Overview: I competed for Western Kentucky University in NPDA/NPTE Parli and NFA LD until 2010.

Paradigm: I will default policy maker if a voting criteria is not established. Tell me where to vote and how to vote and it should be fairly simple. Furthermore, tell me where to flow your arguments. If you leave it up to me you might not agree with where I decide to flow it.

Speed: I enjoy a fast debate. Make sure your tags are clear and you understand the warrants of your evidence. If there is no change between your tags and card text I'm probably missing some critical arguments, which is bad for you. To me, speed can be a strategic decision that you should utilize as long as you understand how to do it effectively.

The K: Critical debates are fine and I enjoy them when the link is not generic and the framework is specified. I’ve voted on a number of critical/performance debates in the past and view them to be just as legitimate as traditional policy rounds. Understand your literature. If you can’t explain it well outside the evidence, then you shouldn’t be running it.

T: Love me a good T debate. In fact, I love a debate about debate. There are so many ways to run T and I feel like it’s often underutilized. You can (and should) do impact calculus on the standards line by line – otherwise what’s the point? That being said, I really dislike a bad T debate so I suppose run it wisely. I should also note that I don’t think the 2NR has to go all in on T to win the argument.

Miscellaneous:

Cross-X is your time to clarify positions and evidence. I don’t flow it and really don’t even listen to it. It’s not a time to make arguments. Ask your question, and make your argument during your speech time.

Theory: Yes. Use it. I flow it and have voted on it before. See above where I enjoy debates about debate. HOWEVER, tag lines are not arguments. “Perm: Do Both” is not an argument because there is no justification and explanation why it captures the net benefit while avoiding the DA. I also prefer to flow Framework on a separate sheet as it sets the stage for the ballot.

I’m a Tab judge. Debated with Newton HS for three years; CX, PF, Congress & LD. I haven’t debated nor watched any rounds since 2016 when securitization was big (my fave).

You can run whatever you’re feeling. I’ll listen to whatever just tell me how to vote & don’t drop things. :)

I can hang with speed, I’ll just day clear if I can’t understand you. I’ll give you two chances & probably give up flowing.

If you have any questions feel free to ask!

I'm definitely a policy maker at heart, but if you don't give me great impact calc. I will resort to stock issues.

I am not the biggest fan of counter plans but I recognize that some resolutions lend themselves to them and they are justified and in those cases. I actually enjoy judging them in these situations. Don't run one if you don't know how to do it well though...that will just frustrate me.

I like specific DA's but again, I'll vote on a generic one if they aren't argued well.

I think T is a priori and will vote on it first--even if it's crappy. Answer it.

K's aren't my favorite either--mostly because they aren't run well. However, if you know how to run it and the opposing team can keep up, making it a genuinely good debate, go for it. I'm all about listening to good arguments. Just don't run them if it's a tactic to trip up the other team. That won't fly and it will only be a waste of your time and mine.

Speed doesn't bother me. I can keep up. But spreading as a tactic to avoid clash, and genuine persuasive debate, won't get you far with me.

So, basically, give me clash. Give me a solidly good debate where you are all trying to communicate well. That's what I want to see. I was a 3 year high school debater, and a 1 year college debater. I've been a coach for 12 years. (I took a break to raise my daughter). I know what I'm doing. If I give you a verbal critique at the end of the round, listen. I don't give them often and when I do it's because something is in earnest need of being addressed.

I don't put up with rudeness. Period. I will give you the loss on a 7 if you are awful to an opponent or your partner.

That's it. Good luck!

Savannah Bonilla

pronouns: she/her

Be kind to your opponents!! Yall are here to debate not perpetuate a culture of hostility :)

Email Chain - savannahgrace2302@gmail.com

Experience: 4 years of high school policy with Salina South, currently doing LD and NPDA at Kansas Wesleyan University (2022 PKD Parli Champ ;)) and assistant coaching for Salina South.

I am a mom, and a student on top of being a part of this activity, so this early in the year prob don't assume I am as deep in the literature of this topic as some.

There are some things you should slow down for me. I am gonna flow the speech and not the doc, if you have a really dense block that you fly through as fast as you can, I'm gonna miss some of it.

Your 2AR / 2NR should write the ballot for me. I appreciate impact calculus, I appreciate clear analysis in analyzing arguments. The debate shouldn't be a block reading contest, I want to see more analysis and refutation. For the love of god engage with the material that you are reading.

Framework or K Aff: If I'm your judge in a clash debate, both teams are going to be unhappy. I'll try my best to evaluate both args as fairly as possible. Rounds that I have seen on the question put me at 50/50.

I think debate is a game, but, I am not a fan of judge adaptation, I think you should run what you want, and I will do my best to follow. Big theory debates are going to be frustrating for me to work out, and I will be less confident in my decision. Don't assume I am going to be familiar with every concept that you bring up, if I look like Im not getting it, im prob not.

