my opponent's". Take care of that during cross-ex or email speeches before you speak. There are time constraints in debate for a reason, abide by them, don't try to bend around them.

Info:

He/They

North Kansas City HS, Policy (2018-2022)--Immigration, Arms Sales, CJR, Water

William Jewell College, NPDA/NPTE (2022- )

Call me Trent, please

put me on the email chain -- trentd434@gmail.com

Email title should be Tournament -- Round # -- Aff (School Code) v. Neg (School Code)

TL;DR

I'll flow what you say--do with that what you will.

***None of the preferences written below are strong enough to change the outcome of a debate, but adjusting to these preferences will increase your chances of winning, and most likely raise your speaks.***

tech + truth > tech > truth

Being rude/condescending will most likely lead to docked speaks.

I'll listen to almost any argument as long as it's not racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, transphobic, etc.

I am cool with speed, but you need to be clear. I'll say "clear" twice and then stop flowing until I can understand you.

Life (probably) has value. Extinction is most likely bad, but I'll hear what you have to say

I'll start at 28/28.5 and go up or down.

Post-round if you want. I don't really care. I should have to defend my decision just as much as you should have to defend your case.

Cool charts

Teams should adapt------------------------------X-Judge should adapt

Policy-------------------------X------K

Tech----------X---------------------Truth

X Counterplans aren't fair---------------------------X----Counterplans are fun

Nothing competes-----------------------X--------Summers 94

Conditionality good--X-----------------------------Conditionality bad

Reasonability----------------------------X---Competing interpretations

Death good is acceptable-----------------X-------------You might just be a bad person

DA

Yes. Da's are good and cool. Not much to say here.

Generic links can be okay as long as you contextualize them.

Turns case args need to be carded.

I have a high threshold for new 1ar arguments and must be able to draw a line.

Evidence comparison matters. It'll make me a lot happier, give you higher speaks, and make my decision cleaner if I don't have to sift through your card doc looking for warrants that you failed to make in the 2nr.

Normal DAs: L > I/L > U > Impact

PTX DAs: U = L > I/L > Impact

CP

Condo debate should be condo is good/bad - not sure there's a "good" number of condo

PICs are generally good.

I'll judge kick if you tell me to.

Read all of the perms but also put them in the speech doc.

Perms aren't advocacies; they are tests of competition, impact out perm theory.

I will listen and vote on all types of CP theory. Just win your arg.

K

I'm probably gonna understand your K--with that said, please don't expect me to know all of the lit of your K--explain it.

You should take the time in CX or a block overview to explain the story of the K. Performance style debate is interesting to me but you will have to explain your framework from the beginning.

Fiating your cap alts is funny and people should do it more.

If you go for pomo/deeper theory, I'll most likely need some explanation.

I default to weigh the aff vs the alt, but I can be easily convinced otherwise "Justify your epistemology and THEN weigh the aff" is my favorite counter-interp.

Reject the aff is not an alt. I'm not interested in voting for a K that has no coherent alternative worldview/path to action.

If you read a K you don't understand I probably wont vote for it

T/Theory

Be topical. Or don't. Just win why your approach is good.

I default to competing interps, unless told otherwise.

I truly believe that conditionality is good.

Trying to sneak in a 5-second ASPEC shell will result in a major speaker point decrease and going for it will warrant new 1AR answers because even if the 2AC drops your theory shell, convincing me to vote on ASPEC will require much more block elaboration that "Interp: spec your actor, ASPEC is a voter for clash and fairness"

Extra-resolutional procedurals are often frivolous and silly and should most likely lose to a predictability/I'm sorry I'll do it next round argument.

Disclosure is infinitely good. Please do it.

Case debate

Teams underestimate the importance of case debate. The neg should put lots on the flow on case.

Impact turns are one of my favorite arguments.

K Affs

The best K-Aff teams beat framework on a) a counter-interp with a strong defense of the resolution under their model or b) a convincing impact turn to neg standards.

I've noticed an increase of K affs without a real "ballots key" argument that should definitely lose to the ballot PIK. That trend is probably not good for y'all without a plan.

Please read the ballot PIK instead of frame subtraction.

You do you. Do what you like, and tell me why I care about it.

I'm sympathetic to framework. Procedural fairness is (probably) an impact.

LD

The closer to policy, the better.

PF

Please. No.

Things not to do

don't. steal. prep.

Don't say anything sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic-90% of the time auto loss, 100% of the time you will get as low speaks as possible

Don't use problematic language--Trigger warnings and alternate cases should be available in applicable cases.

Don't be rude to your opponents/teammate/me/other judges-Everyone has worked unbelievably hard, so you should treat them like it.

