Ana-Sofia Lahovary (she/they)

KU'25

Assistant Coach for Shawnee Mission East High School

lahovarya@gmail.com add me to the chain:)

About me: Currently a freshman at KU Honors majoring in Political Science and Global&International Studies and coaching for Shawnee Mission East High School. I debated at SME for four years and three on the TOC circuit. As for my argumentative history, I read both kritikal (Abolition, afro-pess, cap) and and big stick policy affirmatives in high school and look forward to judge debates in both areas.

Evaluating Debates: Be kind to each other! Without having a long paragraph on theory, I think condo and pics are generally good and think theory based arguments are a reason to reject the argument, not the team. Detailed impact calc is very important, contextualize it to the round. I value well-explained internal link chains and efficient speeches. Judge instruction is important and use cross x to your advantage.

- disclosure is good

- tech > truth

- I won't vote on things that happen outside the round

- keep track of your own prep

- clipping/cheating/bigotry will guarantee a loss

- evidence comparison and ethos are good and will be rewarded

- I'm moderately familiar with the water topic but pls explain acronyms

have fun !

Written 10/29/2022:

Well to keep this brief: I'm a sophomore at KU who debated four years at Shawnee Mission South.

I can handle speed, but I will ask for clarity if you're being unclear. Obviously don't cheat! I'll dock speaker points you if you egregiously steal prep or anything like that.

DAs-

DAs are fine obviously, be sure to explain any turns with clear signposting.

CPs-

I love CP debates. They're like my favorite kind of debates. Be sure to explain why the perm works, not just say "Perm do both" and move on.

Ks-

Ks are fine, just be sure to explain why they're pertinent to the debate and why the alt should be preferred.

T-

I freaking LOVE T. Run it all the time you can. Like I said CPs are my favorite, T is above those. If T is a clear time sink though, I prefer aff. Just be sure to extend all parts of each T block and you should be fine. Squirrelly affs beware.

Case-

Not really sure why I'm putting this here. Just be sure to extend case args throughout the rebuttals.I won't shadow extend for you unless the other team dropped it.

Overall-

I'm a very vanilla judge. If you can convince me why an argument is important, I'll consider it. I love smart analytics, just explain why they work in the context of the round. Also be sure to spend time explaining why a piece of evidence works against the opposing case.

I believe in you all!! Good luck out there!

Grant McKeever – he/him – ggmdebate@gmail.com (put this on the email chain and feel free to ask questions)

Experience: Current coach for Lincoln Southwest. Current NFA LD debater (1v1 policy) for UNL (elections, nukes) - did DCI/TOC style stuff senior year (water) and was on the trad/KDC circuit in Kansas prior (criminal justice, arms sales, immigration) at Olathe Northwest HS so I’m most likely familiar with whatever style you’re going for

Evidence sharing - yes please. Would prefer to get word docs but would rather have something rather than nothing.

TL;DR: Run what you run best. I’m open to mostly whatever, specifics down below. Default to policymaker. Give me judge instruction, explain arguments, and tell me how to vote because that’s probably how I will. The rest of the paradigm is moreso preferences/defaults/advice than explicit constraints; my job is to flow the round and evaluate what happens in it, and I try to do so as unbiased as possible.

Don’t be disrespectful. Just don’t.

I've noticed a disappointing lack of warrants and impacts from claims coming out of debates - an argument has 3 parts; you will get a MUCH more favorable (or, at the least, less intervention-y) RFD if you go beyond the claim and give me comparative reasons why it is true and how it frames my ballot.

ON EVIDENCE CITATIONS -

My patience is growing thin on a lot of these questions - I have watched blatant violations of the NSDA rules on evidence (sources:https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Evidence-Guide.pdf and https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hq7-DE6ls2ryVtOttxR4BNpRdP7xUbBr0M3SMYefek8/edit#heading=h.nmf14n). I will not hesitate to tank speaks and/or drop the debater for failure to comply with these standards (and it's magnified if your opponent points it out).

What this means:

1. You MUST provide cut cards with full citations - this means setting up some form of evidence sharing (speech drop, email, flash drive, paper case, etc.) that I have access to for the ENTIRETY of the debate to check for clipping and evidence standards. THE IDEA THAT EVERYONE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE CARDS YOU READ IS SILLY AND MAKES FOR BAD DEBATES. FAILURE TO SHARE YOUR EVIDENCE WITH YOUR OPPONENT AND MYSELF WILL RESULT IN A MAX OF 25 SPEAKER POINTS AND A LOSS IN ELIMS (stolen from Zach Thornhill). This includes having access to the original source material the card was cut from, and provide : full name of primary author and/or editor, publication date, source, title of article, date accessed for digital evidence, full URL, author qualifications, and page numbers for all cards. In round, you only have to verbally say the name and date, but I need the rest of this information provided in another format. HYPERLINKS ALONE ARE NOT SUFFICIENT - THEY ARE ONE PART OF THE CITATION, AND FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE REST OF THIS INFORMATION IS SUFFICIENT TO VOTE DOWN.
2. I am VERY unlikely to give you much leeway for paraphrased/summarized evidence - this model highly incentivizes debaters misconstruing evidence, and 99% of the time misses out on the warrants as to WHY the claim is true (which means even if it follows evidence rules I am unlikely to give it much weight anyway). In addition, paraphrasing is only used for one small, specific portion of an original source, not summarize pages of information into a sentence to blip out 20 cards. If you are concerned I may misinterpret part of your paraphrased case as violating this and/or are concerned, you should read cut cards that highlight the words from a source read in the debate. If you do paraphrase, you MUST have outlined the specific part of the card paraphrased clearly - failure to do this is an evidence violation.
3. Clipping, even if accidental, is enough to be voted against - I don't care who points it out when it gets pointed out or how - I will be following along, and if I find you clipped I will vote against you. This is non-negotiable.
4. Distortion, nonexistent evidence (in here, point 1), and clipping (point 3) are the only violations in which the round will be stopped - that doesn't mean any other evidence violations will not negatively impact your speaks and the arguments I have on the flow.