I tend to be tech>truth, though I hold a lot of value in debating truth and have a low threshold for takeouts of low truth arguments. I don't feel as though I am as 'tech' as some of my peers, it doesn't mean I can't follow, but I might not be as inclined to make my decision here.

I will probably make a decision rather quickly. It doesn't mean that I am not paying attention or evaluating your arguments, I usually just don't need a long time to sort things out. I'm probably going to give you a pretty short and sweet RFD.

I don't think I'm hard to read, if I think your argument is bad, you'll probably see that on my face.

Be nice to one another in the round.

Will I listen to a K? Sure. I have voted here before but you are going to need to do some work.

"I am a K team - all I want to do is read the K, all of the K's, both sides, K-it-up, should I pref you?" Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I will happily listen to your K but it's safe to assume I am not read up on your specific k lit. If it looks like I am not jiving with your K, paint me a picture.

Disads and Counterplans? yes, please

Do you need to shake my hand? No thank you, knucks will suffice :)

Can we go fast? Sure.

Let´s all just have a good time :0

Experience:

3 years High School Debate

4 years College Parliamentary Debate

1 year CEDA College Debate

12 years Coaching High School Debate

Tabula Rasa but default to Policy Maker.

Please tell me how and where to vote so I don’t have to make that decision for you because you probably wont like it.

I favor quality of arguments and evidence over quantity.

Speed: I am ok with speed to the point that it is applicable to real life. The reading so fast you gasp for breath has no purpose in real life. Slow down on tags.

Make sure you give me a roadmap and signpost! Staying organized is key to a successful debate if you are jumping around and not indicating what you are arguing or where I should flow it may lead to trouble. I will flow it where I think it goes but that may not be what you want.

Analyze cards and weigh their relevancy in the round.

I don't love theory or T but I will listen to it and flow it if you present the argument well and it's explained correctly.

Impact calculus is key in the round and whoever can prove that has the best chance of getting the W on the ballot.

Which best describes your priorities in judging debate?

Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal measure

Which best describes your paradigm or approach to judging debate?

Tabula rasa

What speed or ratge of presentation do you prefer?

fairly rapid delivery acceptable so long a presentation is clearly enunciated-very rapid speed discouraged

If you have additional questions please ask.

Policy Maker Paradigm that also takes T into account. Small town KS former debater and coach, neg arguments I like are DA, CP, T, and solvency. I'll follow anything on the aff side, but if you have a Kritikal Aff you better know how to run it. I expect Impact Calc at the end of the round to pick up the win.

I will fairly evaluate every argument in the round, but I will disregard theory, K, and T arguments if you don't know how to run them.

I'm a pretty traditional judge and debated 4 years during high school with state/national caliber policy and public forum experience.

Generally speaking, I’m a hybrid stock issues/policy maker, and will default to an impact lean if not guided how to evaluate otherwise. Keep links as specific as possible and use well-thought, analytical arguments. Tell me a clear, compelling story through warranted evidence and end your rounds focusing on why things matter.

I vote based upon quality of argument/evidence. Smart, substantive debate will win my vote much more often than a speed, quantity round. I’ll flow all arguments as long as they are coherent.

There are no arguments to which I am automatically opposed---with 2 important notes.

1) I strongly prefer arguments that are defended the entire round, meaning I’d rather you not kick counterplans or Ks.

2) If you can’t thoroughly understand your argument, you may not want to run it. I’m in education now and 100% believe that if you can’t teach someone something, you do not fully understand it. Same goes for debate and how you communicate/teach me.

Be nice and have fun!

Tabula Rasa but I'll default policy maker, if I dont have context or why I should vote on something I'm not going to vote on it. That being said I'm ok with most arguments (T, Ks, CPs, etc.) but if it has to be able to make sense. If I can't understand whats being run I can't vote on it, always summarize.

For Counterplans if its not necessary and competitive don't run it. If a debate comes down to evaluating the pros of two plans I'll vote aff.

Line by line, signpost and fully respond to arguments; a well covered point is more effective than a sweeping generalization. I'll vote on generics but you have to prove to me why I should.

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.

Clearly outline arguments

Framework is important :warranted offense + line by line defense = RFD

I take everything from a policymaker's point of view. I was employed by the county government for over 16 years and have run for office several times. Give me the best policy for the people I worked for.

I like to hear well-reasoned and thought-out arguments. I don't need to hear 50 cards about why a certain position is good or bad - give me a handful of them and then extemporaneously extend and explain your arguments from that.

I'm not a topicality fan. I don't like rounds that turn into debates over T rather than the issues at hand. If you're going to run T, make sure you have a good, solid argument for it.

