I was a high school debater and have judged debate at least once or twice a year for the last 20 years.

I prefer to judge rounds based on the validity of arguments and evidence that supports those arguments.

I don't like to base decisions on topicality (especially this year) unless it is abundantly clear that a team is pushing the limit of topicality and the negative can prove it. Even then, I like other arguments in addition to topicality.

As a judge I focus on communicative skills more than the resolution issues.

Skill emphasis is what I judge the most on.

As far as your speed, as long as you can be understood and are fluent speed isn't an issue.

Counterplans are rarely acceptable.

Topicality is rarely important; violation of topicality must be fairly blatant to win my ballot.

Generic disadvantages are acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

I prefer specific real world arguments.

I Debated 4 years in HS and currently debate in the NFA-LD (1 person policy) circuit at Washburn University. Email is huntersquires4@gmail.com for email chains/more explanation on a decision/questions about NFA-LD and Washburn

I don't have a strong preference in types of arguments. If your argument is better than your opponents and you explain better than them why that gets you the ballot you'll win the round. I like listening to unique arguments so if you've been wanting to try something new or odd out it wouldn't be a bad idea to read it in front of me. Just make sure it makes sense...

Please run whatever arguments you are best at/make the most strategic sense in the round. If you get done reading this and think "He isn't going to like our strat" you are probably wrong and you should read it anyway.

Like most judges, I try to be as tabula rasa as possible, but everyone has experiences in and outside of debate that influence decision-making. Any judge that tells you they are purely tab rasa should not be trusted, because it is impossible.

The role of the judge is to be mostly robotic, but there are some exceptions. First, I will do my best to protect the 2NR. Second, I may intervene if you are being violent/threatening.

I usually assume that implicit statements/assumptions are true unless they are argued against. For example, if neg reads T and says non-topical affs collapse debate, they are implicitly arguing/assuming that we should preserve this space. If the neg doesn't impact turn that, I assume everyone agrees that the space is good, so I wouldn't say in the RFD "Idk why we need to preserve the space so I'm not voting for the neg on T." That seems pretty interventionist. The same concept applies to extinction, suffering, and whatever else isn't contested.

This logic also applies to things like links. If in the 2AR and 2NR both teams tell me I'm just weighing the impact of CC on the aff's ADV vs. Impact of Econ collapse on the neg's DA, that's what I'll base my decision on, even if I don't fully understand how the aff solves or how the DA link works.

I won't judge kick unless I'm told to. If we are going to have a judge kick debate please give actual warrants. If this debate is one line from both sides I probably will judge kick but don't put me in that position.

But on specific arguments

T- On the neg, make sure I know interp, violation, standards, and voters. Cards are cool, but not totally necessary usually. I lean towards competing interps.

Theory- Like T, I should clearly know the interp, violation, standards, and voters. I like weird theory arguments, and also think they're strategic. I'm very sympathetic to solvency advocate theory.

Case- Defense is good, but make sure you're generating offense because I probably won't vote on presumption except in rare scenarios because try-or-die makes sense.

Disads- I don't really care about specific links as long as you can prove that the aff does link. A lot of the time a specific link will be able to show this better but if the generic link applies I'll value that as much as a specific link.

CPs- Make sure you have a good net benefit for your CP. Presumption flips aff if you go for this. Perms are a test of competition.

Ks- Ks are one of my favorite arguments when ran well. Please just understand what the literature says (or seem like you do) if you're going to run this. I know a lot of lit but don't assume I know your lit. I'm most well-versed in arguments from the Baudrillard vein, especially semiocap. You can also ask me how much I know about your genre of K before the round if that changes anything.

I've found that when I'm looking at a paradigm as a competitor a sliding scale is very useful so I'll implement one into my own.

Policy------X----Kritik

Competing interps----X------Reasonability

Condo good---X-------Condo bad

Perf cons bad-------X---Multiple worlds good

Presumption--------X--Try-or-die

Speed good--X--------Speed bad

Cheater CPs good (Consult, delay, etc.)-X---------Cheater CPs bad

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

I will read all the ev----X------You have to point out things you want me to read

Disclosure good-----X-----Disclosure bad

Summary- Run whatever you are the most comfortable running. I think every type of argument in debate has a valuable place. In your last speech tell me what you win and why that makes you win the round. I need to know why to vote for you.

Most importantly, don't make debate a negative space for anybody. Don't be rude to the other team and don't have your objective be to make the other person feel dumb and want to quit. Sometimes one team is a lot better than the other team. If that's the case just be nice, take the W, and move on to the next round.