I don't want to do this to be mean, but these are necessary to maintain academic integrity and faithful representation - especially at postseason and national-level tournaments, these violations are inexcusable.

Pref Sheet (mainly for LD, but works for policy too)

LARP/Policy - 1

K - 1/2

Theory*** - 1/2

Phil - 3/4

Tricks - 5

Other: probably somewhere throughout the paradigm - or just ask

General

Debate is a competitive game, and it is my job as a judge to evaluate who wins the game. As competitors, you get to tell me how to evaluate the game outside my defaults and why I should evaluate this way - this takes a lot of different forms with many different reasons, criteria, benefits, and more, but my job is to evaluate this clash to decide a winner (which becomes much easier with judge instruction). However, debate as a game is unique with the educational benefits it provides and have real impacts in the way we think about and view the world - I think debate about what debate should look like are important to framing the game, and can easily be persuaded to find extraneous benefits to the "game" to evaluate/vote on.

Tech>truth, though sticking with the truth usually makes the tech easier. I've especially noticed the more pedantic impact/internal links/interps/etc. the less likely I am to give it a bunch of weight.

Prep Time - not a big fan of people stealing prep. If it gets bad enough I will start to just dock prep time as you're stealing prep so steal at your own risk. I also give verbal warnings, if I tell you to stop please just stop I don't want to be grumpy. TIMES TO NOT TAKE PREP: while someone is uploading a speech doc, as someone is going up for cross, after your prep time has expired, etc.

Speed – Spreading is fine. Make sure everyone in the round is okay with it though before you do. If you spread make sure it’s clear. If you’re super fast I probably can't understand your top speed, and appreciate going a slower on tags/analytics. I'll yell a few times, but if the keyboard ain't clacking/I'm frantically trying to keep up I'm not recording your arguments.

-Within that, I'm probably not going to verbally call on a panel; I'm going to assume the speed you're going at is to best adapt to the other judges; a lot of the same signals tho will still apply, I just won't be as verbal ab it

Framing – it’s good. Please use it, especially if there’s different impacts in the debate. Impact calc is very good, use it to the best of your ability. I'm a policymaker after all you’ll win the round here.

I've increasingly noticed that heavily posturing is becoming less persuasive to me; it looks much better to frame the debate through you being ahead on specific arguments (ie evidence/warrant quality, impact weighing, etc.) then posturing about the round writ large. Especially with the way I evaluate debates, the last minute ethos/pathos push is by and far less important than writ large "I'm soooooo far ahead" that can get articulated on the flow to shape my ballot.

Neg

Ks – I probably don’t know all of your lit. As long as you explain I should be fine and am more than willing to vote on them. I'm once again reminding that you should either send your analytics or slow down otherwise else my flow WILL be a mess. Judge instruction is key here - give me ROB and impact stuff out.

Topicality – I love a good T debate. Not a fan of T as a time suck; it's legitimately so good. If the aff is untopical/topical/exists go for it. That being said, I need good violations on T. Slow down a bit on the standards/voters piece of things. I default to competing interps, but can evaluate on reasonability if it's won.

CPs – Swag. Theory is highly underused here, so as long as I can flow them (slow down on them) I'll vote on them. Condo is usually good but I default a bit to reasonability here - especially if the aff points out specific abuse stories. I default to framing this debate as a scale of "if the CP solves ___ much of the aff, what does the risk of the net benefit need to be to outweigh" - so pairing good case defense and net benefit debate is crucial.

DAs – Good. Please just have at least a somewhat reasonable link chain.

Theory – I'm fine with it. I heavily lean towards drop the argument and not the team unless it's egregious/about in-round discriminatory behavior. Still will default to competing interps but would be happy to go for good C/Is under reasonability. Disclosure (for an example): I think disclosure is good and you should disclose, but I am much less likely (not opposed) to reject the team and instead default more towards leaning neg on generic links/args. Condo/Topicality are probably the only ones that I reject the team on. Generally frown on RVIs, the better out is making those articulations under reasonability.

Case – I feel that case debate is highly under-utilized. A strong case debate is just as, if not a slightly more, viable way to my ballot. However, please pair it with some sort of offense; case defense is good but if there's no offense against the aff then I vote aff. Especially with a CP that avoids the deficits heck yeah.