4 yrs policy Newton HS (kansas)

3 yrs parli at William Jewell.

Loose guidelines for convincing me to vote for you:

1. Do good impact calc on the internal link level. The more specific and precise your impact story is, the more likely I'll buy it. I vote on the impact i believe the most.

2. Don't misconstrue evidence. I’m flowing for warrants, not taglines.

3. BE NICE! BE KIND! BE COMPASSIONATE! BE UNDERSTANDING! Debate should be the safest academic space, please help to make that true.

i'm very familiar with critical and performative argumentation, please feel free to read any type of argument.

Ask me any questions you have!

I did not debate in high school or college, but have served as a debate assistant for several years. I have judged about 10 rounds on this year's topic. I am policy maker or stock issue judge. I appreciate when teams listen to the evidence that the other team is reading and analyze it and check the warrants. I hate just reading blocks without explanation.

The Affirmative has the burden of proof to support the resolution. You will probably do better if you do not speed read to me.

Generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks are fine. Topicality is fine. Specific links are important. Explanation is important.

The last speakers should weight the round.

I will penalize rudeness. Just be nice to each other.

Email: patrickheath16@gmail.com

I debated in high school for 4 years.

I did not debate in college.

Be kind to one another. Meanness will only get you the L.

Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance.

Stock issue emphasis best prescribes my approach to judging debate - The negative only needs to win one stock issue to win the round.

Fairly rapid delivery acceptable so long as the presentation is clearly enunciated. I need to understand you.

Counterplans are acceptable if justified, and if consistent with other elements of the negative approach.

Topicality is fairly important; roughly on par with other major issues in the round.

I find generic disadvantages generally acceptable.

I find kritiks reprehensible; I prefer specific real-world arguments. *Please don’t run critical aff’s*

I did 4 years of policy in high school and one year in college. I also did Congress, HI, Duo, Oral Interp of Lit, and both Domestic and Foreign Extemp in high school. I have coached speech, policy, and LD for 3 years in Virginia.

In debate, I enjoy a fast clip, but cannot keep up with a super-fast round the way I once could. Think a 7 on a 1-10 scale. I love a good T debate. I will listen to kritiks, but prefer to keep things on a policy level.

Hello, this is me, your Judge. Koalten

email: koalten.hornback@gmail.com

Debate Experience:

- Debated competitively 4 years at Nickerson High School

-2 years of debate coaching at Hutchinson High School

TL;DR: I'm a tabula rasa judge who defaults to policy-making when there are no framing arguments made. Good ol' fashioned policy is what I like to see, but I'll roll with anything.

Delivery:

I can keep up with about anything. However, my biggest thing is that clarity is more important than speed. Debate is supposed to be an activity that is accessible to everyone, and spreading cuts down the potential audience of a round. Communicate in a way to educate, not just to win. If you do choose speed, be able to justify it if the other team argues against it knowing my preference. Something that is rarely discussed is the skills policy debate teaches you that you can bring to other aspects of your life, and I have yet to be convinced that reading super fast off of prepared evidence is something you can apply to other areas of your life.

2020 Update: obviously I'll be super understanding with the stuff over virtual, don't worry about this so much, just make sure that I can actually tell what you're saying over zoom and don't rely on an email chain with me

Kritiks:

If you choose to do it, do it well. Be succinct with the alternative and tell me why I should be voting for the alternative over the case. Links need to be specific here. Impact debate is a great way to win me over. I know most of the common K's, but still explain the theory of what you're kritiking and how the alternative will help fix the status quo. BTW I don't buy the "reject the affirmative" alternatives and don't debate the role of the ballot, it's just a way to record data and we assign too much meaning to it. Perms usually get sloppy so make sure to explain what a perm would actually look like in the real world.

CP's:

Go for it, but don't turn it into a theory debate unless there's clearly been some sort of detrimental harm to education. See above on perms too.

Case and Disads:

This is the stuff that I really love to see. Attack case all day long and tell me why they fail. Run DA's and see if they stick. Generic disads are fine - it's the affirmative's job to uphold the resolution and if they can't kill a DA that links to the resolution, they fail to uphold it. I love a good old fashioned policy debate, and I think the educational value in preparing for a case debate is really quite valuable.

Topicality:

I like a smart T argument, especially those that use contextual evidence. I'm open to just about anything on T.

Decision Making:

I'm pretty open when it comes to framing the round and I think that it's a great debate to be had. Having said that, if framing is just not touched on at all, I'll resort to a policy-making paradigm, and weigh the impacts of the plan vs the impacts of the DA's (touching on impact calc would do well for you here if you don't argue for a different framing method).

History: for some reason, a tabroom glitch doesn't display to you my full judging history to you, but rest assured, I have voted almost exactly 50/50 this entire year and past years.