Don't refuse disclosure.

Don't be mean -- being an aggressive debater is amazing -- don't step over the line.

Don't shake my hand. Please.

If you have any questions email me :)

Hi! I previously did policy in high school & went to nats in policy. I’m pretty chill— I’d say I’m mostly a policymaker judge. I love CPs & going in hard on solvency. T is good too— but have all four parts. If you don’t have all four parts of T then you just ran it as a time skew & you wasted my time. Aff should always perm the CP. I’m not a huge K person but if you run one I’ll follow. Generic DAs are totally cool. You gotta have on case though. Also don’t put all off in the 1NC & then all on in the block. That’s dumb. If you’re good, you should be able to get at least 3 off plus on case in the 1NC. I don’t care how you split the block. I hate new args in the rebuttals. You also shouldn’t need new cards in your rebuttal, you should’ve taken care of it beforehand. The 1AR gets grace though— you’re responding to 11 minutes of neg speech. Aff better have good solvency & it better link to all advantages of the aff. If your solvency doesn’t link then you don’t get access to those advantages. All in all, if you provide me evidence then I’ll believe you. Good luck!

Hello there, I'm Caleb (he/him)

yes on the email chain please Calebwalkerrr@gmail.com

A little about my experience I debated policy all 4 years of high school at Raymore-Peculiar and I currently debate for Kansas State.

Run whatever you would like but if it is more nuanced or there is literature behind it then be sure to do some explaining. For context, I am a big fan of K debate and am familiar with things like setcol, cap, fem IR, and security. That doesn't mean you can't read anything outside of those just make sure you're doing good articulating why the aff does something not good.

As long as I have the doc you can go at whatever rate you want. but slow on the analytics or any other argument not on the doc.

Be nice, don't steal prep, don't clip, pretty simple way to not drop speaks

if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic intentionally then don't expect my ballot. If you say something messed up accidentally at least apologize.

flashing/emailing isn't prep but if you steal prep I will start yours without telling you.

Now onto the specific stuff- this is where the fun begins

Aff-

If you arent running a plan- no biggie, I run K affs myself so I'm a huge fan when we aren't talking about USFG policy, however, if you intend on reading a standard policy aff- I ran those for 4 years so I will be excited for those as well. I think affs should at least address some of the parts of the resolution instead of going off and doing your own thing, but if you're doing just that then just tell me why you should be able to.

Neg-

Run whatever you'd like, as stated before if it's a nuanced argument with a bunch of lit on it, just explain it and we should be good. But if you're going for some disads and case turns go for it!

FW-

I say this as a K aff debater, FW is a pretty solid argument when run right, most of my 1nrs are FW and Case so trust me I'm a huge fan. On aff, impact turns are awesome here, just tell me why you don't need to be topical or argue that you are- your choice.

CP-

I will say I did not ever run many CP's but I don't doubt the usefulness of them, I will say I'm biased, if you're running 8 planks, I'm inclined to not enjoy it as much but regardless, run it how you want. Give me a net benefit and don't let them get the perm and you're golden. For aff's, perm do both, and moving on isn't gonna work, make sure you explain how the perm does work and why the net benefit isn't exclusive for the neg and we should be good.

Disads-

Huge fan of DA debates, fast technical debates have a special place in my heart and I enjoy them, that being said, neg have all parts of your disad intact and do some good impact calc so I prioritize this over anything else and we should be good. Aff if you can keep your case at the forefront of the impact calc and address the disad how you see fit.

TLDR- Run whatever you are comfortable with, be nice and give good judge instruction- any questions shoot me an email- make a star wars reference and ill give you high speaks

I competed in policy debate for four years at William Chrisman High School. I currently attend the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), majoring in both Political Science and Gender Studies. I approach and judge debate primarily from the technical side of things, though I do value truth. In high school, I primarily debated policy-focused affirmatives and negatives, as that was the nature of my circuit, but I am comfortable with critical and theoretical argumentation, as well as stock issues if that's what you do. Ultimately, you do you, and I'll adapt.

Don't run extinction impacts. I will not vote on "destruction of humanity" that's the stupidest argument you can make and teaches no one anything. Game theory is silly don't run that either

Topicality is good if you carry it throughout the debate.

If the 2nc shows up and runs all of your arguments, I will vote for the aff then and there. Thats not fair to the affirmative and you're a horrible debate team if thats how you run negation.

I won't vote on dropped cards, only dropped arguments. Good luck!

CX all four years in highschool, one year of parli in college.

Love to flow, and impacts are v important.

I also love topicality, so if you choose to run it, please be sincere about it. And give voters!