Aff

K Affs – Refer to the K section. Fairness and education are impacts, but the more they are terminalized/specified (to things like participation) the more persuasive your arguments become. Haven't been in enough FW debates to know how I truly lean on that, I'll evaluate it like everything else - impacts are key.

-TVA is better defense than SSD imo but both are defense; they take out aff impacts on the flow, but if you go for these (which u should) pair it with other offense on the page

Extinction Impacts – have a probable link chain and make sure aff is substantial - that's much easier to win and helps u later on.

LD

I'm a policy kid, LD circuit norms and evaluations can fly over my head. I did a couple years on the trad circuit so I know some things but it's not my forte - refer to the policy stuff and ask questions before round. Judge instruction is still CRUCIAL.

I don't know philosophy and I won't pretend to know it. You can run it but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE explain it and how I evaluate it - odds are LD time constraints make it an uphill battle.

Not a fan of tricks. I have low threshold for responses to it and actually considering it in the round. Couple this with the theory section above.

I think LD uses the word "ought" for a reason, and that it's to make it an uphill battle to win PTX/Elections DA/Process CPs/any argument that the link relies on certainty/immediacy of the resolution being bad and not the actual implementation (read all your other DAs/CPs to the rez/their plan/whatev)

-this isn't to say you can't just that it's a bit more uphill - win the definition debate to win these are legitimate

PF

You still should be cutting evidence in PF with good, clear cites.

I still will judge this event like any other - judge instruction and impact calc are key.

Most of my policy section still applies (focus on aff + DA sections - CPs and Ks in PF get wacky and is prob easier w/o them).

Good luck, and have fun!

Last Major Update 5/27/2023

I debated at Olathe Northwest and am a Senior at KU (not debating). Fourth year assistant coach at Olathe West. My email is matt.michie97@gmail.com

Top-Level: Racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, etc. are unacceptable. Use content warnings before starting speeches and put them in speech docs when applicable. Being mean to your partner is an extremely easy way to lose ranks/quals.

Speed: I think debates are better for everyone when you slow down for tags/cites/theory. Other than that, speak at whatever speed you like while still retaining clarity. Speeding into an incomprehensible slurry in the text of the card will at best dock your speaker points and at worst severely cost you on the flow; I am not going to just flow your speech doc's tags, I am going to flow what you say. I will say clear if necessary. *This is ESPECIALLY true in a virtual debate. If you are reading at the same speed you would in-person, you will be incomprehensible.

Everything below are just my preferences. I don't really care what arguments you read, as long as they're good.

Topicality: I default to Competing Interpretations. I think teams should be topical. If your aff isn't topical, you should tell me why your aff is better for debate than a topical one, rather than why topicality is bad. You should be as specific as possible about your offense, on both sides. Don't bother with your impact turns.

General Theory: I have no particular leaning one way or the other on most theory args, except that conditionality is good. That doesn't mean don't read condo bad if you want to, you just can't read and barely extend your block shell and expect me to have any interest in voting on it. Your argument should make a broader statement on debate rather than a specific objection to something in-round.

Disadvantages and Impact Turns: The link debate is probably more important than anything else in a DA. I mostly read/went for disadvantages/impact turns in High School, so this kind of debate is what I am most versed in.

Counterplans: I don't necessarily have a problem with any particular type of counterplan, but Aff teams should probably be reading a lot more CP theory than I usually see. I wish I saw more teams make more perms than just "do both," and I especially wish more teams actually utilized their perms effectively past the block.

Kritiks: Don't assume that I'm familiar with all terms of art/authors. I think “reject the aff” or “do nothing” alternatives are not very compelling but that doesn’t mean I won’t vote for one. I feel like most K debates I see are incredibly weak on the Alt debate on both sides. Links of omission are not links. Evidence here matters immensely. I feel like teams take each other's K cards at face-value way too often. A lot of these cards on both sides of any K are total gibberish, you should be pointing that out to me.

Framework: I generally don't like extremely generic/limiting framework interps. I default to believing the Aff's role is to endorse an inherent resolution-based advocacy that solves for significant harms, and the Negative's role is to dispute the Aff on the basis of any of those terms, or by expressing the significant harms of the Aff. I feel like many of my decisions end up coming down to the fact that teams let each other get away with way too much here. Framework is not an opportunity for you to read your cool interp block your squad wrote 7 years ago and call it a day. Your framework lays the foundation for how I'm supposed to evaluate the round. Don't let the other team do that for you.

I've done high school debate for four years. I will listen to any argument, but if you decide to run kritiks or theory arguments just explain them to me as I have limited experience with them. I will only flow arguments that I hear, so please do not speed read. I value the quality of your arguments over the quantity of them, so please explain your evidence and tell me why it matters.

I am a 4th year debater at Olathe West.

I have debated this year's topic and know the burden for both the AFF and Neg.

You can run anything in front of me just run it well. I understand and buy K's actually love them for this year's topic but you must include fw otherwise there's nothing for me to frame the ballot with. Speed is fine just be clear. Other than that have at it this year has been a weird one and I want it to be fun!