Education:

I am a Wichita State University student with a Bachelors's in English and a minor in Criminal Justice. Currently enrolling in a Fort Hayes State University Master's program for Education.

Email chain: hjantzen89@gmail.com

I'm an assistant coach for Washburn Rural and debated in high school.

As far as my preferences go:

Do what you're comfortable with, and feel free to be creative. Just because it's unfamiliar to me doesn't mean I won't evaluate it, but it does mean you need to explain carefully.

Overviews and well developed impact calc in the final two rebuttals are major plusses for me. Tell me a coherent story about why you're winning.

Even if I am familiar with your K authors and their work, please assume that I'm not. Demonstrating that you know your stuff well enough to lay the groundwork convincingly will help you out.

I default to competing interps but don't love T debates. Will do my best to evaluate them nonetheless. If you can show in-round abuse this is a huge plus.

Speed is fine with me, but if you want me to flow what you're reading you should signpost clearly and slow down a bit for tags/analyticals/your blocks.

Theory is rarely a reason to reject a team unless you win that there is in-round abuse. If there's new offcase in the 2NC, the 1AR will get some leeway.

It is not possible for me to vote on things that happened outside the round.

Don't be a jerk to the other team. That will affect your speaker points and, if it's serious enough, will also affect my vote. If you can, try to relax and enjoy yourself - I appreciate debates where both teams are having fun.

Debate is a competitive, educational activity that supports speech, argumentation and research skills. I expect you to address stock issues and have clear, well-connected and relevant off case arguments. I will vote primarily on the quality of evidence and argumentation and secondarily on the speech skills displayed. Whatever arguments you run, be organized on the flow, be clear on your arguments, and be persuasive in your speaking.

I am a Kansas HS assistant debate coach. I am a science teacher that values logic and scientific fact. My background is not in debate however, I have been coaching for 4 years. I have judged for high school debates for 36 years. I believe that most anything is debatable however some styles of argument work better for me than others. I am more of a CP/DA Case debate kind of judge. Speed of my flow is far lower than what I would call fast. Clear tags/authors and quicker on text is fine. Also please tell where things go and how they apply. I enjoy most debates but not a fan of T debates. If the aff is not topical run it. If the aff is center of the topic then do not run T. IF they are off topic, I am easily swayed on T. Theory debates are kinda like T for me. Rather not see it unless there is a legitimate violation. I do not penalize teams for style choices. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I need to be able to understand the words. If you speak for your partner during their speech or tell them what to say during their speech, you will lose. If you get up and take your laptop to your partner during their constructive or rebuttal speech and have them read what you wrote for them to say, you will lose.

Former high school and college debater--so I'm very well-versed in the structure and format of a typical policy debate round. I'm also an attorney, so I'm no stranger to seeing/learning/understanding both sides to an argument.

My ground rules:

1. I will not tolerate any arguments that I perceive to be discriminatory/prejudicial. In other words, if you run any argument that is obviously racist, sexist/misogynist, ableist, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-semitic, anti-Islam, etc., you will lose. I also won't tolerate blatant time-wasting or other disruptive behavior.

2. I flow. I will be keeping track of your arguments. I do not like dropped arguments. I expect you to flow through to the end. If you don't, you'll likely lose. If you're disorganized and jumping all over the place, I'll likely drop you.

3. I usually prefer straight policy, but I have been known to lean a little "tabula rasa" and I love a little theory now and then. I am familiar with CPs, Ks, narratives, etc. I don't mind them being run, but a couple things if 1NC decides to run one: (a) know how to do it, (b) understand what you're arguing and be able to explain it well, (c) be creative, but don't make it so wild and out there that there are no real world implications, and (d) bonus points if you can substantively tie it to the issues of the 1AC case. I will say I've never seen a high school team successfully run a neg theory argument...so be warned.

4. Re: speed--if you're a little fast, that's fine. I haven't done champs debate in well over 10 years, so I would prefer a more moderate pace. If I think it's an issue, I'll tell you to slow down.

5. If you're going to run policy-adjacent neg args like Ts or more general D/As, I'm fine with that, too. Since these kinds of arguments should be more direct defensive arguments, I prefer that you solidly tie it back to the 1AC as opposed to making it a filler argument that 2AC has to answer in an effort to strategically bury the aff in several arguments it could potentially drop (i.e., while I understand and appreciate tricks debate, I don't always prefer to see it at the high school level). Trust me, I notice the difference. So if you run a T, I prefer that there actually be a strong ambiguity issue (as an attorney, I'm a sucker for a good statutory interpretation argument). If you run a D/A, be specific about how the aff case will lead to the impact.

6. Almost forgot about standards: I just want you to give me some kind of standard to weigh the round, show me why it's the appropriate standard, and show me why you win it.