You can gut check an argument, but I won't do it unless you tell me to.

Ultimately, it's your world, I'm just living in it. Do whatever you need to do to get that W

I was a high school NSDA competitor for four years. I competed in informative speaking, duo interpretation, program oral interpretation, poetry, prose, and expository speaking. I was a two-time national competitor, and in 2022, I was a NSDA national finalist in expository speaking.

I coached Speech and Debate for 12 years. I left K-12 education for a role in Higher Education. I've coached all main NSDA events, and most supplemental and consolation events. I've had TOC, NCFL, and NSDA qualifiers in both speech and debate events.

1. I will flow the round. I prefer less speed, but as long as I can understand you, it won't be held against you.

2. PF and LD are not Policy. Please do not include plans, counterplans, or the like.

3. LD is a debate of value, so please convince me why your value is more preferable.

4. Please don't let the round end in nuclear war, unless that's the topic.

5. Any abusive language or behavior will get you a loss. Period. I'll probably also contact your coach.

6. Humor will get you everywhere in life. It isn't a standup routine, but if you make the round enjoyable you'll be a lot better off.

7. I will never give my decision at the end of the round, unless required to do so by the tournament.

8. Don't abuse prep time. We all have lives, so please be respectful of everyone's time.

If you have questions, please email me at katyschwartzdrowns@yahoo.com

Rachel Thibodeaux

Email Chain: r.thibodeaux99@gmail.com

FC 2018-2019 Parli & Policy Debater

CSU Long Beach 2020-2022 Parli & Policy Debater

CEDA & 2x NPTE Competitor (National Rank: 14th lol, as if that means anything)

MY BACKGROUND:

I am a former burnout parli and policy debater. That means that I have not read a single news article, listened to a single political podcast, or read a single scientific journal since graduating. Instead my time has mostly been spent going clubbing, raving, and traveling.

How many rounds do I have on the topic? Zero :) cite & explain the context of your evidence.

During undergrad I was barely a K debater and sort of a soft left aff debater. While a lot of my advocacies were v performative aka "embrace eroticism", I truly like hearing straight up policy debates more often than not, or at least I'm prob the judge you want in straight up v K debates. My current mode of thought tends to be more of a pragmatist. I see debate as educational sure, but I also am the type of person that now defaults to believing the state to be inevitable, etc. Rachel as a judge is a lot more grounded and lukewarm than Rachel as a debater.I am not a fan of Theory debates just bc you can. If you run like 6 off with most being theory I'm probably going to tank ur speaks, but I won't necessarily vote you down. With that being said, I don't see debate as a game, but more educational than not. Usually my impacts talked about the educational importance of the type of knowledge we produced in a debate round. I believe that to be true.

MY PARADIGM:

Role of the Ballot: You define what the role of the ballot is. The duality of debate is this: there are rules meant to be followed and rules meant to be broken, neither being mutually exclusive. Tell me how I should be voting, I am fine voting in nontraditional means as long as you win the argument that is how I should vote. This means evidence and reasoning. Although I try to be as impartial as possible, I still have a few methodologies that I default to when deciding a round:

Please have clear spreading before you try to pick up speed.

Extend your arguments to keep it in the debate. If it isn't extended, I won't vote off of it. That also means if it's brought up in constructive but not extended in rebuttals... well...again, won't vote off it. Especially true for the 1AR 2AR speeches.

Weigh your args. I need to see some impact calculus. A round can be changed all based on the framing of args. Explain why the arguments you're winning outweigh the arguments your opponent is winning. With that being said, try to keep framing grounded in the reality of the debate.

Evidence. Go beyond the tag and tell me the story of the debate.

Feel free to run a K or K Aff. A good link story is everything! For the K Aff just throughly explain how your Aff links to the topic, if that is your Strat. If you reject the res all together that's great! Let me know why your education is critical to the round and/or why procedural fairness shouldn't matter. I give the Aff a lot of leeway and T usually goes for Aff (I don't like you throwing out Ts just to waste time and if its clearly a topical Aff, don't do it).To win the K, you must be able to tell the story of the alt effectively. I need to be able to see what the alt tangibly does and how it would change the world, the debate space, etc. That doesn't mean I think alts are vague, that means I think debaters are vague about their alts. Key distinction.

Identity/Race Args: Love them. Will be sympathetic to them, but I have and will vote against them. Good debating comes first before the argument ran however Truth > Tech. I don't equate good debating to purely tech. I've met lots of good debaters who maybe are losing the line by line, but know how to tell the story of the round so that they still win. I love arguments that especially talk about queer theory (pls no straight-up Edelman :'( ive heard him so much), eroticism, and latine/latina identities. However I'm not a fan of identity politics. If your arg is centered around you needing to win because of your identity, that won't win me over.

