I’m a blank slate. Your round you tell me how to vote.

I've coached for three years.
I like well thought-out closing arguments.
Speak clearly and not too quickly, so I can understand you.

I'm looking out for good and well-mannered speakers.
I don't have a preference on arguments you use as long as you make sure to explain and interpret them well.

I was a four year debater in high school and competed at a high level, albeit it was in the 3-2-1A division. I am mostly comfortable hearing any issue, but would warn that for any K's or higher level arguments it must be done very well for me to decide on it. I will not sign a ballot for a team that uses a K to surprise the opposing team rather than have a knowledgeable debate. I'm currently in law school, so I feel that I am going to be more open to hearing procedural arguments about the law than most judges would be. I am going to use a balancing test to make my final decision. Each issue brought up in the debate will be balanced along with all the others. This does not mean that a team cannot win on Topicality alone, just that the Topicality case is going to have to be so strong that it balances out the lack of other issues. Since I will be balancing every issue, I would encourage teams to argue every issue. Furthermore, I would prefer that you tell me how to balance the issues but if not explicitly stated to analyze the issues another way I will follow a modified BPL analysis.

I do not have formal training in judging, but I have judge tournaments for 7 years. I look mainly at the ethics of the case and the philosophy of the arguments. I do not mind spreading, and will track the flow of the debate.

I’ve competed in high school/college, and judged in the years since. Policy maker.

Please ask.

I prefer to weigh real-world impacts over procedurals -- procedurals with no standards and voters will not earn my ballot.

T = fine, so long as it filters through the first comment.

H / I = I'm not super concerned about inherency. If the policy doesn't exist currently, I want to be able to evaluate your policy as an alternative to the Status Quo. The Neg has the opportunity to represent the status quo or provide a counter plan.

S = Obviously you need to prove you can solve to have a risk of impacts to your advantages. Likewise DAs need to explain links and internal links to have risk of happening.

Adv. / DAs = yes please.

SY23-24

This is my 8th year judging Debate and 9th judging Forensics

Debate: Mostly Policy

I judge as I would in a courtroom deciding whether or not someone should be innocent or guilty. I am going to listen to both sides, see how well you are able to ask & answer questions, & ultimately prove your case. I am going to wait for someone to CONVINCE me beyond a reasonable doubt that I should vote your side.

Sometimes my decision may come down to how comfortable you are in your knowledge of the topic, &how it's delivered. Do you have confidence? How prepared were you? Do you only talk about how wrong the other team is & why they shouldn't win? I want to know whyYOU should win. When you walk in, I will assume you know the rules, so I just want to hear a good, lively debate that stays on topic.

Forensics:

I received 1st at State every year I was in Forensics in high school, so it means a lot to me.

I look for confidence, proper enunciation, animation, voicing, originality &preparedness. I expect appropriate dress, as it is often distracting & interrupts decorum. You need to look professional while representing your school.

Your excitement & commitment will come through in your performance.

Melanie Davis

Maybe the easiest, but hardest way to say this is, I want a good debate. I want a good analysis of your evidence and good defense of your position.

I was a 1N/2A speaker in high school - I do appreciate a well thought out topicality argument, but really appreciate the debate focusing on the plan presented.

Not a big fan of critiques or counter plans and other items that feel like a "cop-out" for lack of a better way to say it.

Be respectful of one another - especially in CX.

Have fun and focus on defending your position. :)

From the standard paradigm sheet:

- Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills.

- Policy Maker/Tabula Rasa/Flow. Default to Policy Maker (expect impact calculus).

- Fairly rapid delivery acceptable so long as presentation is clearly enunciated -- very rapid speed discouraged. Speed if you can, don't if you can't.

- Counterplans are acceptable even if inconsistent with other elements of the negative.

- Topicality is fairly important -- roughly on par with other major issues in the round. I expect standards/voters from both sides, must pull to rebuttals.

- I find generic disadvantages generally acceptable. Prefer specific links.

- I find kritiks general acceptable. Prefer specific links.

General Notes:

- I prefer off-case to on-case, and I generally don't care about stock issues. Since Topicality is flowed off-case, it serves as a prerequisite to on-case debate. Solvency is the only on-case argument that will be used to evaluate the 1AC against any off-case such as disadvantages/CPs/Ks.

- I fully support the use of CP's and K's, but PLEASE specify if you are taking a multiple-world approach and be sure to analyze the 1AC within the merits of the CP/K.

- Do not drop the flow, particularly in the rebuttals, or the argument will go to the last response.

*please add me to your email chain: connor.r.england@gmail.com*

Debate Experience: 4 years of high school policy debate (state finalist for 3 of those years), 3 years of collegiate parliamentary debate. Significant experience in real-world legislative policy construction and political debate.

PRIMARY PARADIGM: Policy-maker/Tab Rasa. Whoever’s policy direction makes the world a better place will typically gain my vote (this is policy debate, after all). I expect some sort of impact calculus performed – but the framework and standards by which those impacts are evaluated are absolutely up for negotiation by the debating teams. Even senators regularly scrap policies due to critical/structural analyses, as opposed to purely voting on napkin-sketch utilitarianism. Act as if what you argue for will be enacted, consequences and all. Someday, due to your words, it just might.