Pronouns-She/her

Senior at Olathe West

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

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

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

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

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

Contact info:

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

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

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

Defaults:

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

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

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

Speed

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

K Debate:

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

What I want to see:

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

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

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

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

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

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

PERM BLOCK EXAMPLES

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

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

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

THEORY BLOCK EXAMPLES

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

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

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

What I don't want to hear:

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

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

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

Caitlin Sand, any pronouns

Debated for four years at Lawrence High in Kansas (Some local circuit, some natcirc) and currently debate for K-State (Ask me about KSU debate!!)

2024 CEDA Triple Octafinalist

Environmental science major and women and gender studies minor

Add me to the email chain: caitlinmsand at gmail

There are many debaters, judges, and coaches who influence my philosophy every day to the point that I can't credit them all, but all my love goes to my coach, Hannah Phelps. She is amazing, and if you run/are interested in Disability studies, you need to thank her and show her some love for the work she has done/is doing.

( ˘͈ ᵕ ˘͈♡)

Top-level:

IMPORTANT: I have an auditory processing disorder. Don't spread. If I can't understand what you're saying, I can't flow it. I'll slow you a few times, but if it becomes a problem, I'll stop flowing. "Can I spread the card and not the tags?" No. Unless the body of the card/warrants doesn't matter, but in that case just don't read the cards and read analytics. I love this activity, and I love giving feedback so don't just nuke my prefs because you don't want to slow down. In fact, I think you should get used to slowing down because there are many people, not just me, who can't understand spreading and who are competitive within debate. If my opponents can slow down for me, you can too. If you somehow ignore all of this and decide to spread--PLEASE send out analytics. PS- if you're someone who doesn't like spreading but feels like they need to do it in order to be a good debater pls, talk to me. I'm here for you and know you are not alone <333

Can I run x thing? Yes. I really don't care. You do you. It's probably better that you read what you are comfortable with because that will help both of us understand what's going on in the round. I don't believe that judges naturally get rid of all preconceived notions going into debate but know that I try my hardest to make sure you are listened to and that I am adjudicating the round fairly. Just do some judge instructions and tell me what my ballot does and I'll be happy.

Tech vs Truth. I don't even know anymore. I'd like to say I evaluate debates on a technical level, but if both teams are winning something on a tech level without certain judge instructions, I'll probably break the tie through the truth. Generally specific links > generic links; however, a good 2a/2n spin is also just fine with me. 99% of the time, I'm not going to go back and read evidence 1. I think it's your job to tell me what that ev says 2. I think it makes my job as a fair adjudicator harder and starts to dip into judge intervention territory 3. The only exception to this is if that's what the debate comes down to

Evidence: Read fewer cards. I trust that you are smart people who can come up with your own arguments without having an author for every one of them. Also just helps me evaluate the debate better if I'm not forced to listen to shadow extensions of authors I've never heard of. However, if you present to me a clipping/evidence violation, I will be forced to stop the debate and end it there I'm not going to mess around with the rules on that. "Debaters should talk more about the lack of quality the other team's evidence and the highlighting of that evidence in particular. If you've highlighted down your evidence such that it no longer includes articles (a/an/the/etc...) in front of nouns, or is in other ways grammatically incoherent due to highlighting, and get called out on it, you're likely to not get much credit for that ev with me." -Alex McVey (My head coach)

I'm probably going to be really uncomfortable if you post round/argue with me. Listen, we're all human, and we all make mistakes, including me. If you thought I evaluated something wrong or missed something, feel free to shoot me an email (I will probably not respond, however). Debate isn't a science, which imo is what makes it fun, so for both of our sakes, let's just accept the decision and move on.

Discrimination, harassment, or generally being mean results in an automatic loss. Do not read any arguments containing graphic descriptions of violence against queer people and sexual violence.

If there is something outside the round that is making you uncomfortable (debating an abuser, being harassed before the round/the tournament, being harmed by your partner/coach, etc), please come and talk to me, and I will fight for you. I will do whatever it takes to work the situation out with Tabroom because this activity is supposed to be fun.

Speaks:

I kinda just go off of vibes. I would say I average around 28.5.

Aff:

I'm tired of poor internal link stories. Like seriously, policy affs get better at explaining how, without the aff, we get to nuclear war/extinction. I've noticed this general trend of just asserting that it happens without any explanation as to why. Also, Rip to solvency cards that aren't just a sentence long would like to see that make a comeback.

K Affs:

I don't really care about whether or not you have a tie to the topic. Please tell me what my ballot does and what sort of method/epistemological shift is happening. I also think debaters are slowly losing the meaning of what it means to be "material." I think K affs should be a lot better at just stating why their rhetoric/performance/movement being introduced into the debate space is a material act. That being said, though, I think the best presumption argument I hear is why is it good for the aff to be debated/why I should judge it. In the same thinking why is my ballot important to your rhetoric/performance/movement? Also, along the same lines as my policy aff opinions, PLEASE don't just pull together five random K cards and call that a 1AC. Tell me how the different parts of the aff interact with one another and how you reach your method. Without a defense of this, I will be much more persuaded by aff condo bad/presumption on this question.

For neg teams against k affs: see my opinion above. I love a good presumption debate. I lean towards the side of the fence that it's not violent to question aff construction, materiality, debatability, etc. I'd love a 2nr of just presumption, which I've definitely gone for as a 2n. Rip to case debate that isn't just the same recycled Ritter 13 card. I don't think you necessarily have to have a bunch of academy/cap/debate bad cards on this question but rather show me that you've thought about the 1AC and how it functions.

