I have taught communication for 20 years and coached and competed in debate and forensics for 20 years. I want to hear solid arguments and value good communication skills and solid logic above all. I don't care a lot for Topicality, but am willing to vote on anything that is argued validly throughout the round.

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.

I retired from Coffeyville, KS - Field Kindley Memorial HS in 2012 after coaching debate and forensics for 36 years. I continue to judge when possible. I consider myself a policy maker and prefer to weigh the impacts of the disads and advantages. Obviously, topicality and solvency will be considered, but without a reasonable and compelling DA the negative has to work harder. Additionally, I expect the Aff. to meet its prima facia burdens. I expect both sides to provide clash. Not a fan of Kritiks, but I will listen to most any argument that is relevant to the debate and expect rebuttals to narrow down to the most compelling arguments. I prefer that the round not be fast and incoherent. Clarity is key. If debaters are not clear and arguments do not link to the opponent's positions, then you leave the decision totally in my hands and I have to search for reasons to justify my decision. Not a wise choice. I have not coached for 12 years and will be out of the loop with "new debate practices". In other words, I'm old school. I can flow a round, but if a so-called argument gets by me, it won't impact my decision. Basically, "don't be stupid" and we will have fun.

As for LD and PF, I have coached both. Each have their own purpose, LD debates should establish a value. While both sides will present real world examples that support their value positions, this is not a policy debate. LD is value debate and the decision will be made for whomever wins the value debate. PF was originally intended to debate current events. Not sure that’s the case anymore, but as I rarely hear PF debates, I expect each team to present evidence and arguments that support their side best. Both LD and PFD were developed as an answer to bad, fast, incoherent policy debates. I expect LD and PF to be slow, conversational and persuasive.

Hey y'all - I assume you're here to figure out how I evaluate debate - all of that information is included below.

Addendum for College LD:

I think most of this information will apply to LD - most of my experience with LD is from the Kansas High School circuit, which is traditional in comparison to the National College circuit, but hopefully my description of how I evaluate policy arguments will help! Also please feel free to ask questions!

A few things about me as a person:

First and foremost, I would appreciate a content warning for domestic violence and sexual assault. Thanks!

Second, I am no longer coaching in high school. I’m typically average 5-10 rounds a year on the high school topic now that I don’t coach. I sometimes coach and judge NFA LD. I remain current on politics, the economy, international relations, etc. I previously coached at Topeka High and Shawnee Heights. I debated the space topic, transportation infrastructure topic, and Latin America topic. I divided my paradigm into several categories - an overview of my paradigm, a list of arguments and how I feel about them, and general framing concerns. Any questions? just ask

Third, I’m open to different speeds, but I am telling you right now that I will be unable to flow top speed without a speech doc. Additionally, be cognizant of the fact zoom can make you less clear. Also, I will not do the work to flow top speed theory, overviews or general analysis - slow down when you want me to pay attention. I'll be fairly apparent when I stop flowing. If it is especially bad I will clear you. I want to be on the email chain - hannahjohnson93@gmail.com

Overview:

I'm open/willing to hearing any type of argument (performance, critical, semi-critical, policy, etc.). If y'all don't provide me a framework for how to view the round or a Role of the Ballot that is clearly articulated and developed, then I will default into a policy maker mindset. If y'all are rude to each other, I will write about it on your ballot and most likely dock you speaks, ranks or even give you the L depending on the severity of your actions. I am easy to read as a judge so if you see me stop flowing or looking annoyed it probably means what you're doing is rude or doesn't make sense to me. I'm fine with speed, but clear tags and analysis are appreciated. I want you to be empowered to debate what you want to debate in front of me - this is your round, not mine.

How I evaluate Debaters and their actions:

I've developed a zero-tolerance policy if debaters are rude to any of the debaters in the round - expect a reduction in speaks or losing the round due to your behavior. You are accountable for the way you act so I don't feel like warnings are necessary. Additonally, I hold you accountable for the arguments you choose to read. Therefore, if your arguments are sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or targeted towards any person or group in a negative-way, expect a reduction in speaks or losing the round. If you have questions about this, please ask me before the round starts - I want to make debate educational and inclusive.

Affs:

I'm open/willing to listen to any type of affs. Non-T affs are fine IF they are rejecting the topic. If you are Non-T and upholding the use of the Fed Gov, you better have good T blocks written. Any aff needs to provide me with a clear method of how you solve and a way I should view the round.

Topicality:

When I wasn't taking politics in the 2NR, I was probably taking T. Every level of the T flow is important to me so you must extend and explain interp, standards and voters. Saying "we access fairness and education best" isn't going to win you the round. You need to tell me HOW you access fairness and education the best. I enjoy Topical Versions of the Aff, Case Lists and Core of the Topic args. If you can explain to me why your interp is better for fairness/education in this round and in debate in general, you'll have an easy time winning my ballot. Also, I probs default to competing interps.