STOCK ISSUES:

- H/I: inherency is often not of much importance. If the policy doesn't exist currently, I should be able to evaluate your policy as an alt to the Status Quo. The Neg has the opportunity to represent the status quo or provide a counter plan.

- S: This needs to be proven in order for you to have any access to your advantages.

- Advantages vs DAs: Straight-up policy debate is always a good time. Make sure that links/internal links are explained well. Generics are okay, specific links are preferred.

TOPICALITY: I’m a fan of topicality and think weighing whether or not the aff is a part of the resolution is a major part of the round. The resolution is the only apriori common ground we all have, and was written to try and create the most educational environment for debaters. If cases fall outside of the resolution, there must be a sound theoretical/framework argument as to how education can be maintained/furthered without being topical. I tend to believe that there are common T arguments which often fail to show that fair educational ground has been lost - reasonability tends to be an argument with diminishing returns, and spec debates probably need to be a gross violation in order to be a meaningful voting issue. That said, even in those instances: T’s primary purpose is to create a stable model for debate. If your argument preserves education and you can prove it, don’t be afraid to go all-in.

COUNTERPLANS: CPs are acceptable even if inconsistent with other elements of the negative. However, just like T, there are some common CPs which seem to be less constructive (Delay, Consult/Conditions without meaningfully specific solvency advocate, etc). Feel free to test the affirmative’s case however you feel is useful, but know what you’re doing if you’re going to do it, and be clear to me in your analysis.

KRITIKS: Critical perspectives are important, even in the realm of policy-making – that said, many of the thoughts critical thinkers espouse are tough to do meaningfully in a few minutes flat. If you're going to go for this type of debate, you need to be ready to do it justice, i.e. spend some time and be willing to commit to the argument. Similarly, I enjoy K debates and am open to listening to them, but please make sure that you actually understand what you’re arguing. If you don’t understand it or how it clashes with the other team’s arguments, *I* won’t understand it/your position. And If I don’t understand it, I don’t vote for it. Just make sure that you explain how the K affects the debate, be it post-plan or in-round impacts, and *please* provide a specific interpretation for me to make a decision on.

HIGH-LEVEL NOTES:

- Debate is an educational, intellectually rigorous activity. Things that deter from that education will affect you. Please refer to specific arguments for potential issues.

- Kindness and respect are prerequisites for accessing the educational value of a debate. A mean spirit will cost you (both in our rounds, and out in the real world). So be nice, m’kay.

- Tech > Truth, but your arguments *need* to be warranted.

- Clash matters, almost above all else (with the rare exception of well-demonstrated theoretical/K abuse). Without it, it is [literally] not a debate. Make sure that your arguments are connecting to what the other team says.

- Don’t waste time by running arguments just for the sake of argument (e.g. 3 quick T’s which you use to sandbag, then kick); make sure it applies. This is a corollary to the above point above.

- Speed is acceptable, but please remember that technology affects the ability for everyone to hear. If I cannot understand you, I will say “clear”. If you don’t clear up your speech, I will wait a few more seconds, and will then stop flowing.

- CP's and K's are perfectly okay to run, but PLEASE specify if you are taking a multiple-world approach, and be sure to analyze the 1AC within the merits of the CP/K.

- Do not drop the flow, particularly in the rebuttals, or the argument will go to the last response.

GENERAL PHILOSOPHY RE: DEBATE

It is important to know why we're here/why debate matters. If you've ever wondered... please consider this possible explanation, and let it inform your future debates.

- DEBATE: To use language and logical argumentation as tools to mutually inform a group's understanding of a subject/object of interest.

- POLICY DEBATE: To use debate to construct and test potential legal solutions (both the good and the bad that can from them, under various frameworks) to problems that affect people within a jurisdictional bound.

- This activity is modeled off of how politicians and lawmakers in the real world work together to better understand the issues we face, and come to build solutions to those issues (i.e. make laws) that affect all people inside the borders that those laws apply to. It's a serious, often life-or-death, activity, and should be treated with respect. Many high school debaters go onto be lawyers, politicians, and activist leaders - the habits you build in round may very well determine how good of a world we can create in the future. If a politician was arguing about a policy on CSPAN the way you do in-round, would you approve of them?

- Ideally, policy debate should be approached as if what the problems you're arguing about can really, truly be solved by your policy choices in-round; if this were true, you would want to seek as much education on potential solutions as possible. If your solution is better, your policy position should win - but above all else, we should try to cultivate maximally educating environments in-round so that we can work together to discuss the best possible policy position for our fellow human beings. THAT is why we're here, and is infinitely more important than any trophy or medal you'll ever win. Learn how to approach debates this way, and you'll shape the world around you for the better.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FINAL NOTE:

Have fun, learn something, and be kind. Good luck!

I competed in debate and forensics for four years in high school, and coached our middle school program. I tend to lean towards policy maker voting and plan-based debate versus stock issues. I like a good squirrel case. I love a good topicality argument - like, a really good topicality argument - but hate a bad one. I dislike single-issue debates and absolutely expect debaters to have more than one argument against the aff case.

I will flow rounds. I expect respectful and educational debates.

Good luck! Can't wait to see you.

Please include me in the email chain: lisacarlos@sbcglobal.net

Back in the day, I was a high school debater (Hutchinson Trinity Catholic). More recently, I coached high school debate (also at TC) for five years. I prefer the classic style of debating with weight given to speaking style and elegantly developed arguments with direct clash. I appreciate courteous manners.