Policy:

Please give me judge instruction/impact calc. I haven't touched a DA in years so like don't assume I know the intricacies of your argument. I will evaluate it in the most tech way I understand, but please give me a top-level overview/understanding of how I should evaluate certain arguments. Genuinely good judge instruction will outweigh line-by-line debating here because of my lack of understanding of the intricacies of your argument.

T/FW/Theory

I will vote on a procedural if the event happened in the round but I am uncomfortable adjudicating things that happened outside the debate. Unless it is genuinely violent and you need to stop the round please don't make me have to look at screenshots and decide if someone should be canceled. That being said teams need to be going for in-round procedurals MUCH more. The team read a sus card that said something racist? New sheet and vote them down. The team violated an accommodation request? New sheet and vote them down. In my experience, I've learned that procedurals are not always personal but can be used as a learning experience for why someone shouldn't do something again.

Theory is fine just give me judge instruction and use it as framing for why x thing happened or matters. However, I am more likely than most to vote on condo since I dislike teams that run 8 off and then go for the one the aff dropped- it's abusive. At the same time there is some leeway on the condo debate 1. If someone is running like one K and T, I'm going to be less persuaded by your traditional condo args 2. That being said, I love condo args that are specific to K debate/your lit base. For example, If you read anti-blackness or ableism, explain to me why condo is anti-black or ableist, and I'll be much more persuaded by the traditional condo standards.

I don't really have an opinion on t/fw vs k affs I just really hate when it's an excuse to not engage with any other part of the aff. Fairness is less persuasive to me than education because I don't think debate is structurally fair. I think affs should be utilizing impact turns more rather than reading so much defense to particular internal links such as ground or clash. I love a creative TVA; from my time reading a k aff, my favorites have been: The United States should bomb Autism Speaks, and The United States should disarm with an advantage about how it hurts sharks (shark memes included in the TVA). Not arguing that those particular TVAs are good but rather show that time was spent thinking about and engaging the aff.

Ks:

I have spent a lot of time thinking about and engaging with critical literature. That being said, I will not be happy with Ks that are run when you don't understand what you are talking about because, most likely, I won't know either. Generally, I think you should be winning framework to win the rest of the K debate. However, my threshold for aff framework arguments is a lot higher since there seems to just be a trend of top-level assertion that mooting the 1AC is bad without any other warrants. Neg teams, please explain why your framework DAs/args interact with the affs standards, or else I'm not going to be happy trying to intervene in that debate. I'm definitely persuaded by Fiat bad. Aff teams, I don't think you should be arguing that Fiat is real but rather gives us good education because you don't want to let me decide between a Fiat real/not real debate (I will default neg on this question). Aff teams, please defend your reps as defense to framework. Neg teams, please stop letting aff teams get away with saying weigh the consequences of the plan when their plan triggers the K link. Generic links are okay as long as its articulated well and still apply. Alt's need to be articulated well- EXPLAIN the alt pls!! Aff teams, please stop letting the neg run away with whatever they want on the alt because some of the alts don't make any sense or can't solve. Ks without alts are okay as long as you articulate the links as case turns, but please do that as a last case 2nr option, not right away in the 1nc.

The role of the ballot and the role of the judge is incredibly important!!

K lit I'm most familiar with disability/ableism, queer theory, cap, imperialism, and abolition.

(◍•ᴗ•◍)♡ ✧*。

Disclosure

Add me to the chain - jackshaw.debate@gmail.com

Please include the name of the tournament, the teams debating, and the round number in the header of the email.

Email chain > Speechdrop > File share > Google Drive > Flashdrive > Paper >>>>> "We don't disclose"

About Me

Shawnee Mission South 2022, University of Kansas 2026

Pronouns are He/Him/His, but I'm comfortable with any.

I have experience in policy debate on both the Kansas and national circuits as well as LD debate, IX, and IMP2 on the Kansas circuit.

TLDR

Do what you want*. Win the debate from a technical standpoint on the flow to win the debate.

*I will not vote on outright problematic args like racism good, homophobia good, abelism good, etc. and "suffering is inevitable so we should all end ourselves".

If you have any questions about anything in my paradigm or otherwise my thoughts about debate, feel free to ask me.

Judging Philosophy

I will vote on anything* you tell me to using an offense-defense paradigm.

An argument is comprised of a claim and at least one supporting warrant. For me to evaluate and argument, and for you to win an argument, it needs more than just an assertion without backing.

Tech informs truth every time. Truth has value but technically winning an argument comes first and is the most objective way to evaluate a debate.

Absent a procedural reason for judge intervention, I will evaluate the debate starting with key framing issues and judge instruction, then often the impact level and impact comparison, then the rest of each side's extended arguments carried through their last rebuttals.

I evaluate the round while being a blank of a slate as possible. While I do have opinions about debate and arguments, I have no real overwhelming ideological predispositions or biases, so don't stress about conforming to whatever you perceive my style to be.

I will evaluate evidence the way it is spun in the round first. I will read over relevant and especially flagged evidence before my final evaluation. If you think it is pertinent, ask me if I want a card doc. I probably will.

