Info/Bio

I am a current 3rd-year member of the University of Central Missouri's Talking Mules Speech and Debate Team where I do mainly Interp events (Prose, Poetry, Duo, and DI), but I do limited prep (Impromptu) and Platform (Communication Analysis/Rhetorical Criticism and Informative). I do PF Debate and Parliamentary Debate alongside that. Needless to say, I have almost done it all.

In High School, I did HI, DI, DUO, PRO, POE, POI, and Duet Acting along with PF Debate for a little bit.

PF

I will be a flow judge thus it is not enough to just talk pretty. I would prefer that everyone stays respectful to me and each other. I highly consider debate to be a civil argument and not "who-can-out-yell-the-other-team". Other than that, my standards are at the same level as any other debate tournament.

LD/CX

I do not have as much knowledge on these events, therefore do not speed. I know enough in terms of their operation, but not the technical and logistics of it. Arguments have to have logic and make sense. I will do my best to flow the rounds.

About Me: I have done Policy Debate since 2018 at Bolivar High School. I went to NSDA Nationals in 2021 and went to elimination rounds. I now debate for Truman State University NFA-LD.

23-24 NSDA Topic: I have done little judging or any sort of work for this topic, so I don't know the normal affs/negs that are ran.

Speed: I am okay with speed, and can flow it fine, as I compete at speed. But if it harmful for anyone's education, I will ask that the round is done at normal speed.

T/Theory: I will vote on T/Theory if it's good. I generally am pretty policy oriented, but if you can prove abuse, or tell me why I should vote for potential abuse, I will.

Disclosure: Will vote on it if there is actual abuse. I do encourage disclosure. Do not false disclose.

DAs: These are my bread and butter, and I love a good Disad. I will view them more favorably if they have an aff specific link. However I feel that impact comparison will be important to get my ballot on a DA.

CPs: CPs are okay, I want you to win a net benefit to get my ballot on a CP. For aff, do work on net benefit or solidify your perm to me to win the perm, and I'll vote for it.

Ks: I'm not super-duper into Ks, and don't consider myself to be a K debater. However, I will always vote for a K if its good. Show me what the alt does, rather than just tagging a card as the alt with no actual explanation of what the world of the alt looks like. Same for K Affs.

Case: I find it easier to vote on case than anything. I tend to weigh case first, unless I'm shown why I shouldn't. Turns are great, and just a case specific no sol argument does a lot for me.

I am a Junior Policy Debater at Kickapoo High School. I have been doing debate, specifically policy debate, since the first semester of my freshman year. Obviously, policy debate is my favorite, but it's also fun to judge other debates and learn more about their current topics.

I will be flowing the round and will see if any argument gets untouched or dropped in the round, although it is good for you to bring that up as well.

Policy: I am most knowledgeable in policy and can follow it very easily. I do not like the round if there are not any big clashes in the round. If you don't answer a single thing on the opponent's side I will not be voting for you. Impact debates are probably my favorite if you can accurately explain them and give your links. Make sure you fully explain your plan and what are you solving for or else I will be just as confused as your opponents. Don't talk about bathtubs.

PF/LD: With these two types of debate I know basically nothing about them. I know the premise of them and how they work but that is about it. My vote in the round will go to who had the best arguments and who explained them better to a lay judge so I can actually understand it.

I am a parent judge judging my 3rd NSDA Nationals. I try and read all of the guidelines for an event and judge accordingly. I am college educated and work in education, but I do find that sometimes speakers at this level speak in a matter that is difficult for the average person to understand. I truly appreciate speaking intelligently using layman's terminology and not making it difficult for those who are not as intelligent as the students competing. Using debate terminology can make in more difficult to understand as I did not compete in speech or debate. I have judged many different debate and speech events including OO, Prose, IX, DX, and Congress at NSDA Nationals. I apologize if i do not smile a lot during rounds. I find I look very serious when listening intently. I hope everyone enjoys the experience and feels like they did their best.

I'm super excited to be judging this round, here are some things that I look for;

I am a flow judge, so I know when you drop arguments and when you address arguments. Make sure that you do your best to address every argument.