I would categorize myself as a policymaker judge with expectations that all stock issues will be met.

I am a flow judge. I am ok with fast talking, but if I can't flow it is too fast (I will try to indicate this through the camera).

I don't like kritiks, so if you run one, please have a good reason and explain it well.

Stock issues are important to me, but not necessarily the sole issue of my ballot (BUT if something is glaring, I will vote on it).

I am fine with a good Topicality argument. I am ok with counterplans if they are run well and carefully explained.

I will not do any of the work for you. If there is an obvious contradiction, but it is not pointed out. I won't consider it.

I love a good disadvantage with a direct link to the affirmative case.

In rebuttals, I greatly appreciate impact calculus and weighing the round.

Things I don't like: redundancy, claiming that the other team "lied" about something, condescending remarks, generic arguments used as a timesuck.

I consider it an honor to be judging -- thank you for choosing to debate!

I debated in high school and began judging while I was in college. I believe the purpose of the debate is active learning and building critical thinking skills. I am a stock issue voter; I am open to being told what debaters find salient in a round and how I should vote. I am also a flow judge, so I like being told how/where to flow. Road mapping is so important to me, that I am fine with them being off time. With that done, and good tagging/signposting, speed is not a problem. If it compromises your ability to read fluently or speak articulately, slow down. The cards do not speak for the debater- the debater speaks for the card (provide summaries or explain relevance). That being said, I am open to Ks and turns. I do not like counterplans, as I think they are a kind of a debate hack. Policy debate is about policy- real world problems, real world solutions, real world consequences. Impact calc and solvency args are important for both teams. NEG teams, I do not care how generic your disad is if you can make a good argument for your link. AFF teams, inherency, topicality and a thorough understanding of your own plan are musts. I like speakers to fill time and take advantage of cross-examinations for clarification purposes. These things ensure a good CLEAN debate (with lots of clash).. because courtesy/professionalism matters! My email address is elizahemmer@gmail.com

10 years of experience with Policy Debate.

I try to be as Tabula Rasa as possible, allowing the debaters to provide context for the round. Tell me what issues are most important, why they are most important, and provide an impact calc for why you should win the round. If the context is not provided, I will default to a Stock Issues paradigm.

No issue with topicality, disadvantages, or other off case arguments. Please avoid arguments with generic links and kritiks

I will be flowing so try to signpost, tying your arguments to the flow as you go. If you need to extend or pull through any arguments, please give a rationale.

With in-person rounds, I have no issues with speed. Typically I would stop flowing to let you know I cant understand.

I prefer traditional debate with clash and reasonable speed. I've done this for awhile so you can run what you run as long as the analysis justifies why I should vote. Not a big fan of K debate but if you can do it well, go nuts. Tabula rasa but I'll default to policy maker if not given a reason to vote.

*I teach AP American Government. It would be in your best interest to either 1. Argue funding/enforcement/federalism accurately structurally or 2. Avoid them like the round depends on it (it often does). I'm unlikely to vote on funding/enforcement/federalism arguments that are misunderstood or misapplied. Telling the judge how government works while not knowing how government works hurts the credibility of your argument.

JUDGES INFORMATION SHEET

Name Kate Martin

City Swan Point State MD

School Letter Judge

Community Judge

School Number Judge

1) Did you debate in high school? Yes

Number of years 4

2) Did you debate in college? No

Number of years N/A

3) How many elimination rounds have you judged on this topic? 0

4) How many preliminary rounds have you judged on this topic? 1

5) List tournaments where you have judged this year: KSHSAA 4A Regionals

6) Please choose the following that applies to your judging criteria:

I. Which best describes your priorities in judging debates?

Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills.

II. Which best prescribes your paradigm or approach to judging debate?

e. Tabula rasa (judge adopts perspective according to standards in the round)

III. What speed or rate of presentation do you prefer?

c. Fairly rapid delivery acceptable so long as presentation is clearly enunciated. Whatever speed you choose, make sure that I can understand you so that I can adequately evaluate your arguments.

IV. Counterplans are:

d. Acceptable even if inconsistent with other elements of the negative.

V. Topicality is:

Almost never or never important to my decision-making process.

VI. I find generic disadvantages:

Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

VII. I find kritiks:

Generally acceptable.

I debated for three years in high school (a LONG time ago) in the late 80s. I judged for quite a few years then took a break for awhile and resumed judging the last 7 years consistently. There have been many changes that have evolved throughout the time, but I remain pretty traditional.

PET PEEVE: I hate the use of the term "card." As my wonderful debate coach insisted, you should not use the term "card" is not what you are relying upon it is evidence, support, substantiation, or anything similar. Debaters today haven't even made "cards" as we used to back in my day of debate. It is just sloppy speaking as with too many acronyms.

To me, debate is about the affirmative making the prima facie case on all 5 of the stock issues (Topicality, Significance, Inherency, Workability & Solvency). Just like in a criminal case, the Negative only has to win one to create reasonable doubt. I do believe Topicality is a vital issue, and I will listen to the arguments, but I do not want to hear droning on and on about the impacts - get on with how the case isn't topical and move on.

Organized arguments are important to me and add to your ability to persuade.

I am unimpressed with tricky or non-traditional arguments. I like to see the basics performed well and at a high level.