7. Re: organization--roadmaps and signposts strongly preferred.

8. It all boils down to this: I'm looking for y'all to be engaged, to think well on your feet, and to have substantive responses. Most of all, just have fun and be respectful.

Hi! I did CX for 4 years in high school and a bit of parli in college. In hs and college I competed in limited prep and platform events at AFA and NFA for four years.

Policy Debate:
My paradigm is pretty straightforward: I will listen to any argument, but you have to make it link, impact, and make sense. Don't talk about theories you don't understand because you'll either sound silly or I won't have clue what your saying. I don't have a problem with spreading, but I have been out of the game a while, so don't run too fast (and I'll make sure to let you know if you do). I love a bit of theory debate and I hate intervening so make sure to frame/impact calc.

Also, tag lines don't mean anything if you don't cite and read the warrants. Tell me WHY your evidence makes a claim, not just the claim it makes. I won't vote on "reform key, abolition bad" or "abolition good, reform bad" if you don't read and carry through the warrants your authors make. Also, make sure your authors are credible for what you are saying.

Have fun and don't be rude to each other!

Experience:

4 Years of High School Debate

Judge at numerous invitational & state tournaments

Preferences:

I consider myself a judge who both values communication and resolution skills during a round. In other words, carry yourself and communicate in an effective way, but also talk about pressing and important issues during the round.

I am more of a tabula rasa judge meaning I will adapt my perspective varying on the round.

I discourage fast, speed talking during the round. Please talk and communicate in way that is understandable and poised. I also prefer when you take time to summarize the argument rather than leaving that up to the judge to do.

Topicality and disadvantages are fine during the round. Counterplans are acceptable as long as they are relevant and explained well. Please refrain from kritiks.

Please be kind and respectable to each other during the round!

I do not like procedurals or kritiks. I do not want to hear debates about debate itself. Debate the actual policy and whether it is good or bad.

I am a parent/lay judge, but have judged several times before.

I hate spreading, speak around a conversation level.

My daughter is amazing I love her so much.

I am a teacher and assistant forensics coach at Garden City High School. I have minimal experience judging policy debate, but I judged World Schools Debate at NSDA nationals last summer.

I teach/have taught world geography and sociology classes.

I will approach policy debate as a person who wants you to make arguments I can understand at a rate I can understand them. I will take notes about the round.

jimmieleenorman@yahoo.com - add me to the email chain

I did policy debate and forensics for most of high school at Newton High.

What I value most about debate is that it provides an open space for debaters to develop and test ideas.

There is some wisdom to the cliché of asking debaters to ‘write my ballot for me’. Since I think debate belongs to the debaters, I appreciate when a debater can tell me not just how a card relates to an argument but how the argument relates to the debate and the ballot as a whole. It is hard to evaluate a debate where both sides are winning something and no one compares the importance of those two things. If you do that comparison, you’ll definitely make it easier for me to be on your side of the issue.

I try not to arbitrarily reward or punish debaters for running specific arguments. If a disad is weak or if a counterplan is illegitimate, it is the job of the debaters to prove it and forward that argument. I try not to ‘lean’ on one side of an issue or the other, deferring instead to the analysis made.

On the issue of paperless debate, I do not believe flashing/emailing speeches counts as prep – within reason. If the amount of time it is taking you to flash speeches gets excessive I will change this policy.

Clarity > Speed

Dropped doesn’t mean you win. Dropped means that the other team has conceded that the premise of that argument is true. Your job is to explain the significance of that premise for the rest of the debate.

Being disrespectful is a one-way ticket to my bad side. BE GOOD HUMANS.

Former high school debater although some time ago. Current assistant coach. I primarily look for good logic in arguments that are well supported by your evidence. Common sense arguments can speak loudly. I'm not the best with very rapid speed but I absolutely try my hardest to keep up.

I am a debate coach at a 6A school. I can judge at any rate, but I believe that real world persuasiveness is actually enhanced with a more moderate rate and using effective emphasis and inflection. Most important part of the debate round is clash and resolution, so logical arguments carried all the way through are what really matters. I am comfortable with topicality arguments if well-structured, generic disadvantages if there is a verifiable link to the affirmative plan, and counterplans if they are non-topical and competitive with the affirmative plan. I am NOT a fan of Kritiks.

Email - baylejoesandy@gmail.com

Experience: High School Policy Debator and Speech student for 4 Years at Great Bend High School (2016-2020). Also, dabbled in congressional debate. Currently, I am a political science/econ student at Wichita State, so I keep updated on current news.

For speech, I did DI, Oration, and Impromptu in HS. Went to nationals two times in DI.