Speaking quality. I understand sometimes it's hard to hear people over the internet but make sure that you speak clearly.

Respect. I expect you to show respect to me and your opponent. Disrespect can cause you to lose the round.

Best of luck!

If you have any questions about my paradigm that aren't listed, ask me or email me before the round starts. If you have any questions about your ballot after the round, feel free to email me at thechemistlovescarbon@gmail.com

ANY TYPE OF -IST OR -OBIC ARGS/RHETORIC (INCLUDING INTENTIONALLY/REPEATEDLY MISGENDERING SOMEONE) WILL GET YOU AN L + THE LOWEST POSSIBLE SPEAKS, AND A TALKING TO YOUR COACH AT MINIMUM.

Please don't yell in round. I experience migraines and if you are the cause of one, it will be a thornier path to my ballot.

Paradigms in order: Congress, LD (prog, trad), PFD, CX

Congress

I have high expectations because this is the only event in speech and debate that truly combines speaking and debating. I do not care how good your points are if I can't understand them, and I don't care how pretty you speak if all you're saying is empty words. Balance is key to succeed. The PO starts with the 1. Mistakes will lose you spots in the ranking, but you probably won't score lower than a 5 unless there are major issues. Also, just because you don't have the most experience doesn't mean you can't win an election. Just run! For speeches, sponsors have my gratitude (especially if nobody looks like they want to give it), and I will factor your willingness to sponsor into my ranking. Rebuttal speeches need to clap back against the opps. Specific callouts of others in the chamber and proving them wrong or expanding their point (depending on side) is going to help your ranking. Use others to climb your way up. This is debate battle royale! I like crystals, but make sure you accurately track the arguments of the round, because I am. No matter what type of speech or what order you're in, there is always a way to high ranks. CANNED SPEECH INTROS ARE BORING AND UNCREATIVE! BE ORIGINAL! I especially hate the penguin intro. For questions: sponsor and first neg is a double edged sword. If you can fend off four attackers and expand your points, that's amazing. If you get picked apart in questioning, it's your own fault. GOOD QUESTIONS CAN UP YOUR RANKING! GOOD ANSWERS TO GOOD QUESTIONS CAN TOO! For amendments, I like them, but that doesn't mean your chamber will. If you're going to try to pass an amendment, it needs to actually fix an inherent issue within the bill, and I need to hear a reason articulated in a speech (whether it's a neg -> propose amendment or an amendment speech) for WHY the amendment is necessary. If your amendment passes I will factor that into your ranking. ALSO: if other people in your chamber have said "hey, let's get as many speeches as possible by not passing amendments" that doesn't mean you can't try, but that does mean it probably won't pass. And failed amendments ARE a waste of time for the chamber. ALSO ALSO: splits are not binding. They are a verbal agreement in the chamber. Do what's best for you.

On jargon: I've honestly never been a big fan but you literally cannot be competitive in certain circuits without it. I won't hold it against you, unless I hear "Senator ___ hasn't proven an internal link for their third impact." You can talk about links, warrants, impacts, uniqueness, etc., but remember this isn't a policy round. This is a mock congress, so try your best to sound like it.

Prog LD

Speed is fine just put me on the speechdrop, don't spread your tags/analytics or you risk them not being on my flow. Also don't spread your opp out, I think it's bad for the activity and I am willing to vote on T shells/speed ks that prove that. That being said if you spread your opp out and they just take it you'll probably win, but you'll have bad speaks and I will tell you that the way you debate makes our community worse. I'm not fond of TRICKS but I'll vote for them if explained. T is fun. I really like K's and K affs, both ontological and epistemological, just explain them throughly (especially for your alt or how the K-aff solves). I think it's important to link to the aff/res with a k, but if you think otherwise prove it in round with evidence. I love method debates on alts. Performance is fun, just please have cards that support how your method of performance is good/neccesary for whatever argument you're making. CP's/counteradvocies that aren't the squo are great on neg, just show me mutual exclusivity and a net benefit the aff can't achieve. I really enjoy framework heavy debate, LD should be about philosophical defenses or attacks of argument. Tech = Truth, you should be telling me in round whether I should value truth>tech or tech>truth if it's important for the decision. I don't judge kick. If you're kicking an arg, tell me that. If you kick an arg with unresolved offense, RIP you. I may not be super familiar with all topics/arguments, but as long as it's explained well, I'm willing to vote for it. Extinction args are fine, I'm just as willing to vote for them as I am for SV based args (again, framing is important!). Evidence is important, but critical thinking is more important. You don't always need a card-for-card response if you have some crispy rhetoric that can cook. Also, READ STUDIES!! Read how a study was conducted, who it was conducted by, what it found, how it warrants its conclusions, the whole schbang. This will give you immensely more topic knowledge and allow you to engage in in-depth conversations. Jargon is fine, it's debate, it happens. Speak well and have rational arguments and you will do well.