There’s no need to call me judge. Call me whatever you see fit instead; just “Jack” is fine. Or just avoid personally addressing me.

If I'm not reacting to what you say with any emotion, it's because I'm trying not to, as I want to evaluate arguments as a spectator without being a distraction or a real-time influence on what is being said.

Procedural Notes

Both teams should disclose a reasonable period before the round. I will not hesitate to vote on properly executed disclosure theory.

Academic ethics violations are bad. To avoid this becoming an issue, be clear where you mark cards and be ready to send a marked copy if it is requested of you.

You can insert perm texts and short rehighlightings, but read your rehighlighting if it's more than a few words.

Speak as fast as you want so long as you are clear. I’ll give two "clear"s if you are not clear. If the problem continues after that, I'll flow what I catch and miss what I don't.

Sending analytics is cool and can boost speaks.

Time yourselves, including CX and prep.

I don’t really care what you do with your CX time; I think of it like a speech that I mostly don't flow. Asking your opponents questions is good and can help speaks and ethos, but if you want to use CX as prep time, I won't stop you.

I always default to open CX, but I am fine if all of the competitors agree to closed.

Speed is good and preferred if you can read clearly and if there is no ability-based opposition in the round, but you'll be better off speaking in a style you are comfortable in front of me with rather than one you are not, especially for rounds with a tricky panel.

Speaks will reflect the quality of debating done, though difficulty of the tournament's pool will scale all of my point assignments. I am open to using speaker points as objects to be discussed in the round as a form of solvency or praxis if you can win it, but I lean towards using the ballot, including speaks, as I see fit rather than as praxis for debaters.

If I can give an oral RFD, I will. I will be as efficient and direct as possible and will share the reason for my decision as well as broad comments for both sides with more specific comments being left to the ballot, as I respect the competitors' time. With that being said, I am always open to questions and can elaborate as much as time allows me to. Feel free to email me after round if you have any questions, comments, concerns, ideas, etc.

Online Debate

If my camera isn't on, assume I'm not there unless I say otherwise.

Please turn your cameras on if you are able and feel comfortable doing so.

I understand and empathize with tech issues, so just keep us updated as best you can on resolving them as they arise. If a tournament has tech time allotted, let us know clearly (if possible) if/when you need to use it.

I will likely have some good headphones to listen to you with, but I may still miss something if you cut out or are inaudible, so play it on the safe side and prioritize clarity over speed.

Mute if you aren’t speaking, especially if there’s background noise. We all should be able to hear the speaker as best as possible without external distractions.

Case

I like to know what I’m voting for, so be clear about what signing my ballot for you entails and affirms.

You don't need a plan to have an advocacy, but you should at least have an advocacy.

Kritiks

I'm partial to letting the aff at least weigh their impacts on FW.

As with evaluating an aff's advocacy, make sure you tell me what I’m voting for when I vote neg for the alt, whether that be “reject the aff” or a fundamentally new model of society or anything in between or beyond.

Arguments centered around identity should appropriately reflect the debaters advocating for them. I am all good with those arguments in a vacuum and by no means would I force someone to justify their identity, but this is something to keep in mind when making that personal and strategic choice in front of me.

Disadvantages

Intrensicness is bad and my threshold for voting for this argument is very high.

Counterplans

All counterplans will be evaluated as legitimate until the aff wins otherwise.

Judge kick is good when applicable. If the neg can win that condo is good, I will default to judge-kicking a counterplan unless the aff can win otherwise. However, if a counterplan is in the 2NR, I will flip presumption to the aff unless the neg can win otherwise.

Topicality

I default to competing interps.

RVIs aren’t real at least for affs with plans.

On the question of framework / T USFG, I consider myself somewhat aff-leaning, but I won't hack for the aff by any means.

Theory

My reject the team threshold is high but my reject arg threshold is lower.

Don't spread through your analytics at max speed if you want me to catch them.

I generally like to flow non-arg-specific theory like condo on a separate flow to keep it clean, so make sure to note where theory is on your roadmaps.

PerfCon is oftentimes more of an internal link to condo than an independent voter, but I guess I can vote on it if you want me to.

For an ethics violation, I need to have clear and definitive proof of the abuse occurring as well as a clear willingness to stake the round on it before I can consider pulling the trigger. However, at the point at which abuse has clearly occurred, I am partial to dropping the team. If I agree with the violation, then the violating team gets dropped with minimum speaks and the other team gets max speaks. If I do not agree with the violation, it's the inverse.

Lincoln-Douglas

Traditional > Kritikal > Philosophy > Theory > Tricks

I debate on the Kansas circuit, so I've really only been exposed to conservative/traditional LD, though I am confident in my ability to adapt based on my policy knowledge.

I default to organizing the debate by flowing definitions and burdens, values, criterions, aff contentions, and neg contentions on their own respective pages.