Overall: I will listen to whatever you choose to say, however you wish to say it. I will make every effort to fairly evaluate those arguments that you make in the round. If you choose to invest time in an argument make sure it is good and reasonable. Even if you spend a lot of time on something, I am more likely to vote with the team that makes a more logical argument based on evidence and probability. I do enjoy the line-by-line argument style, so please tell me where to put the argument on the flow, and why it matters (impact calc). I believe in the Toulmin argumentation of debate and believe that evidence matters and good quality of data with you being able to articulate that information. Just extended claims and tag isn't enough to win the argument. Have a vision/story and make sure that flows through the round.

I am more of a policy maker/stock issues judge. I love a good DA/ADV argument and when a team uses impact calc. However, please do not completely change your style of debate for me. I want to see what you do well and how you do it. I am pretty open-minded as long as I can understand the arguments you are making.

Speed: Speed is fine in most cases, but I am used to slower debate. Slow down on the tag and then you can go faster on the evidence part of the card.

Framework: I do like framework. It helps give me a way to frame the round and decide who wins the debate or I will default to policy maker. However, don't put the debate in a way that eliminates all ground for the other team. Have voters on framework or a way for me to compare it to the other team.

Theory: I am not a huge fan but will listen and possibly put some weight on it. Just tell me why it matters and you must spend some time on the argument. Show me why it is important rather than spending a sentence on it.

Topicality: I do feel that Topicality is an underdeveloped and under used strategic tool. I love a good T debate if it is done well. Most times teams use it as another argument with no strategic value. Please work on the standards/voters. If T is done well and is reasonable I will vote on it. However, if the aff is very much topical, I won't vote on T.

Counterplans: I am not big on counter plans. I have not used them much and have not been around debate that uses them often. So, if you decide to go with a CP please explain. I will vote on issues that make sense and will need some help from you with that type of argument. I am open to listening but must understand to vote and put weight on it. I do prefer specific solvency to generic on Cp’s.

Kritiks: Not too big on Ks. You will need to explain the literature and articulate the impact and alternative to win the debate. Tell me how to approach the argument and avoid excessive jargon. I prefer more tangible alternatives rather than reject the team. Critical Aff’s are fine too, but be able to explain. Also, I haven't debated or seen many Ks before, so please be super clear. If you have a good K debate, I will probably vote on it.

DA’s/Adv/Turns: I am huge on DAs and Advs. Please show why there are more disadvantages than advantages or vice versa. If one outweighs the other I will vote on this. Also, please utilize turns. I grant some risk to weak link stories. Make sure you still do the work and answer all levels. Impact Calc. is crucial.

Case: It’s important and neither side should neglect case debate. I love a good case debate. And a smart analysis of evidence.

What not to do: 1. Be Rude or disrespectful. Be aware of the language that you use and how it’s employed. This is a communication activity don’t be racist, sexist, ablest, etc. I reserve the right to give you a loss, or at least penalize your speaker points. 2. Don’t steal prep time or abuse flash time.

I prefer more moderate pace with regards to speaking.

I default policy maker.

I will vote on competitive counterplans, I am on the fence on topical counter plans, I mostly likely will not vote on them unless the theory is sound.

K- I hate generic kritiks. If you are going to run a K, make it have a legitimate link, that weighs against the aff. If I feel like you are running a K because the other team can't answer it (as a game), I won't vote on it.

DA - Huge voter with me.

Theory - Most of the time I hate theory. I feel it is infinitely regressive. Prove abuse if it exists. I hate multiple worlds theory. Strategies should be cohesive.

Topicality - Huge voter for me. Make it legit though. Generic T drives me nuts.

I have coached speech and debate at the high school level for 2 years. I am an experienced debate judge, and previous public forum competitor. Most of my experience comes from LD/PF but I am knowledgable enough in CX to keep up, however I don't have any strong feelings about DA, Cp, or krikits.

The only time I will keep track of is prep, everything else is up to competitors.

Speed-

Speed is fine generally so long as it's not used to so excessively that opponents and judges cannot understand and engage with your argument. Spreading is fine as long as you have a strong speaking ability (varying volume, pacing, tone etc). Go slower/clearer on taglines and key issues. I don't want to have to rely on reading your case to keep up. Speaking is just as important as getting as much information in as fast as possible.

RFD-

RFDs are usually made based on clarity and clash across the flow, as well as weight and impact of voters. I really appreciate clear voters and impacts in the 2NR/2AR as well as who offered clear and meaningful clash throughout the round rather than just "she said, I said" arguments. I prefer analysis over throwing more evidence without explanation.

My experience on the NM circuit is geared much for towards traditional styles of debate, so I tend to prefer slower more analytical LD and a less technical PF. However, go with the norm for your circuit andd I'll adjust with you.

Email Chain: brandons3333@outlook.com

Please add me to any email chain made in round because that will ultimately help me dissect your argumentation and relay that importance to round.