As far as speed goes, I do not find it persuasive or convincing for individuals to speak in monotone voice as quickly as you can reading source after source. Don't speak faster than you can clearly enunciate and take time to explain your arguments and how the evidence you have "proves" the point you are trying to make. I also like when people listen to their opponent's evidence and find flaws, reasons why it doesn't support their case.

A few words about Cross Examinations - I find it offensive when debaters ask questions and then interrupt or talk over the person trying to answer. IF you want a "yes/no" response, learn to ask questions that elicit such responses. If the person drones on and on and on, then I think it is reasonable to raise a hand and say, I think you have answered may we move one? Or something respectful. Keep in mind that this is not argument. You cannot just rely on the questions raised here to carry through on into the speeches as they do not.

For this online forum - I do not want to be part of the email chain as I have enough to manage the two screens with zoom & tabroom open. If there becomes some dispute about the evidence/source, I will ask you to send it to me. I also do not want to wait forever if things are not going through. We did not routinely just have the other side hand over their case/evidence and learned to take our own notes and create arguments just fine. I have been in rounds wasting 30+ minutes just waiting for evidence to be received by the opponents. I like to keep it moving.

I'm a policy maker judge so I highly value real world impacts of the plan. Giving some impact calculus and weighing the round are a good way to sway my vote. I will flow the entire round so stock issues can be a deciding factor- especially solvency. I don't like kritiks, so if you want to run one make sure you run it well.

JUDGES INFORMATION SHEET

Name Vanessa Obi

City Kansas City State KS

1) Did you debate in high school? X Yes ☐ No

Number of years 5

2) Did you debate in college? ☐ Yes X No

3) How many elimination rounds have you judged on this topic? 0

4) How many preliminary rounds have you judged on this topic? 7

5) List tournaments where you have judged this year: Red/Maroon and Blue/Silver

6) Please choose the following that applies to your judging criteria:

C I. Which best describes your priorities in judging debates?

a. Communicative skills are more important than the resolution of substantive issues.

b. Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills.

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

E II. Which best prescribes your paradigm or approach to judging debate?

a. Skills emphasis (Who does the “better job of debating”)

b. Stock issues emphasis

c. Policymaker emphasis

d. Hypothesis testing emphasis

e. Tabula rasa (judge adopts perspective according to standards in the round)

f. Other

E III. What speed or rate of presentation do you prefer?

a. Slow and deliberate – conversational pace, speed discouraged.

b. Moderate contest rate (e.g. – extemp) faster speed discouraged.

c. Fairly rapid delivery acceptable so long as the presentation is clearly enunciated-very rapid speed discouraged.

d. Very rapid delivery preferred.

e. No preference regarding speed.

D IV. Counterplans are:

a. Never acceptable

b. Rarely acceptable, and only if specifically justified by substantive plan mandates.

c. Acceptable if justified, and if consistent with other elements of the negative approach.

d. Acceptable even if inconsistent with other elements of the negative.

C V. Topicality is:

a. Very important in my decision; I consider it a paramount issue.

b. Fairly important; roughly on par with other major issues in the round.

c. Rarely important; violation of topicality must be fairly blatant to win my ballot.

d. Almost never or never important to my decision-making process.

A VI. I find generic disadvantages:

a. Reprehensible; I prefer specific real-world arguments.

b. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

c. Generally acceptable.

C VII. I find kritiks:

a. Reprehensible; I prefer specific real-world arguments.

b. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

c. Always acceptable, I love Ks!

Good morning/afternoon/evening,

*Include me on the email chain* maria.olds@outlook.com

I debated and also did speech/congress for three years in high school (Field Kindley Memorial HS, Coffeyville KS), about twenty years ago.

I'm very analytical and tend to think from a real-world perspective. When deciding how to vote, I weigh the presented merits of the affirmative against disadvantages (which I will also consider from a real-world perspective - make sure to try to tie in generic disadvantages).

The topic this year is highly related to what I do for a living; I'm a forensic scientist, working for a police department. However I can assure you I will "walk in" and vote only on the arguments presented.

I was very much a line-by-line debater - sign-posting for me where in the flow your arguments go will help me out.

The quality of your evidence matters - make sure to state your references clearly so I can consider the quality of the source for materials.

Best of luck! ~M

Experience:
-4 yrs. High school policy
-3 yrs. College parliamentary - KS State Champ 2x

Coaching:
-2 yrs. asst. coaching - Teams qualified for state, NFL, NCFL (3rd place NCFL)
-1yr as head coach at Mukwonago High School. (Teams qualified for state, NFL and NCFL)

Paradigm Classification: Policy Maker
-I'm from Kansas and debate is different regionally. I entertain all arguments and will vote on anything. I adapt to the needs of the round. Tell me where to vote and make it worth my time.

Speaking Preferences:
-Speed is fine. Being a former college parli debater, speed is nothing new to me. If you think you can speed, and you can't, I will let you know and call clear. If you continue to be unintelligible-beyond debate standards-I will probably dock you.

Closed Cross. Roadmaps off time.

Evidence:
- If your transfer of evidence takes more than 30seconds-1 minute, I will take it out of your prep/speech time.
- Debate is fun and educational. Treat people with respect. We're all here for the same reason. Have fun and do well.

Overall, I sway toward a Policy Making Paradigm. With a heavy emphasis on speaking ability and how well the argument is made. Additionally, I disdain off-time road maps, (if it is important enough to include, please use your time for it).