Trad LD: Speak clearly and concisely, warrant your args, have good value/criterion debate. I am willing to vote for pretty much any position, so don't feel constricted by your circuit. Run the args YOU want to run.

PF

Evidence matters a lot. Context of evidence matters more, so contextualize it. Partner dynamic is also important, I want to vote for the winning team, not the winning person and partner they carried. CLASH CLASH CLASH! Clash wins rounds. Win where it matters on clash, too--if that means framing, win there and make the rest of the round easy. If it's impacts, do some impact calc to show me where I need to be voting in the round. First speakers, your job is to assert your team's worldview, problems in the squo/aff, and solutions to those problems that your team provides. In the defense speech you certainly should prop up your own points, but the best first speakers I've seen also begin the process of cross application of evidence for your your partner. Second speakers, your job is to tear apart the opponent's case, expose how and why their case doesn't solve/matter, and enforce how your opponent's reality is net worse than your reality in the final focus. I also flow cross, but it doesn't impact my decision unless you tell me where to apply it. Speak well, be respectful but assertive, and explain arguments well. I HAVE NEVER AND WILL NEVER ACCEPT THE POLICIFICAION OF PFD. IT LITERALLY HAS PUBLIC FORUM IN THE NAME. IT'S A FORUM OF DEBATE FOR THE PUBLIC. ANY SPEED/K/PLAN/CP/ANY SHENANIGANS WILL MAKE ME VERY SAD.

CX

I'll vote for anything, just explain and warrant your arguments. See my LD paradigm for techy/prog things.

Pronouns: she/her Email: kathrynjhammock@gmail.com (please put me on the email chain, or whatever method of sharing evidence)

I have lots of high school policy experience and a bit of experience in NFA-LD.

General preferences:

• I do not enjoy K debate, but will definitely listen to it if that's your thing. Just please explain thoroughly, you should be able to explain every aspect of the K before you're debating it.
• I do not like long grace periods, or 'off the clock' road maps. Give me a short order before your speech, but leave your arguments for when the clock is running.
• I'm okay with speed as long as everyone in the round is
• I'm okay with open cross as long as one person is not dominating

Overall, I'm not picky. Just please be kind to one another, show respect, and speak well.

Tyler Han

Hopkins 26’

He/They

2N/1A

Email Chain; than19@jhu.edu

I vote for the team that does the better job debating. Clear warranted explanation in the 2nr/2ar wins ballots. I don’t care what you read just do it well and explain it to me. Also +.2 to speaks if you bring me a coke or MSU debate pen. Don’t be stupid.

I am an informed lay judge who is very aware of debate as an activity. I am able to flow, but not well, and certainly not at speed.

I appreciate all forms of debate, and I don't mind kritical or performance debates, but I am not well-read in philosophy. I also don't mind if things get a little meta, I don't like it when debate lingo starts getting thrown around without explanation to the judge. Debate should be inclusionary, and when parties are using unknown terminology, the activity becomes elitist. I also end up confused, which harms your ability to win my ballot.

I am a firm believer that public forum debate should be done at a normal speaking pace. If you want to speak quickly, do policy. Even with policy, I prefer when participants speak slower and are more efficient than just trying to get more cards in. I understand the reasoning behind speed and spread debate, but it makes the upper echelons of the activity elitist and inaccessible to lay judges and competitors who may be competing in a second language.