Being mean is a voter :)

Tabula rasa

Policy oriented, but I'll vote on what the debaters tell me carry weight in the round.

Topicality: You need to have a topical aff, and if it's borderline topical you need to have a good defense of it. I'm all for teams looking to test the boundaries of the resolution, but it does need to be within reason. Don't just argue definitions, bring your standards and voters into play.

DAs: Love em. Bring as many as you'd like each round.

Ks: Not a huge fan but if you explain them well I support them.

CPs: Explain why they're competitive.

Stock Issues: the case debates always interest me, the more clash the better.

Introduction

I'm an undergrad at Kansas State University studying psychology. I did policy debate for all 4 years of high school - growing up in Kansas, most of my experience was at smaller local tourneys but I also competed at a decent number of bigger tournaments and was successful at the state level each year (including a 2-speaker championship my senior year). I've been judging ever since I graduated, and I love it! I'm comfortable judging any style you want to throw at me (however, the fact that I'm not debating in college should give you some insight into what style of debate I find most palatable).

General judging philosophy

I want you to tell me what to vote on. I strive to go into each round tabula rasa to avoid bias (which I believe is very important for judges with experience). If I don't get anything from you, I usually default to policy maker. I definitely have opinions of my own (as you'll see in this paradigm), but I only judge based on what is presented in-round and try to keep my own opinions and beliefs out until I need to.

Speed/presentation

Spread like crazy only if you can do it and only if you're doing it for a reason. I'm not against spreading, but it's up to you to do it well. Be careful, though - if I can't understand you, you're defeating the purpose of spreading.

Even if you do spread, you should still follow basic guidelines of presentation. Clear tags, variation in tone, and especially clear citations (I expect to be able to understand the card's author's last name and year of publication at the very least). These things go double for the 1AC and 1NC! 1ACs should be well-rehearsed and 1N speakers should have their go-to DAs, Ks, or T-shells polished up pretty well. I also expect well-presented weighing and conclusions in the 2AR and 2NR.

Relying on jargon is generally lame. I understand debate jargon, but I would prefer that you use real words. Saying things like "condo" when you mean "conditionality" is just as goofy as saying "poggers" out loud. I won't dock you speaks for using jargon, just consider this a tip.

Case

I won't lie, case debate is the most entertaining part of this activity for me. It's valid to run an aff without advantages, but to do so is to leave tons of aff ground on the table. I really dislike massive, sweeping advantage or disadvantage impacts. A minor education plan will not solve racism, and a small prison reform will not cause nuclear war. I guess what I'm saying is that your impacts have to make sense, otherwise your credibility breaks down.

Here's a few specific case-related paradigms:

- If there is not some kind of impact-based argument, then your other arguments will most likely fall flat. Keep in mind that critical arguments can still have impacts.

- You absolutely need to win a DA to win a CP.

- Elements of the neg do not need to be consistent with each other (i.e. a DA with a big impact does not automatically invalidate T on substantially)

- I am OK with both linear and unique advantages and DAs, and I appreciate clarification for which type you are running.

- I won't stop you from running any type of CP, though I will warn you that PICs, consult CPs, and funding/enforcement CPs aren't very persuasive to me.

- I love good impact calculus. Weighing the round for me is the best way to make sure I vote on what you want me to vote on.

Topicality

I don't think I've ever voted purely on T, but in some cases I've really wanted to. The problem with T is that people often don't know how to run it. I am extremely familiar with the workings of a topicality argument. If you don't understand the mechanics then chances are low that you'll win on it.

Here's a few of my specific paradigms regarding T:

- I prefer very specific definitions. I can't tell you how bored that Webster definition of "substantially" makes me.

- Your violation is the centerpiece of your topicality shell. If your violation reduces to a circular argument like "they're not substantial because they aren't substantial" then you're not going to get me to vote on it.

- Aff reverse voters hardly ever work. I am totally cool with you running non-voters and reverse voters (i.e. "you shouldn't vote neg on T, but their T strategy provides reasons to vote aff), but only running reverse voters is a bad idea.

Kritik

Once upon a time, I was a freshman in high school running a case about reducing surveillance of FDA workers to end the suppression of whistleblowers within the organization. Neg team ran race K, fem K, and bataille K. Does that sound ridiculous? it was.