I am pretty traditional. I like debates about stock issues. I do not like critiks at all. I also dislike counterplans, but would consider a good one. I like a clearly laid-out A1 where the speaker actually tries to present the case into the camera. Organization is also important. I give weight to how well cross examination is handled. I typically consider running generic DAs as a waste of time for the negative.

I'm a flow judge. I'll judge based on what you give me to work with. I think that all arguments should be refuted on either side and that no argument should go unaddressed. All contestants should treat their opponents with respect and civility.

I don't believe Kritiks have a place in policy debate and I ignore them the majority of the time. Also, if you are running a Counterplan you must know how to use it.

Have a great debate and a great season! -Jake

Very infrequent judge, I did debate in High School, judged throughout college and post-grad.

I am employed as a Data and Policy analyst, be as technical policy-wise as you wish. I am not an expert on debate, so be clear. Have fun!

Updated: December 8th, 2023.

If you want to look @ what I used to judge like, feel free to. I'll use some of this as a reference to when I'm judging, but keep in mind this paradigm is now 4 years old. Also a bit cringe-worthy.

---------------------------------------

Ryan Reza

Debated Policy @ Washburn Rural HS (2014-2018)

Lover of food and liberalism and Tim Ellis

Email: RyanReza12@gmail.com

Updated: 9/7/2019

What's up! First off, don't be rude in round! If you're outrageously rude in round it will be very hard to win my ballot. Be nice, and have fun. Debate is an activity where everyone should be enjoying their time, that is why it was created. Not for you to flaunt around your arrogance.

General

-Tech over truth, must have warranted arguments.

-Debate arguments that you are most comfortable with!

-I won't do your work for you

-Use CX to your benefit, I'm a big fan

-If you have non cringy puns in your intros I respect you more

-I don't know a lot about this topic yet, so explain acronyms you might use or specific theories etc. Else I won't know whats happening probs

Speed

Listen I'm a little out of the whole speed thing. I am going to assume you're faster than I was in HS, however, if you are clear I will be able to follow along. If you are not clear, I will say "clear". If you do not become clear after I have said it, I'll wait a couple seconds then stop flowing.

Theory

-Reject the arg, not the team for all instances besides maybe condo

--For Condo there should be some pretty heavy in round abuse, and you have to prove it to me. Don't just read blocks, use your head.

T

I'm a fan of topicality. But because I'm lazy and Tim worded it well enough here is an excerpt from his paradigm

Topicality is usually a question of competing interpretations, but just like anything else in debate, you can persuade me otherwise. I tend to think that debaters are not great at explaining the offense that they have on T flows, and particularly, how offensive arguments interact with one another. All too often the neg will go for a limits DA and the aff will say precision, but no one will discuss which one has more value in creating a stable model for debate. Reasonability is an uphill battle for me, but I find myself being more persuaded by it as neg teams get worse and worse at extending an impact to their T argument. As far as spec debates, I usually find them quite dull, and it will take a pretty egregious violation or a crush of a spec debate for me to vote against someone for not specifying agent, funding, etc.

Thank you for listening to Tim's ted talk

FW

Ha I'm not too familiar with this aspect of debate. If you run an aff w/o a plan text that is perfectly fine. All you have to do is explain it to me and why your standard of debate is better for the activity and whatnot. If you just give me depth less arguments about how debate sucks now and the USFG is bad then it will not be an easy ballot to win. I will most likely lean negative in these types of debates, because fairness typically aligns towards the neg in these debates. But the negative team needs to do work if they want to win. Having offense on case and on top of that adding external impacts is important. Don't just throw together BS arguments at the end of the round, you'll need to do work to win.

Regardless, you do you. Explain your arguments, answer the other team's. You'll gain a ballot. Probably.

Kritiks

I am not to well versed in K literature, however, that does not mean I won't vote on it. Traditionally, if the team does a good job of explaining the world of the kritik and how the kritik is good, then they will be fine. If you read a K just to confuse your opponents, you will also confuse me.

-I think you should try and explain to me how the K looks in the debate, whether that is the post plan implications or whatever is happening in the round.

-Explain the alt well. That is probably important. Having good links to the aff is a plus, if it is a bunch of SQUO stuff it won't be very convincing.

-If the neg goes for FW be sure to explain the argument throughout the debate. And have a specific interpretation for me to vote on.

DAs

Big fan. Big fan. Big fan. I love me a good Disad.

-Try and have specific Links

-Politics DAs are pretty good. They might not make sense a lot of the time but you know

-Be sure to cover Case along with the DA. That is a pretty spicy combo in my eyes

-Have a nice internal link chain. I wanna know why doing the aff causes the world to explode into a ball of fiery doom

-Not too sure what else to say. Explain the world of the aff and how the DA trumps all Aff benefits

CPs

CPs are good. CP + DA is always good. I'm not super technical and informed on CP theory but:

-Delay CPs, probably bad

-Consult/Conditions CPs, def bad unless they have a specific solvency advocate

-Cut the other team's solvency advocate and make it into a CP. That is pretty spicy.