Policy: I debated in High School policy for four years as my preferred format of debate. I'm not particularly enthusiastic about Kritiks or terminal impact DA's since I prioritize an educational and realistic debate. Counter plans are fine as long as they can solve an issue better than the affirmative can, but they must be untopical. It's very easy to get emotional in a round so don't get toxic to either your teammates or opponents.

PuF: Due to the time constraints of the debate, I tend to give the win to better speakers that can present their evidence and arguments cohesively. I am a flow-heavy judge so make sure you address all of your opponents' points and build your case simultaneously.

LD: The use of evidence and philosophy should be balanced in an LD case so the speaker can provide a holistic evaluation of a debate topic to the judge. I prefer speaks rather than a ton of evidence and will generally give the win to the person that meets that criteria. I don't tolerate the presence of a plan or suggested plan in this debate format since it's inappropriate in this context, and will automatically give the win to the opposite person.

Yo I'm Sol. I'm a junior in high school, go to Bolivar, and do LD. I've been doing it since freshman year. I've debated 1 round of PF, and one tournament worth of policy, so I've at least dabbled in everything.

General: Don't be a jerk. You could cook your opponent on every argument, but if you're a punk about it I'll vote for them 9 time out of 10. If you aren't professional, I honestly don't care all that much about the rest. Be civil y'all it keeps debate good.

Other than that, my next most important voting issue is argumentation. Speaking quality is good, but deep arguments beat cotton candy quality arguments that sound pretty in my opinion. I'm very much a flow judge and greatly appreciate sign posting, organization, and a clean flow.

LD: The best event in my completely biased opinion. I'm a firm believer that LD should happen at the value level. Semantics debates are a huge turn off. Don't be nit picky. Legitimate evidence disputes are acceptable of course, but if your evidence is 1 year newer than theirs and doesn't directly contrast theirs, I promise I don't care. Philosophical debates are the best. Hit 'em with some moral theory that they can't respond to and I will absolutely rock with it.

PF: I'm pretty open to all styles here. Again, argumentation >>>>

Policy: If you're gonna run a K, make it interesting.

binx peterson

chs sophomore

they/them

general

i've been debating for three and a half years at this point so i'm decently experienced. i've done two years of lincoln douglas and a year and a half of public forum so i'm better with those. overall just try to speak clearly and make the debate a safe space for everyone

kritiks

i'm pretty open to kritiks so i'm not gonna penalize you for running one as long as you do it well. make sure you clearly outline your argument so your opponent(s) and i can understand.

counterplans

i'm also fine with counterplans just don't be abusive. absolutely outline why your side is better but if you try to say it's impossible to vote for the other side that leans toward abuse of the round. if your counterplan is a theory PLEASE make it clear and understandable because they can get pretty lofty.

speaks

most of all please be respectful in round. i understand getting loud or a bit defensive but don't cross the line. try to enunciate, if you spread in round i'll probably give you low speaks.

Chris Rothgeb

Parkview High School, Springfield, MO

Head Coach

I currently coach the following events: Policy, LD, Public Forum, Congress, Interp (HI, DI, Duo, POI, Storytelling, Prose, Poetry, Duet Acting), USX, IX, OO, Info, Radio Speaking.

Former Assistant and Head Coach at Jefferson City High School, Jefferson City, MO

I debated Policy, LD, and PF in High School. I debated Policy for 2 semesters in college at Missouri State University. I have also judged NFA LD and College Policy/CEDA/NDT.

Policy Debate (below)

In high school and in college, I almost always gave the 1AR.

Role as the judge - I tend to not define what judge I am in a single term. Basically, whatever you present, I will listen to and evaluate that.

Flash Time - When someone is flashing evidence, NO ONE IS PREPPING!! I will count off your own prep time if you are prepping while someone is flashing.

Please provide me with the documents that you flash/email over. This makes my life a little easier and I can be a better judge for you.

If you are unclear, I will yell for you to be clearer. If you continue to be unclear, I will dock speaker points.