I will be completely blunt with you - most kritiks are lame. It pains me to say that, because I like Ks a lot. I think I was the first person in the history of my high school to run a K, much less win a round on one. The problem with most kritiks is that people tend to vomit them up as time-sinks without even trying to prove their link. This is a blatant attempt to trick the judge into voting for you because you use big kid words. This does not work on me - in fact, it's the fastest possible way to turn me against you.

Here's a few of my specific paradigms regarding Ks:

- Just like T, structure is incredibly important.

- K of debate is inherently hypocritical as you're trying to win a debate round with it.

- K of case is the safest bet with me as it is the easiest to link.

- You will not be able to convince me that performative debate doesn't deck education. I don't want to see it. However, I will hear a legit K of P if the link makes sense (this is what I did in HS so I have a soft spot for it).

- Just because I focus on links doesn't mean your alt doesn't have to be pretty close to perfect for me to vote on it alone.

- Critical affs can be interesting. Again, I am in no way opposed to the concept of critical debate!

Theory

Again, I have hardly ever voted specifically on theory. That doesn't mean I don't want to hear theory. I used to run it all the time. If there is abuse in the round, I won't vote on it unless the abused team knows to check it on the flow - this is frequently done with theory arguments. I prefer debate to be more down-to-earth, so theory arguments that are way out there are off-putting to me.

Miscellaneous

- Both teams should divide duties equally. The speaker order is the way it is for a reason. Debate is a team activity for a reason. I find that I almost always vote against teams that don't divide responsibility well. I won't vote on your team dynamic (hey, I don't know y'all) but it's in your best interests to work as a team. This especially goes for neg teams - I expect both constructives to be packed full of new arguments. If the 1NC leaves the 2NC with nothing to cover, then the 2NC is a waste of 8 minutes.

- Fill your time. This is mostly a problem for new debaters, but I see minutes of speech time left on the table in open rounds too. I touched on this a bit in the previous point, but debate is healthiest when both teams are filling up their speeches.

- I flow, but I'm not really a flow judge. If a team drops something, I'll notice, but I won't vote on the drop unless the other team calls it out and analyzes why the drop necessitates victory.

- I have a very strong nose for generic attacks. If your aff case/DA/K/anything else is straight out of this year' Northwestern debate camp or Baylor Briefs or whatever, I'll know. Generic attacks can serve you well if you back them up with original thought and great link analysis, but they can also be used very lazily in place of original attacks.

- I have zero tolerance for ad hominem attacks. Do not try to make your opponent seem like a bad person. Do not try to make your opponent seem stupid. Debate is an artificial space created to explore ideas - sometimes, people are forced to argue things they do not necessarily believe. I will give you bad speaks if you mistreat your opponents.

- Be clever, but always argue in good faith.

I’ve judged 8 debate rounds in the last 4 months. Before that, I had no debate background. I try to be unbiased while I’m listening to the debate and the scores will reflect this.

I debated four years in high school and four years in college. But it was many years ago. Since then I have judged debates over the past 30 years. But it is probably wise to consider me a lay judge. I was trained as a stock issues debater. The slower the better, including 1AC. Look at me as much as possible. We did not use a lot of counterplans and critiques were not a thing then. I am a dinosaur.

TLDR - 2023 Update (Nov 22, 2023): Debate well. Don't drop arguments. Don't be mean. If both teams do something wrong. each of you gets equal leeway (only applies to dropped args, not being an -ist). Run what you want to run, I'm good for a lot just say it more than once if you want me to care, don't leave it in the 1NC and expect me to just pick it up in the 2NR. Stock issues are not my favorite as an argument on its own without justification. That goes with any argument, if you are willing to make it, be ready to justify it with warrants, analysis, comparison, calculus, and explanation as the debate progresses. If you have time, this video is great on how I and many other judges feel about judging https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC5RTXQemPs&ab_channel=BillBatterman

Me - Pronouns He/Him: Computer Science Undergrad @ K-State,

Background: Currently with K-State College Policy Debate, 4 years HS Policy, 4 years Congress, 1 year PFD

Qualifications for the topic (2023):
I have judged at least 10 rounds this year on the topic throughout the semester and worked at the K-State Debate Camp. Don't assume I know enough about your aff or your DAs to throw around jargon like GND and JG a billion times without ever saying what your acronyms mean.

Contact info:

Contact me with any questions after the round: djrdec30+judging@gmail.com

Add me to the email chain if that is what you decide to use for file sharing. I don't care if I get documents before the speech. I want to have them in case there is a dispute in the round.
UPDATE: I have used and love speechdrop too. If you all decide to use speechdrop.net then make sure I get the code for the same reason I want to be on the email chain.