-Word PIC's are annoying

Speaker points (I'm still figuring this out so it could be different in the future and whatnot)

29.4+ -- Straight fire (One of the best I've seen)

29-29.3 -- Speaker Award at the tournament

28.6-28.9 -- Good, no complaints in terms of speaking ability (Above Average/Average - comments will determine)

28.0-28.5 -- Didn't do anything distinctly "wrong", critiques here and there about issues (A bit below average - you're getting there)

27s -- Dropping arguments, ending speeches early, etc. (Needs improvement - but hey you'll get there)

If you get anything below a 27 it means there was something that did not belong in the debate. Meaning rudeness, cheating, etc.

Idk other stuff that is probably important

Don't just say random debate words. Have warrants for every argument you make. BE CLEAR for analytical blocks. Have fun.

-1AR must be fire. It's a requirement

-Make jokes. If they are bad I will dock you speaker points (-.5 per joke), however, if they are good you will get additional points (+.5)

Reminder don't be awful in round.

stock issues are key. make sure you clearly explain why you won each one. I am fine with DAs as long as they are realistic and are specific to the case

I am old-school. I have been competing, coaching, and/or judging for about 30 years. I am looking for a series of good, persuasive speeches with a lot of clash. I can keep up with quality speed, but I am not interested in judging a speed-mumbling competition. If I cannot understand you (for whatever reason), I will NOT give you the benefit of the doubt.

I will consider everything said in CX as part of the round, so ask aggressively and answer carefully.

I will flow the round. If you do not signpost, I will not guess where your arguments go, and will consider them dropped. As for arguments, I want them brought-up in Constructives only. Rebuttals are for extra evidence and responses.

Analytical arguments are great, but I will judge their logic harshly.

If you're not speaking, you are using prep-time. The exception is if you're uploading your speech/evidence for the other team.

I will judge you on your speaking and professionalism.

CONGRESS:

I want to see actual debate. Clash with previous speakers, bring evidence and personality. I judge personality pretty heavily, so if you're just reading canned speeches with no humor, no pathos, no clash, your scores will be low. I expect good questions and evidence that you understand procedure.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS:

This is my favorite event. I want the arguments to be clear and everything needs to relate back to your values - contentions, attacks, CX, rebuttals, all of it.

Tell me why your value is superior; tell me why voting for you upholds your value; tell me why your opponent's side will diminish your superior value. Convince me of these things, and you will win the round.

I err to the practical, so if you use real-world examples and your opponent only debates in the theoretical, you'll be more likely to win.

This is the best, truest form of debate we have. Keep it that way.

POLICY DEBATE:

I abhor pre-made, canned speeches (except the 1AC).

I am not a fan of unnecessary abbreviations. "L-WOP," for example. I know it is more of a pet peeve than a paradigm, but if you say that, you'll annoy me.

I will judge on Stock Issues, and weigh Solvency heavier than the others. As such, if your Aff plan is weak (no enforcement, funding, details, etc.) and the Neg argues Solvency, I will consider Aff officially Up A Creek Without A Paddle.

I will also judge on the primary burdens of each team: Aff's Burden of Proof and Neg's Burden of Rejoinder. If you do not meet your burden, you will lose.

I do not like counter-plans or Kritiks. I want actual clash, I do not want you to dodge the Aff's arguments because you are not prepared.

Generic DAs are great, as we are voting on the resolution, not just the Aff plan.

I use she/her pronouns.

I am a debate coach, so you don't have to explain to me your terminology, but I expect you to clearly explain your arguments.

Include me in the evidence sharing chain: osilverman@sacredheartknights.org

Fair debate:

I like a fair and educated debate. Please share your evidence (preferably - right away, certainly - upon request). Teams should refrain from insulting each other, using not-PC language, yelling and intimidating opponents, and make racist and sexist arguments.

Speed and Flowing:

I don't like spreading; reasonable speech is fine, but be aware that I am an auditory person and I need to hear what you have to say, so I need to understand what you are saying.

Organize, label, and signpost clearly. Give me a roadmap.

Voting:

I will vote for Aff or Neg that convinces me that the other side lacks evidence or logic.

I will vote on any of the stock issues, including inherency.

I like sound Ts, but they must be structured and justified. Aff must answer Ts properly, no matter how outlandish they are, or I will vote Neg.

I will vote on a CP if it is advantageous, but I will gladly weigh a justified Perm.

I will vote on DAs if Aff is unable to answer them. I prefer probable DAs, but you can run whatever is your best shot, as long as it's properly linked.

I detest tempered evidence: misleading tags and unfair cutting. I love to hear evidence analysis. If a team questions the quality of evidence, be specific and purposeful. I don't care if their card is from 1957 and yours is from yesterday unless you'll tell me why it's a problem.

I will vote on Ks if you can understand and explain them. I will not vote on dehumanizing Ks or those that Neg cannot clearly articulate.

Your rule of thumb with me: show me your strength and run what you know how to do well. I will vote for a more educated and better-prepared team, provided that they do not abuse the merits of this activity.

Did you do debate in highschool?

Yes, I did 4 years of debate in highschool (currently senior in college, did not do collegiate debate)

How many rounds for this topic have you judged?

None

What describes my priorities in judging debates?

I will weigh the resolution of substantive issues and structure/validity of arguments over communication ability. Communication ability is important (since if I don't understand you, hard for me to weigh the issues at play) but it isn't more important than the substance of what you say.

Which best describes my paradigm?