I will read evidence if I believe that it is important. Sometimes I do, and sometimes I do not. I will only read the un-underlined portion of evidence if it is brought up in the round and I believe it to be important to decide the outcome of the round. I don't usually do this though.

Topicality - I have voted on T in the past, but that does not mean I like it. If the aff is being blatantly untopical, then T is clearly going to matter. If there is no offense from either side, I will discard T. Make it count.

Theory - Theory debates are so tricky. I was never really exposed to theory until college and it still confuses me today. If you decide to go this route, make it count and explain it well. You do not have to dumb it down, but you need to explain it.

Kritiks - Again, I never debated K in high school. It just wasn't a thing in my circuit. I only did K debates in college because my partners wanted to. I never understood them which made it difficult to convey to the judge. This is important to know. If you do not fully understand your K position, then you cannot explain it that well to me. This presents a problem when it comes down to me making an evaluation of the round. The other thing I find with most K debates is that no one ever tells me the "why" component - or the Impacts. The theory behind the K may be super interesting, but what is the actual application to the round? If you cannot explain this, odds are I will have a hard time making the K matter in my decision.

AFF duties - You must read a plan in the 1AC. This is non-negotiable to me. Waiting until after the 1AC to read a plan is abusive and we just wasted 16 minutes of good speaking time.

Performance debates - I have only ever seen 1 performance debate in my entire career. I didn't vote for it. Not because it wasn't effective, but because they couldn't defend it. Keep that in mind.

Speed - I am "okay" with speed. Most people seem to think that if they read it fast enough, that counts. This is incorrect. If I cannot perceive your words, then I cannot digest the information that you are presenting. BE CLEAR!! Just because you can speak fast, does not mean that I can digest it that fast. I need to be able to understand what is going on in the round in order to make the most accurate decision after the round. On the standard 1-to-9 scale from the NSDA (with 1 being slow and conversational and 9 being rapid and fast), I would go with a 5. If you are speaking and I am not flowing, you are going too fast. I will tell you to be clear, but I will NOT tell you to slow down.

In-round K - I put Language K and Speed K here. Unless the other team is ACTUALLY being abusive, then this should NOT happen. Again, I need impacts.

Abuse - Potential abuse is not a reason to vote someone down. If you feel you were actually at a disadvantage in the round caused by the other team cheating, or what-not, then show that to me.

TL;DR - Impact your arguments.

Have fun with the debate! This is supposed to be fun! So enjoy it! A bad attitude is so easy to see for a judge and it makes me not have fun either. Then we are all sitting there with bad attitudes for an hour and a half. No one wants that.

I really enjoy case and DA debates the best. Impact analysis is always fun to judge. I will listen to all of your arguments - that I can promise you. But you need to make it count.

World Schools (below)

Summer 2022 is my first time judging WSD. All I ask is to be respectful towards each other with POI. Turning down too many points will lose some speaker points. Be sure to carry your arguments from the first speech all the way through (unless you are strategically kicking out of arguments). Make sure you are keeping the big picture in mind. This is a holistic debate -be holistic. 

Email for evidence sharing: I would like to be included in the email chain if you are picking to do it that way, if not that's cool too, also just for any other questions: derek30saiko@gmail.com

Overview:

I am currently a Senior at Central High School in Springfield, MO. I am a Varsity Policy Debater, I enjoy Policy more than the other debates, however, I think they are all very fun to judge. Below you will see a few things I will be watching for and reasons of why I will give you a certain rank or result.

Policy: In policy I will be flowing, I have really good background knowledge in the Water Resources topic so I will be flowing this. I would enjoy if you give me a roadmap before your speeches. I will be looking for good speaking, if you don't understand your own evidence I won't be able to either, so know what your talking about. Even if you say it with confidence it will be better than just skimming over it and not knowing what it is. Spreading in my opinion is not a good way to debate, because why debate if you aren't even able to be heard, I will not count this against you, however, if I can't hear the argument I will not include it in my flow.