Don't run identities args you don't identify with. This reproduces marginalized communities' suffering as fungible in order to win a ballot. Lame, I'm not a fan.

Cps. Run your CP. I'm not particularly convinced by condo bad theory and probably won't vote on it unless someone is running more than 3 advocacies...even then...eh. I'm a firm believer in Neg Flex, so you'll have to do some more work on condo bad for it to be a voting issue.

Theory. Please slow down, theory tends to have extremely condensed arguments and because of that it can get blippy. I'm most likely not the judge you want to run more than 3 theory sheets on. I have a high threshold for theory because I see proliferation of theory as harmful to the quality of debates. That being said, don't be afraid to run theory if it makes sense to you, just be prepared to justify it.

How to get high speaks:

-Don't give me roadmaps (I like to be surprised :^D)

-slur the tags ❤️

-Run Ks you made during pre-round prep

-read my partner's fw cards during the round

-actually just read my entire eroticism shell word for word I love it

-spend your neg block telling me the role of the neg bc i obvi have never debated

Okay actual speaks:

-any edm reference: nghtmre, illenium, zedd, mvse, subtronics, audien

-honestly if you're funny I'll give high speaks

-be smart over being aggressive (probably my biggest regret as a debater was taking things too seriously, have fun and let your arguments speak for themselves. I promise you a smart argument doesn't need an overly aggressive debater to win the ballot)

Who am I-

I debated Lincoln Douglas For three years in high school and public forum for one year. I have also attended a few camps. Senior year I was a part of the varsity group teaching the new novice how to debate Lincoln-Douglas. I also competed at the national tournament in World Schools, where I made it to the top 60 in the nation. I now debate Parli debate on the NPDA Circuit at William Jewell College.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm:

Speed-

I prefer rounds focusing on impacts and warrants rather than the number of cards read. With that being said, I can flow faster rounds. If you are going to talk fast, I ask that you enunciate and speak clearly.

Prep-

Prep time is provided either by the tournament or follows the NSDA unified manual. Argument clarification takes place during the cross-examination, not during prep. If there is anything else that you feel belongs in prep, please ask first but expect there to be little wiggle room in this regard.

CX- This is quite possibly the most crucial part of the round, I don't flow questions or arguments directly but rather on a separate sheet so I can see what arguments make it out of CX. CX is the time to make arguments and win them or potentially lose them.

Arguments- Run theory or really anything you want, just make sure you explain it fairly well, counterplans are fine, but preferably tie it into morality.

Public Forum Paradigm:

Just the same as LD, make sure you let me know before your first speech which code you are and what side you represent. The only other difference is no plans/counter plans; of course, generalized practical solutions are always welcomed please just make sure it's not a plan/CP.

World Schools Paradigm:

This is an awesome style of debate, but it is very different from the other main events. The best way to win my ballot is to tell a story throughout the round, a good story in world schools is more important than an underdeveloped argument. This being said strategy is only 20% of my ballot in world schools.

General rules:

POI's should be agreed upon before the round begins(how they will be asked, accepted, and rejected) Don't waste time on accepting points, if you aren't taking it don't say, just wave them down, do not be rude about this. If you are asking a POI do not waste time, this is not your speech, ask a question or make a statement and sit down. Do not harass the speaker by asking POIs within 20 seconds of one another.

Treat speeches like an oratory, IX, or USX speech. Make me laugh, cry, and question morality, and you will probably score high speaker points.

I will rate your POIs and speaking ability in the style category that makes up 40% of the ballot.

Role of prop:

The prop's role is to set up what the debate will look like, and set the foundation for every speech that follows. Please make sure you have a model for the Opp to debate. There is nothing more frustrating than having a messy debate for both the teams and the adjudicator, providing a model at least provides some guidance for the round. Remember that you have the burden to prove and support the motion no matter what kind of motion it is.

Role of opp:

Your burden is to prove the motion wrong in a significant minority of cases. Run a counter-model and tell me why to prefer it over the prop's model. Make sure that any attacks on definitions or framing come in the first speech. They can be extended throughout, of course, but you really should start in the beginning to allow the prop to respond in their second speech rather than their third.

Overall:

I look forward to seeing an awesome debate!

Speaker Points(WSD):

30(75) Flawless performance I think you could win the tournament

29(74) Really impressive debate defended as much as they attacked

28(73)Covered all of your bases and came prepared

27(72)Were strong on one front but weak on another

26(71)You seemed to be familiar with the topic but couldn't defend your case

25(70)Arguments were made without confidence or with little support due to a lack of preparation