I am first and foremost a tabula rasa judge, especially if a framework argument is used & the debaters in round make a point to specify what standards or lense I should judge the debate round through. If framework isn't touched, then I am a stock issues judge- I flow and I will watch for what arguments you either drop or win/lose in argumentation, and evaluate accordingly.... I am very open to arguments saying I should evaluate the round from a policymaker perspective, but the debaters have to argue why I should do that.

What speed do I prefer?

Fairly rapid and moderate contest are preferred, if you are going too fast I will let you know.

Counterplans are?

Acceptable even if inconsistent with other elements of the negative

Topicality is:

I evaluate it like any other stock issue, unless debaters argue that I should weigh it more heavily in the round & can adequately prove the violation (and extend quality standards/voters).

I find generic disadvantages-

Generally acceptable (much more acceptable with good links! this would be nice)

I find kritiks-

Generally acceptable (much more acceptable with good links! this would be nice)

EndNotes:

Although I default tab rasa and then stock issues, i do love a skilled debate. Utilize CX effectively, critically evaluate your opponent's evidence and pick it apart, extend your arguments and don't drop yours opponents, use impact calculus, I really enjoy seeing all of these things used and they will help you win my ballot... you don't always need evidence to prove your point if you can really critically dissect their evidence/arguments (I prefer evidence to support your claims)... Also please treat everyone in the room with respect and decency, if someone is intolerable or rude I will vote against you on principle & bring it up with your coach.

I look for strong debating, good policy, and a good defense of that policy. Not a fan of counterplans. Topicality is important. I do not like ridiculous harms like nuclear war. Strong debating, good speaking skills are what I like to see.

I have judged no rounds this year.

Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance. Policy maker, but I do pay attention to the stock issues. Moderate speed speaking. If you go too fast, I can’t follow. Topicality can be important if violation is blatant. I prefer specific real world arguments.

- Do not waste time by running a Topicality or a Kritik merely for the sake of argument. Make sure it actually applies.

- Be sure to explain the real-world implications of the policies you are advocating for. Do not simply read cards.

- I strongly value Offense/Disadvantages and Solvency. However, nix the WW3 arguments. Come up with a better impact that is not far fetched.

- I am not opposed to Counterplans, but make sure you know the necessary components and are able to demonstrate them properly.

Name: Jessica Trudell

Experience: (Competitor) Four years HS and four years college (parli, LD, speech, and policy). (Asst. Coach) Six years (Oklahoma and Kansas). (Mentor) Two years (Hawaii). I have judged off and on for 18 years.

I would like to be a part of the email chain please. Foreignpolicyjess82@yahoo.com *This allows a quicker decision at the end. I can follow along for clipping. I also can read along and quickly pull up a piece of evidence that comes into question or becomes a premium target in the round. It protects both sides and allows me to make the best decision possible.

I am pretty decent at the flow, but there is no speed debate on these islands, so I’m a bit rusty. Go full speed if you are crystal clear. Besides that, decent speed. If I don’t hear it, I don’t flow it. I know COVID has change the dynamics of debate. I’ll say “CLEAR” once to give you a heads up to slow down.

To be honest, I will listen to anything and everything. With this topic, I’ve been using the policy judge paradigm mentality. But, you set up the debate and let me know, I’m down. I love a good off case debate any day, but I thrive on that on case debate as well. You debate how you debate. Judge adaptation is important, but to me this is a learning experience, “you do you boo-boo”.

Off time road map is fine. Open crossx is fine as long as the tournament rules permit it and both teams agree.

Disclosure- do it right and before round. This is for fun and learning. Not trying to be sneaky.

Feel free to ask me any questions prior to the debate.

Have fun and enjoy yourselves!

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.

I default policymaker as a paradigm but if you make a convincing argument as to why I should vote based on something different, I will listen. Run topicality ONLY if it is a particularly big violation and even then only as a last resort. If you drop an argument I will automatically give it to the other team. Finally, I have 6+ years of debate experience, so I will be able to follow just about any speaking style you want to use. Just keep in mind that a debate with good clash is the best debate, so if your speaking style prevents that I will likely be frustrated.

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 for Caney Valley. I have not judged a virtual debate before, and have judged a few rounds in Tennessee since then. As a debater, I liked to get in as much material as possible. As an attorney and judge, I like to hear persuasive arguments. Some speed is acceptable, but each word should be clearly articulated, and speed should not substitute for meaningful, reflective engagement.

I am a policy judge. The AFF will win if they convince me that their plan is good policy. The NEG will win if they convince me that maintaining the status quo is the better policy. I have significant debate experience, so I understand debate quite well.

Experience: I did debate all four years of high school and medaled at State three times. I have judged two tournaments this season.

Topicality: I am fine with Topicality. However, I would encourage you to only run it when you can make a strong case that the Aff doesn't meet the Resolve. Too many people waste time on flimsy Topicalities. The best way to win me over on Topicalities is to argue Standards; prove to me why your interpretation is superior. If the Neg can prove that the Aff doesn't meet the Resolve, then it's game over for the Aff.

DA's: I will entertain almost any DA. However, a DA with a generic link won't hold nearly as much weight in the round as a DA with a specific link. Finally, I'm not a huge fan of terminal impacts. Don't just give me a crazy impact simply to have the biggest impact in the round; make it somewhat plausible. Not every DA should lead to extinction, WW3, or nuclear war.