Definitions > Value > Criterion > Contentions

She/Her

Email: annemarie.smith2003@gmail.com

UT Austin 2026 | Shawnee Mission South 2022

*Glenbrooks: I don't have extensive topic knowledge this year (didn't work at camp last summer)- just make sure to explain acronyms; I'd appreciate a little more explanation with generics than other judges who've judged more on this topic*

General Stuff

• I'm primarily a policy oriented judge
• Don't steal prep and try to be quick about sending the doc
• Email chain is best
• Wiki/Disclosure is good
• Be organized with your flow
• Slow down in the rebuttals

DA

• Existential impacts are fine, but I think that the aff can and should make a probability push
• Case turns and outweighs is good

CP

• Affs should always read a perm, but you don't have to go for it
• Perms you go for should be functionally and textually competitive, but it's up to you to make that argument
• Internal net benefits are fun and good
• I like theory on CPs (50 state fiat, process CPs, etc.), but it probably won't write the ballot
• Tell me to judge kick things

T

• I'm not the best judge for a high-level T debate.
• With that being said, if a team is obviously not T, and that's the best argument to go for, go for it.

FW

• I think you should read it and it's a good strategy for K affs in front of me
• You should not make arguments that K affs don't belong in debate; I think it's more persuasive to read DAs on the T flow or argue that debate isn't a healthy space to discuss specific issues

K (Neg)

• Read them, but make sure to explain anything that's uncommon
• A good alt explanation when compared to the aff plan is convincing- especially in the rebuttals
• The aff gets to weigh the plan

K (Aff)

• I have no experience reading K affs and some experience answering them, but I'm normally just taking FW (on the negative)
• I can flow, but probably require more judge instruction when it comes to the rebuttals
• The aff should probably have some relation to the resolution; if it doesn't, I think there should be an explanation as to why

Condo/Theory

• I dislike evaluating theory debates
• I default that you should get to kick positions, but there is such thing as too many off case positions (9+?)
• I think that 6+ off- case positions justifies condo in the 2AR, but if it were impacted out I would vote for it either way

LD

• 3 years of high school LD experience
• I did very traditional LD in high school
• I still think my policy experience makes me able to evaluate mostly all types of LD (just be sure to explain anything odd)
• Please don't do tricks. I will not like them or understand them
• You're welcome to read DAs, CPs, and Ks- explain anything that isn't common

I am a sophomore at the George Washington University, studying Business and Human Capital Management , currently helping coach the Leavenworth High School debate team. I did 3 years of policy in high school and verged into more British parli and do parli debate in college. I judged numerous amounts of high school policy debates and I tend to leave lots of feedback on the RFD, I assure you I won't put "Good Speech" under the 1AC and give you a 3 on speaker points.

I know how it feels to have college judges at times and want to reassure you that you are the ones debating, not me. There is nothing you have to do or arguments you must run or not run that I will ever dock you points on. Feel comfortable running whatever you think is the most appropriate during the round.

Despite that, I still do have arguments I like more than others(but again, if you run an argument I'm not as keen with, there is NO problem with that). I would say I prefer classic case clash arguments(stock issues), T-args, DAs, and CPs. I didn't K debate much, however, I am open to them, just not as well versed. Really anything besides K arguments on off-case arguments, I am open to.

Again, I am open to really any arguments. I expect clash in a debate, both teams to be respectful(I know rounds can get heated and passionate but there is a fine line between passionate and being a dick), and honestly to have fun.

If you have any questions about my paradigm or questions for me feel free to email me at josephsong23@gwu.edu!

I have been an assistant coach for around 12 years.

I do not value any one type of argument over another or automatically discount any type of argument. Anything is game; it just needs to be argued well. Make sure you are listening to the other side and actually addressing what they are saying.

I do value good communication. I can't give you credit for an argument that I can't understand. That said, I am okay with speed as long as it is still enunciated well.

General

Debated at Olathe Northwest 2018-2022. I did both KDC and DCI during that time but would consider myself a better judge for a DCI style round. Spreading's fine but only if your opponent is ok with it. I don't think it's possible to truly be a tab judge but I will certainly try my hardest and will vote on whatever I think is the strongest and well-defended argument in the round.

I'm generally tech>truth in policy rounds (since realistically nothing happens either way I sign my ballot I think this is the best way to resolve hypothetical scenarios) but in more critical rounds find myself in a truth>tech mindset if I'm presented with out of round impacts. I will do my best to adapt to the debaters in the round so go for whatever type of arguments you want whether they be policy or weird niche stuff. That said, I will NEVER vote for ableism/sexism/racism/homophobia good or anything similar, and will vote you down the second I hear it.

Most of all have fun! This activity should be a place to find joy so don't let this round bog you down.

If you have questions about anything, email me at kaelyn.a.w@gmail.com.

Disadvantages:

I'm fine with generic DAs but if they aren't specific to the case you should have good evidence that clearly outlines the link. I ran some wack das in my time (shout out the 2 for 1 rider da) so I'll definitely hear whatever you have. I will vote on pretty much any impact as long as you compare it to the affs and explain why yours is better and have the evidence to back it up.

Counterplans:

Counterplans should be competitive with the aff. Have a clear understanding of the perms and be able to defend how they are/are not viable options. (if you are aff pointing out logical flaws in the cp is a good way for me to flow it to you). I will not vote for a cp without a net benefit; solvency alone isn't enough to win my ballot. Creative counterplan writing is something I think is super underutilized by the neg. Don't be afraid to add a plank to solve a specific impact scenario/plan flaw.