I am the South High School assistant debate coach and I did policy debate for 4 years at Salina High School South. I did KDC and DCI circuits in high school so I'm well versed in most styles of debate. In regards to round etiquette , first rule is to make a safe environment for every debater in the room. No one wants to walk into a round that is filled with hostility. Use the correct pronouns for people...point blank, please be respectful to others. When it comes to argumentation I am open to listen to anything. I flow the round and will be in tune with everyone debating so please make sure to extend and have a clear direction of where you want to take your argumentation in the round. When it comes to my judging style I tend to vote on stock issues, but again I am completely open to anyway the round goes so be critical but also make sense. When it comes to speed I can handle spreading as long as you are clear with your taglines and please make sure to signpost. On a line by line basis slow down to articulate your argumentation. I'm not a fan of time sucks, if you're reading an argument tell my why it's important in the round or I won't vote on it. I love theory and K's as long as they clearly relate to the debate. I read Fem and Queer theory in high school but am willing to listen to anything. If there are any other questions please feel free to ask before round.

I am a judge that only watches a few rounds of debate per year.

As a layjudge, an off time roadmap and clear sign posting is very helpful.

Rate of delivery can be rapid as long as there is articulation and clear points.

Several arguments will help win a round, but not without a firm connection to the case.

Communication is slightly more important than resolution of issues. I need to be able to follow the arguments and match them to the case in order for me to vote on the information presented.

I’m not fond of spending a lot of time on topicality arguments but if one is presented it needs to be defended.

Counterplans need to have a clear advantage over the aff and not contradict other neg arguments.

Generic disadvantages are fine as long as they are tied back to the original case.

Like other types of evidence, kritiks need clear links. Extended argument on the theory of debate detracts from having an actual debate.

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 debated in high school and college. I majored in history and philosophy as an undergrad and have a Masters in communication. I taught high school history, government and journalism for 33 years.

My approach to judging is "The Well Read Man on the Street." That is to say, I am not Tabula Rasa, but neither am I an expert. I expect arguments that are logical, supported by evidence, and real world. I believe that a few good, well developed arguments are far better than many bad, poorly developed arguments. Rhetorical questions do not qualify as an argument in debate.

Evidence must be sourced and plausible. I do not accept at face value sources and evidence that are significantly outside the mainstream. In the era of the internet and ideological extremism, I refuse to give credence to something just because it is printed. The following sources are most credible: peer reviewed journals, government publications, and mainstream media. The following experts are most credible: Academics and professionals in the field, government representatives, non-partisan think tanks.

In regards to topicality, I apply a criteria of a reasonable plain text reading of the resolution.

Cross Ex. is for seeking clarification, not for making an argument or scoring points. While I generally don't pay attention to +X, the following will be reflected negatively in speaker points: refusing to honestly answer honest questions, demanding yes/no answers to questions that are not yes/no questions, being snarky or rude, and filibustering.

I am a firm believer in the negative presumption: i.e., the affirmative must provide significant justification for abandoning the status quo. If the negative runs a counter plan, even a conditional counter plan, it gives up presumption because it is acknowledging there is the possibility of serious flaw in the SQ. However, I will grant the negative the right to offer a minor repair without giving up presumption.

Every judge has his/her own calculus for weighing the advantages and disadvantages of case. Mine tends to value people over things and the common good over the individual.

Stylistically, I view debate as a persuasive communication event. If I can't understand an argument I can't consider it in my decision. It is the speakers responsibility to communicate to me, not my responsibility to figure out what he/she is trying to say. I expect arguments to be labeled and organized.

Finally, there is only one rule in debate: you have to persuade the judge.

Experience: 4 years highschool Policy, 4 years highschool PF, 4 years college NFA-LD, 4 years Parli. I probably judge like 1 tournament a year (and not recently) so I am definitely rusty when it comes to high flow rounds.

Online debate: Make sure your computer is plugged in and ready to go. I expect all competitors to work together to create a smooth exchange of emails/information if necessary. If there are problems, relax and we will work through it.

General: I very much believe that I am here for you, so whatever style of debate you enjoy doing you should do that. I think that I probably will hold the line on cheap shot arguments more often than not, typically one line arguments on a theory shell/solvency flow will not get my ballot. ***That being said I do have a preference- My preference every round is policy rounds.

Where debater's spend their time is a big indicator for me about where I should be voting. For example for negative teams: If your certain you are crushing T but spend 30 seconds on it that makes it incredibly difficult to vote for you there. Take the Pepsi challenge and go all in. Show you understand where you are winning, losing, and adjust your final speeches to the round. Don't just go for everything in your last speeches. I am a lazy judge, if you make me do work, neither team is going to probably like my decision.