Counter Plans: I'm not a huge fan of counter plans, but I will consider them. If you do choose to run a counter plan, please make sure that it is easy to understand and isn't a convoluted mess. Also, make sure you can prove that your counterplan is Mutually Exclusive, Nontopical, and Comparitively Advantageous.

Kritiks: I don't like kritiks and probably won't vote on one. This is policy debate, so I would prefer a debate that argues about the merits of the policy put forth by the Aff.

I competed in policy debate and forensics for four years in high school. I then competed in moot court in law school. I've been a judge for debate, mock trial and moot court since then. Also, probably more importantly, I am an attorney. Here are some things I think about:

1. Policymaker judge, especially with this topic.

2. I don't care about speed. However, I can't flow what I can't hear or understand. If you are speeding just to speed and not connecting the dots, it isn't going to impress me.

3. Speaking of connecting the dots, tell me why I should care about your argument and why your argument is better than your opponent's. Essentially, answer the "so what?"

4. Follow the flow and signpost. I am not going to hunt around and figure out where to put your argument, especially if you are just listing arguments to me. Honestly, if that is the case, I'll probably stop flowing/listening.

5. I value good cross-examination - use it wisely.

6. This is fun! Have fun, be competitive, but there is zero reason to be disrespectful.

Experience

4-year policy debater/forensian @ Lansing HS (light congress) 2001-2005

4-year assistant debate/forensics @ Lansing HS 2006-2011

7 years head coaching debate/forensics (1 Leavenworth 2010-2011, 5 Salina-Sacred Heart 2012-2018, 1 Hutchinson 2018-2019)

4 years assistant debate/forensics @ McPherson HS 2020-pres

Policy:

I like T that links, DAs and affirmative advantages should have real-world feasible impacts, and I am only in favor of K debate if the framework has equal ground for both teams to earn a ballot (don't run K's that are impossible for the aff to meet the alt). CPs must be competitive to be viable. Tell me why you win and what to vote for.

I believe the negative has to have a coherent position. I don't buy the "multiple worlds" theory of negative debate.

I am fine with open CX, but I am immensely against open speeches. Never feed your colleague lines in a speech. I don't care if they parrot your words exactly, it is not your speech to give.

LD:

I like deep discussions on interactions between the value and its criterion, especially when values and criterion are cross-applied between competing sides. I see LD as competing frameworks and will prefer the debater that does a better job framing the resolution in terms of the value and its criterion (or criteria).

PFD:

I have no idea how this format works. I will vote on the team that gives the most compelling reasons to prefer.

Experienced debater. I value ability to summarize arguments in your own words. If you don't summarize a card or tell me in your own words how it links to a case/argument, then it doesn't exist. Always include a roadmap.

Hello!

I debated and competed in forensics all four years of high school. After graduating I have continued to help out with my high school team as my Dad is the coach. Thanks to him, I've been around NSDA (Or NFL as it used to be) since I was little. 

I am a tabula rasa judge. I will judge off of only what is mentioned in the round. If your arguments are structured/run incorrectly etc. I will only consider those things in my decision if your opponent mentions them (I may leave you a lengthy ballot comment however, for education and improvements sake).

I am completely fine with counterplans, theory arguments, and Ks. Topicality usually needs to be substantial for me to vote on it, however if you feel confident you can convince me it is substantial, go for it.

I do not need to be included in any evidence sharing or email chains. I believe that if you convince me of something, then it is true. This means when directly competing evidence is presented, I will often favor the evidence that is presented more persuasively.

Really what this whole paradigm boils down to, is I believe in debate your goal should be to communicate with and persuade the judge to your side. You do that, and you'll have my ballot.

4 years of debate in HS, 1 year in college

Topicality is A Priori

Speed is whatever

No generic arguments

CP/Ks are fine if they fit the neg strategy

Email: dyates@usd313.org

I prefer speechdrop but do what you must.

Experience:

Head Coach @ Buhler High School

- Former Head Coach @ Nickerson HS 2019-2023

- Assistant Coach @ Salina South 2017-2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In debate events, my default for any event is tabula rasa.

Tell me why your arguments are important and why they are more important than your oppositions'.

Tell me how I should evaluate the round and give me reasoning why your evaluation technique should be preferred over your opponents'.

I don't mind speed or critical arguments, but clarity is important if you're going to speed.

Roadmaps, taglines, and impact calculi are your best friends.

In acting and speaking events where clash may not be an element, I tend to judge you on performance and piece selection.

Beyond those two points, I tend to ask these questions (not exhaustive) of any performers:

Have you practiced and executed your physical performance? (Blocking, etc)

Have you rehearsed your vocal performance? (Intros, Transitions, etc.)

Have you chosen literature/topics that you relate to? Does the topic allow you to express yourself through interaction with it?

Is your piece respectful of sensitive issues or populations? If not, is there a point? What am I supposed to take away from your performance?

In general, I don't care whether you come in sweat pants or business attire, but please treat others professionally and with respect.

I don’t believe that there are true 100% tabula rasa judges, but I am about as tabula rasa as it gets. Give me a framework and a reason to prefer and I will probably but it if it makes sense. I am high flow and I evaluate stock issues. I am ok with speed for the most part and can generally keep up with most styles. Just make sure I get a tag and the author/date so I can keep the flow organized and give me weighted reasons to prefer/impact calculus.