PuF: I will be flowing in PuF, I do not have as much background knowledge in this topic so any acronyms or certain words that you didn't know before researching the case you should explain to me. If your arguments make sense I will be more likely to vote in favor of your team, even if the other team has "more evidence". I will be looking for good speaking, if you don't understand your own evidence I won't be able to either, so know what your talking about. Even if you say it with confidence it will be better than just skimming over it and not knowing what it is. Spreading in my opinion is not a good way to debate, because why debate if you aren't even able to be heard, I will not count this against you, however, if I can't hear the argument I will not include it in my flow.

LD: I will be flowing in LD, I do not have strong background knowledge in this topic, I do know some things but you should still explain stuff in your own words after you read it. If your arguments make sense I will be more likely to vote in favor of your team, even if the other team has "more evidence". I will be looking for good speaking, if you don't understand your own evidence I won't be able to either, so know what your talking about. Even if you say it with confidence it will be better than just skimming over it and not knowing what it is. Spreading in my opinion is not a good way to debate, because why debate if you aren't even able to be heard, I will not count this against you, however, if I can't hear the argument I will not include it in my flow.

Speaking Rating:

Speaks

I'll assign speaks based on this scale:

23 - 25: You need to practice your speaking, need to read through and understand your case better.

26: You need some practice in your speaking speaking practice, and start to explain your analytics instead of JUST reading them.

27: You did decent speaking and you did "ok" in explaining your case and analytics

28: You did pretty average, you should be a little clearer while explaining analytics

29: You did really great at speaking, great analytics, you really understand your cards and your case overall

30: You did fantastic at speaking and analyzing your evidence/case

If you ask for advice after the debate, or critiques I am always down to give you them.

National Tournament Paradigm Available through National Tournament Site.

Beyond the filled out card NSDA requires, I'm interested in accessible debate. Don't gatekeep the activity by making it harder to understand. (This is especially applies to K's, some kinds of Theory, speed/spread, and unnecessary jargon that clutters the debate space). Every time you use the phrase "cold concedes", J Scott Wunn sheds another tear.

Debate IS an educational communication activity first and foremost. To that end, passing a card to your opponents and not reading it aloud, or any other version of the debate being "on paper but not verbal" (which includes reading at a pace that exceeds public retention of ideas) is a self-defeating practice in the activity that I strongly discourage. If you're right, but you can't articulate it in a way someone who has never watched a debate before can appreciate, it doesn't matter!

If you can't trust your partner to give their speech without your constant input, don't do a team debate. I want to vote for good teams, not someone trying to carry or someone who is too controlling to maintain decorum.

In every form of debate, there should be detailed voting issues!

If you cannot appear civil, it doesn't matter if you're right in a space like this. People don't want to listen to shouting. Decorum is a part of debate, always.

More words don't make better arguments.

Hello! I am super excited to be judging for you guys and just wanted to give you all a quick heads up about how I will be judging these debate rounds.

Some of the biggest things that I will be looking at to decide the winner of these rounds are as follows:

1. Respect: You need to respect both me, your opponents, and your partner if you have one. I appreciate assertiveness and bold debaters, but there is a line between assertive and disrespectful, you should understand this line as it is basic human decency. Do not cross it.

2. Flow: I am a flow judge so if you drop questions, contentions, or refutes, I will take note of this and this will effect my decision.

3. Speaking Voice and Tone: I understand that there are going to be tech issues now and then, but for the most part, you should speak loudly and clearly. Answer questions with purpose and just overall conduct yourself effectively and professionally.

I will obviously be adjusting this depending on each round and each situation, but for the most part this is what I am looking for. Overall, make sure that you guys have fun, be polite, and maintain the educational qualities of this program.

You will all do great!

I have 3 years of experience in Policy with a MO State Qualification under my belt. I'm currently in college for Aerospace Engineering, not debating right now.

Debated for Bolivar High School in Ozark (MO) District.

He/him.

If you do an email chain or have any questions: sean.j.vote@gmail.com

My main reason for being here is to give you feedback. I'm rooting for all of you, and I'm going to give you feedback to get you as far as I can. Giving a decision comes after that.