Running new arguments in the 2NC is heavily frowned upon and I will not flow it. Splitting the block is acceptable as long as your dividing up stuff presented in the INC.

Theory: I think that absent another framing mechanism I would evaluate T via competing interps. I think that my threshold for voting on T is low IE it's just another argument that if you win I will vote on. I don't have a preference on whether or not condo is good or bad. Most if not all questions like that can be resolved in round. I do not need proven abuse to vote on Topicality.

K: I don't have a lot of experience running kritiques or battling against them. I ran anthropocentrism my junior/senior years of college. That is the only literature that i've read. You have been warned. I will say that it would be easier for me to vote for a K if I understand what the alternative does. I won't vote against a K if I don't understand what the alt does it just definitely makes it an easier ballot for you.

CP: Fine- I have seen many CP's just run and wasted space. If they don't have strategic value that is articulated some way in the round they look awful. That being said I think that overly complicated texts need to be explained. If I don't know what the counterplan does or how it functionally solves the aff it is harder to win me.

Public Forum- Don't run a Plan in Public Forum debate pls

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Williams%2C+David+J.

Name David J. WIlliams
School; Newton HS Kansas
# of years debated in HS_0 What School NOPE
# of years debated in College_0 What College/UniversityNope
Currently a (check all that apply) xHead HS Coach _Asst. HS Coach
College Coach _College Debater
Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate
# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic _10_
What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?
_xPolicy Maker _Stock Issues _Tabula Rasa
_Games Player _Hypothesis Tester ___Other (Explain)
What do you think the Aff burdens should be?
I think the aff should affirm the resolution and be topical and have the basic INH/PLAN/ADV/S structure.or something similar. I am willing to listen to any aff position but I am mainly a policy guy but a K aff is fine if you can explain it well enough. I won’t pretend to understand your position, aff or neg, so please prepare a presentation that balances a quicker than normal speech but not spewing and wheezing. Don’t speed through your 1ac and quit with 90 seconds to go.

What do you think the Neg burdens should be?
I think the neg may choose to debate the case or go with a generic position but I am going to vote on offense. I hate topicality and most theory arguments mainly because I hate flowing it. IF the aff is topical, even a little, then don’t run T. I wont flow it the way you want me to and I will default more to reasonability. If is reasonable then I wont vote against them on T. If the aff is not topical then run T. I will punish affirmatives who are non-topical. IF the aff is unreasonable then Neg will win even if I am terrible flowing the T.
How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?
Slow tags/authors and quicker on card content. If I cannot understand you I will say clear. I prefer a slower style of debate that still uses the flow. My flow will be accurate(if you let me) with a slower round. Faster rounds will be my best guess. I would say slow down and be persuasive and signpost for me.
How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?
Generics with good links are fine. I need to know the story of your arguments. If I cannot remember the story then I can’t voter for it.
How I feel about case debates?
I LOVE A GOOD CASE DEBATE…but I don’t require it.

Flashing is prep time. Flashing is not moving all your cards to a speech doc. THIS IS PREP TIME AND SPEECH PREP> IF you jump a speech to the other team please do so quickly. I believe the last step of every speech should be the flash. Once the flash drive is given to the other team..Prep starts for other team if the non speaking team wants to hold up speech to see if it is on jump drive. Prep is over for the non speaking team when they indicate they are ready. IF the speech did not make it or if the format is difficult to use. I will grant a grace period of 1 mintue to resolve the issue. Laptops are normal for me. I don’t want your face buried in your screen.

I am basically a policy maker judge. However, I also consider stock issues.

Things I dislike:

Generic arguments unless they can be directly linked to case.

Speed. I'm an English teacher, and I can take notes. If I can't keep up, you're going too fast. And no, I don't want a copy of your speech. I am judging the round based on the speeches, not the written notes and cards. Your responsibility is to get the information into the round--verbally. That's what I judge.

*Counterplans: Debate the affirmative case! Unless the aff case is totally non-topical, then engage with them. Offering your own plan (which you had ready before the aff ever spoke) defeats the purpose of a debate round, in my opinion, and is actually dodging the responsibility of the negative.

* I know this year's topic is one that spawns counterplans, so I'm not going to give you the loss JUST because you offered a counterplan. I also understand how a counterplan with a Kritique could be effective. However, my basic philosophy is that you should debate the affirmative plan, not offer your own and ursurp the round.

Position on the following:

Topicality: Rarely do I award the win based on topicality. Unless it's blatantly non-topical, it's topical. I do understand though that running topicality arguments gives your partner more time to prepare their speech; just know that your splitting hairs over definitions isn't going to affect my decision.

Kriitiques: I haven't judged a round where a kritique is offered. However, I understand the concept and would expect it to be presented and explained as a Kritique, and an alternative solution/plan should be presented with it.

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.