Topicality:

I'm what could be described as a "T hack" (Nearly every 1NR my senior year was some form of T). That said, I think good T debate can be hard to come by. The most common mistake debaters make is not contextualizing your impacts, either in this round or for future rounds. Even if I think the aff is not topical that doesn't mean anything absent your framing of how the ballot functions and why it matters. My personal philosophy on interps is that they're an internal link to getting to those impacts, so you saying "their interp is from a random blogger" doesn't matter if it gets better access to education/fairness/whatever their impact is. That's not to say I won't vote on precision, you just need to do the work on why your interps precision is better on the impact level. I'm sympathetic to fun ways of arguing t such as it being an RVI, so if you understand those args and can defend them I say go for it.

Kritiks:

God I love Kritiks. I frequently run them myself and am familiar with the literature on cap, ableism, set col, and biopolitics. I know the general concepts for others like Baudrillard but am not well versed so as a general rule make sure you have clear explanations. Your K should have a clear link to the aff, and I probably won't vote for it if there isn't one. That said, I don't have a preference for what shape that link takes whether it be reps/rhetoric/policy/etc. I prefer functional alts, but have no problem with voting for the K if you choose to kick the alt (but you have to win framework for this to be successful) I find K debates super fun and interesting, so it may be a good choice if you're on the neg.

K affs:

Ran these myself a decent amount. I liked to use the resolution as a starting point when I was running them, but have no problem for voting on ones not related to the res. The aff I ran my senior year was poetic disobedience so performance affs are something I'm familiar with and would love to see more of. Biggest thing I can stress to you if you want to run a k aff is that you need a reason for why the ballot is key for accessing your impacts or why that shouldn't matter in the face of your discourse/performance/etc. These are really interesting debates imo so if you've been waiting for the right judge for yours go for it.

T v K affs:

I think far too often debaters use T vs k affs as a way to exclude lit they don't want to hear just so they can win a ballot. While T can be a vital tool and has a place in these debates, I don't think fairness in the abstract matters a whole lot against a k aff absent a contextualization of why it's important for education/advocacy/etc. The reason for this is that 10 times out of 10 the k team has education claims that pretty easily outweigh competition for competitions sake. The best T debates here are ones that use creative standards and impacts and don't just say "but but the game ". TVAs are really smart to have here too.

Theory:

I'll hear everything out as long as you prove an impact. That said, if the violation is something that happened before I was in the room I will probably not vote on it since I have no way of verifying the actions that took place (If it was an issue of harrassment/racism/sexism/homophobia/anything along those lines the situation is entirely different and I will bring it to the attention of the tournament heads). Pretty much everything I said on T stands for other theory debates. Just tell me why it matters. In the case of theory v theory it will be a hard sell for you to explain why something like condo should outweigh T as long as as the aff says the words "t outweighs because their violation happened first". T is a question of if the debate shoud have ever happened in the first place so it shapes how the rest of the args play out.

Framing:

FRAMING. FRAMING. FRAMING. Explain to me why your impact matters!!! This is key for both sides of the debate. If I believe the entirety of the aff and neg arguments because no real clash has taken place then it comes down to whoever has done the better job of showing why their impact is the most important.

WHat the devil is a garfield

why do they call it oven when you oven the cold food of out hot eat the food

Ellie Willson (she/her)

Alumni of Olathe Northwest debate

policy, congress, extemp, info

Email Chain: eleanorclara13@gmail.com

Tl;dr I'm a policymaker judge. I am a big fan of pointing out inconsistencies in other evidence, but will only consider that in round if you point it out to me. Same goes for inappropriate behavior. Unless the behavior of a team is so blatantly obvious that I have to vote on it, I won't until you point it out to me. If you tell me a riddle I cannot solve you will get the 1.

Procedural things: If a team discloses no speed and you still speed I will not vote for you. Fine with open or closed cross. Your language in round holds value.

CP: List the plan text in the argument and explicitly state the net benefit. I like a good CP debate. PICs are fine as long as they aren't abusive, have common sense.

Topicality: If you're just doing this to fill time I understand, but at least try to make it look like you care. Even if I think an aff is topical, I will vote on T if the neg wins the arg.

Framing: I will vote on framing. If a team brings up a framing argument and you do not, I will have no choice but to vote for them.

Kritiks: This one is a mixed bag. I love a good K that makes me genuinely consider the power of the ballot. That being said I think there are some K arguments that are just flashy and silly. Don't do the latter. Make sure you understand the literature or I won't.

Disads: cool

Things I enjoy: following the flow, grabbing ground in CX, frogs, and debate coaches that are a little bit too tall

Things I like significantly less: Being over aggressive, reading only from the computer, carrying every single argument into the rebuttals, and Lawrence DZ's innovation advantage

I will not vote on a racist/sexist/homophobic argument even if the team bringing it forward can support it.

Final note: Please do not run new in the 2NC. You have a full constructive speech to introduce negative ground. Also do not carry more than 2 off into the rebuttals. It is extremely immature and will make me have a harder time picking up your ballot.

That being said, contrary to how my paradigm sounds, I am a very nice judge and will fill your ballot with much constructive criticism. Happy debating!