Evidence DISCLAIMER: Do not expect me to read all of your evidence in depth after the round to make my decision. If you want to dispute something, make it known. If you want me to remember it, say it in your rebuttals. For novice I give some leeway but if the other team is better with keeping a clear and consistent story they will likely win.

Defaults:

I default policymaker in most cases (see K debate). If you present a K, consider me tabula rasa. If you want me to vote a certain way, tell me and tell me why.

Stock issues alone don't give the negative an INSTA-WIN. You still have the burden to prove why your argument matters. Topicality is a separate issue. Yes it is a stock issue, but it is also a procedural which you need to explain. There is an epidemic of T arguments that have no impacts(education, fairness, ground, clash...) in the 1NC and they often get forgotten later so debaters expect me to just vote that they read a card and the Aff loses, no thanks. Also, claiming "we read a card against their solvency, therefore they must lose" is far less convincing than "this is a terminal solvency deficit that makes it easy for you to vote on a low risk of the disad". Reading something on Inherency that they drop is an easier ballot but explain why, I won't do that work for you.

Example: Saying "they don't have solvency and should lose" when all you read was "companies circumvent" is not convincing. I will weigh that as a deficit to solvency so they likely solve something but not as much as they claim. Now, Inherency can be convincing sometimes. In the water topic, the cases that said "we want to fix lead pipes" were beaten by teams that said "Biden has money and resources for that in the Infrastructure Bill". But again this was the 1AC plan will literally be done in a month. So, unless you can prove 98.9% these things are true, then I'm unlikely to vote on it. If you say Biden could easily pass the plan, then tell my why I can't vote for them because of that. Speed is fine but I get the right to yell clear and stop flowing if you are unclear.

Speed

I will listen to any speed you want to throw at me. The clearer you are the more arguments I will have on my flow. If you do not clearly indicate when you move from one page or card or arg to the next I will do my best but it is your job to make sure my flow is clean and clear. A simple solution is a louder AND, or NEXT OFF, or GO TO ADV 1...

K Debate:

I am a K debater (aff and neg) in college (go 'Cats!), so run what you want but explain it like any other argument. Dumping a Cap K on some 2nd-year debaters and saying Marx will save us all probably is not accurate to your authors, and you likely don't need the K to win either. I'll hear your arguments, but I sometimes hold a lower threshold for teams to respond to the K because many kids in the circuit cannot access that research or coaching. Email me if you have questions. You can see my wiki on the College Caselist Kansas State - RT. Feel free to ask me questions in person because I love talking about debate.

What I want to see:

- Application to the flow: Each argument should go somewhere. If you have a turn, an answer, anything, then you need to tell me: is it on the DA?, is it on the Case?, If so what contention or advantage?

- Do what you have been taught. I prefer you tell me at some point, what that argument either does to the entire round, or what that specific card does for you on that specific place. This is the best way to write my ballot because it makes it very clear who is winning on the flow (instead of saying "we win here because" 1000 times with no reason why).

- Impact Calc: It is never too early for impact calc. Even if you don't have a direct answer to the case or the DA, do impact work. It is the easiest way to generate some defense. Or, you can turn the impact and make it clear why it affects the way I vote, just like anything else.

- I am good with hearing Ks, CPs, DAs, and whatever theory you throw at me. Specifics below

Ks need a full story because you cannot assume I am knowledgeable of your K. I will not judge kick the alt and you need a really good reason why the non-unique links are independent case turns that outweigh if you kick just the alt in the block. (why do I care if literally anyone thinking about policy could link)

CPs should include a full plan text and a solvency advocate (ofc if you have a reason not to, fine but the aff might win the "they don't have an advocate" debate, your choice). Run your theory. I am sympathetic to the neg on Condo. I literally don't know what dispositionality solves, explain it if you want but honestly limiting the amount of conditional advocacies or just saying condo bad seems to be stronger. I am not sympathetic to 1-liner style theory that Kansas debaters love. If its a voter you need to spend time on it. Every trap requires time to be built and set, take the time or I won't entertain it. Perms can be short but it usually doesn't make sense to read 5 perms at lightning speed all 5 words long because you know which one you are going for and I won't vote on "they didn't answer our perms" when they probably read a generic perm answer that is sufficient.