Be good people. Nothing loses you a round faster than being a jerk. Also, don't forget that my ballot can change until I give it to Ballot Return. Just because we've left the room doesn't mean I've stopped listening.

Yes, you can time yourself, but I'll also be timing. I give a 30 second grace period, but that's not 30 seconds of speech time. It's 30 seconds to wrap up what you're saying.

In my opinion, Speech and debate is supposed to develop your communication skills. I'm fine with spreading/speed, but that's not going to get you a high speaker rank. I'm not afraid to give a low point win if you out-argue your opponents, but just remember that speaker points can be the difference between breaking to out-rounds or not (I've been there before).

Also, don't forget that your District Tourney will (probably) be mostly lay judges. Practice what will get you further there.

Also, don't throw evidence at me non-stop. Evidence is nice, and I can tell what it's talking about, but apply it. If you don't apply it either in the tag or an overview, I will disregard it.

I will vote on the flow. If the flow has been well answered, I will vote on Impacts. Respond to everything.

I prefer AFFs with topical plans. While K-AFFs, etc. can be run, you'd better have a dang good reason, and convince me of it. It will be difficult.

Also, keep it topical. I really hate debates that come down to my interpretation of the topic. If the AFF keeps it reasonably topical, there'll be no problem.

For Disads, focus on the Likelihood of your impacts. Don't vomit evidence at me, explain what's happening.

I like CPs when they're done right. Make sure that I'm convinced of Mutual Exclusivity and impossibility of perm.

Don't run your AFF as a CP. Topical CPs aren't fun because it's just 75 minutes of: "our AFF outweighs," "no, OUR AFF outweighs."

Courts is fine, but you'd better have a solid understanding of US Courts, and provide the decision you're impacting, and prove that there is ground for ruling in your favor.

(For AFF) Don't focus on Conditionality. I don't care about it.

K's are fine but don't run only a K. I'd like to hear other reasons that the AFF doesn't work/isn't the most important.

Also, I hate alts that are just "talking about it in round." If your solution to this systemic issue is to talk to me about it, it's already happening, and there's no reason to vote for you.

T is about in-round abuse. You had better prove that the AFF is seriously harming you. It shouldn't just be a time-sink or a general "I have nothing else" argument.

Most of the time, Literature checks abuse. If you're arguing that you couldn't prepare because AFF isn't topical, you shouldn't run any prepared arguments.

The only time you should run theory without actual abuse is when you run A-Z Spec (with the K). It probably won't win, but I'll have fun seeing it.

They're not going to win you the round. While I like humor and appreciate the effort, I generally prefer actual args.

I'm not going to stop you from trying, but remember that your opponents probably want actual debate.

Progressive Args are fine. I'm actually more familiar with them with my CX experience.

Although I don't have practical experience in these events, I still (kinda) know what I'm doing.

Like I said in the Policy section, I will vote on the flow.

The best platform speeches are ones that flow well. As long as you do that, and keep me entertained, you should be alright.

Don't take yourself too seriously. Talk to me like I'm a person and we're having a conversation.

Make your speech flow well, and answer the question fully.

I have the least experience in these events. I know that it's difficult to change your piece, so I'll try not to critique the writing.

The one comment I have in advance is that in DI and POI, I don't want to be depressed for 10 minutes. Use a variety of emotions.

Be good people.

Speed is fine.

All arguments are fine, but that doesn't mean they're equal.

I will try to prepare you for Districts Judging pools, so try to argue AND speak well. I'll give you as much feedback as I can fit on the ballot.

Aubrey Webster

Parkview High School, Springfield, MO

Assistant Coach

I did not debate in High School but performed Storytelling for individual speech tournaments. This is my second year as the assistant speech and debate coach at Parkview High School in Springfield, Missouri.

Please provide me with the documents that you flash/email over. This makes my life easier in case there are tech issue or if I need to look things over again.

When judging, I look at the following details:

How well you were able to explain and provide evidence.

How well you were able to ask questions and answer questions during cross examination.

How well you were able to attack your opponent's case.

How well your speaking skills were during your speech.

I truly believe speech and debate provides so many life skills for students and it is an honor to be apart of this amazing activity!