PERM BLOCK EXAMPLES

Example Bad Perm Block: Perm Do Both, Do the CP, Do the Aff, Do the CP then the Aff

Okay Perm Block: Perm Do Both: The US Should do the [1AC] and the [CP text] (At the same time or at different times...)

Better Perm Block: Perm do Both, Perm do the CP (read card the process is the same), Do the CP then the aff: The US should... explain how that works.
Especially in the 1AR, pick 1 perm and really explain how that works and why the CP is not competitive.

THEORY BLOCK EXAMPLES

Example BAD Theory: Conditionality is a reason to reject the team because its unfair for us to answer so many things.
Example GOOD Theory: Interp: Negative teams get 1 condo advocacy... Voting reason for fairness because aff has to contradict itself, time skew harms clash and skews strategy which makes debate an unplayable game causing people to leave... (You get the point, an attempt at warrants and real impacts is there, still short but actually makes sense)

DAs, you can run any impact you want, just tell me how mandatory minimums reform is somehow going to cause a nuclear war. I'll believe you when you walk me through that story, I am a sucker for those. All generic links can and should be articulated in Cross and the Block as specific to the aff. Read your link cards and figure out what about the plan links. Why does fiscal redistribution actually force the IRS to abandon counter-terror operations?

Topicality: run it how you like it. I am okay with the time suck as long as the aff doesn't win on the time suck abuse theory. If your topicality argument doesn't have a definition and a reason why I should vote on it, I'm not voting on it.

What I don't want to hear:

- Drops are important: try your best not to just ignore your opponent's arguments. I am flowing I will notice but if the other team drops it then it is dropped and not in my decision (with some leeway, if you also drop critical stuff then I give your opponent some room). Don't drop pieces of offense in the 2AC or 2NC (I mean don't forget a disad in the 2AC or forget a DA turn in the 2NC that the aff made) but if there were a lot off case in the 1NC I can be lenient to light coverage and more analytics.

- Analysis, not just evidence: I don't want to see a 2AC or 2NC that is just reading ev. I specified above that I at least need to know where it goes and at some point why it affects my decision with a specific claim or whole argument.

If you have any questions please don't be afraid to ask.

I'm a 3rd Year Debater, new at judging. I consider myself a "Policy Maker" meaning that I weigh advantages and disadvantages.

When judging rounds, I primarily vote on stock issues — have you convinced me that the AFF plan meets all of the stock issues beyond a reasonable doubt? I value clarity in arguments over words-per-minute. If I cannot understand what you are saying, I am very unlikely to follow your argument.

I judge on stock issues: Topicality, Solvency, Inherency, Significance, and Disadvantages.

Make sure you summarize your cards and points. Roadmaps, signposts, too. If you don't know what that is, feel free to ask me.

I like counterplans and I love kritiks, but only if you lay it out for me. Speedreading is fine, but help my flow out!

I generally ignore cross-ex (I personally believe that's just for your clarification, not for displaying superiority), but do whatever.

Please follow KSHAA rules: face me when you're speaking or doing cross-examination, no "open" cross-ex, no "splitting the negative block." "No new in the 2" isn't a rule, either.

Finally, please remember that prep time was increased in order to accommodate the technology. Prep time doesn't stop until you begin speaking.

Congratulations on making it to the state tournament! It is an honor to represent your school and yourselves. I wish you the best of luck this weekend.

Debate Experience: First year judging debate. Have 20+ years of internal auditing experience and basketball refereeing experience, so I am familiar with evaluating situations from multiple perspectives, listening to arguments and making decisions.

Please introduce yourselves and what school you are from and please enunciate clearly. This speaks to the confidence and pride you carry yourselves with. Similarly, speak slowly enough and clearly enough when presenting your case. If I can’t understand what you’re saying, I can’t possibly judge for your side. I also ask that you present your case, rather than read it. Suggest making the most of your prep time to familiarize yourself with the material so you can summarize it rather than read it.

Just as I would evaluate a basketball play or internal audit finding, I listen and observe the cases being made by each side. I am very open-minded in my judging and do not rush to judgment, rather wait to see how well you present your case, rebuttals and answer questions. I am not inherently for or against counterplans, kritiks or topicality, just ask that whatever you do, do it well and make a strong case for it. Being an auditor, I am more persuaded by logos, with ethos being a close second and pathos being a distant third. (Interpretation: presentation is important, but you can’t charm your way out of a weak case)

Last but certainly not least, Sportsmanship is of the utmost importance. Compete like crazy and be kind while doing it.