Disads:

Generics are fine, but I prefer them to have case-specific links (analytical or carded). When I was in high school, I ran politics disads and would often take them into the 2NR so I'm fairly confident in my ability to understand them.

Counterplans:

I am fine with listening to any CP, but you have to be able to answer why PICs are bad, Delay CPs are bad, Condo is bad, etc. I will vote on any of these arguments depending on the level of abuse in round. Otherwise, when running a CP have a clear net ben. Also, I'm fine with CP funding planks. I don't buy 2NC CP amendments, but I'll only vote against them if the aff makes an arg - make sure your plan text read in the 1NC makes sense and isn't just "the 50 states (insert plan text here).

Kritiks:

I'm not familiar with most K lit so you'll want to develop clear analysis about the K. I am most familiar with Neolib, Cap and Security, but my familiarity DOES NOT mean I will do the necessary analysis of cards for you. In the rounds I've watched so far this year, framework has been underutilized by teams. Read framework!!! Explain your alts - your alt solvency is important and I won't vote on a blippy extension of Zizek.

Framework:

You need a clear interp of what the framework or Role of the Ballot should be. There needs to be clash on the framework about why the aff/neg team's framework is good/bad for debate and for education/fairness in the round.

Fringe Args:

I'm not the judge to talk about aliens/wipeout/goos/etc in front of, but if you still feel inclined to do so, impact out your illogical args logically.

Generic Framing:

I view debate as an educational activity. I want the best education and most fair experience for both teams. Use this framework when explaining your theory arguments. Otherwise, anything you do to directly harm a debater in round will be counted against you because it conflicts with the aim of using debate as an educational tool.

I like to think that I'm a tabula rasa judge. If you tell me how to vote and show me why you win, then you'll be in a good spot. If no one does that, I default policy maker with an exception of T/Theory.

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!

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).

Note: You may see another Tyler Slinkard paradigm on tabroom, use this one. The other is from an old account. There is no major difference between the two other than I have updated some info for Highschool competitors.

Background:

4 years of policy and LD in High School (Fort Scott Sr. High)

4 years of NFA-LD in College (University of Central Missouri)

1.5 years of coaching speech/debate in College (UCM)

General In-Round Info:

Keeping the flow clean is the easiest way to win my ballot. I have based the info below on my previous decisions. Note the points where I have found the analysis in round was most effective in making me vote aff/neg.

LD (Highschool):

Value/Criterion-not necessary but if you are not engaging with the traditional structure of the event then at least make it clear what you are doing and why I should (or should not) vote one way.

LD (College) CX (Highschool):

*Speed* If you keep the flow clean, you can go as fast as you want. I will say "clear" if I cannot understand your rate of delivery. Please note, I am slightly bad of hearing. The wonderful result of growing up in a rock-musician's house.

Topicality-an a priori until a counter framework is presented. The negative needs to show me how their definition directly relates to the affirmative case. If you want my ballot on T; explain the violation.

Ks and all manner of dark sorcery-My wheelhouse in college was the Cap K, but near the end I started to venture into feminist literature and I have since fallen into a wide array of different perspectives that I now generally, at least in part, embrace. That said, in the following section I have included my general view of debate's relationship to the individual and society because I think that is the best way to explain my understanding of Kritiks.

Debate is a performance like any other event. Policy presentations have their place and are not inherently contradictory to critical evaluation. However, policy debate is a social associate of power in the status quo. For me, that is true for psychic, bio, and material power within the American system. That said, debate, as a collective idea, is not a state of counter/anti-fascist praxis, but it can be a space.

Debating as a practice of evaluation by means of competitive information processing is important because debate questions (i.e. resolutions) are not only an attempt at examining competing positions and placing one over another, but also the reassertion of a primary mode of processing. A traditionalist would contend that primary mode is policy. Indeed, the most recent NFA rules for Lincoln-Douglas maintain the event should be a "policy-oriented dialogue." That places policy discussions inherently above alternative mechanisms from the outset. Thus, in my mind, the Kritik is about rejecting not only a previous position but also the recognition of the inherent bias of organized debate.

I myself am game for any rejection of status quo politics. I just like clash.

That is a very general synopsis of my view on critical debate. Please feel free to ask more specific questions before rounds.

Impact Calculus-While my background would indicate a desire for a clear, concise line-by-line, I've found the BP style of rebuttals has a greater capacity for keeping my attention. I also recommend that people collapse to as few arguments as possible. Use your time efficiently.

I find systemic (violence) implications far more compelling than existential/terminal ones. That said, I have voted for extinction many times.

Email Chain: brandons3333@outlook.com

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

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

I 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.

Background: 1 year High School Debate and Speech (Policy, Poetry Interp, Extempt). 1 year debate at Hawaii Pacific University (World Schools and British Parliament). 2 Years Debate at Middle Tennessee State University (IPDA/NPDA). 5 years teaching and developing high school and middle school curriculum for Metro Memphis Urban Debate League (Policy), 2 years as assistant debate coach at Wichita East High (Policy, LD, Speech), currently Head Debate Coach at Boston Latin School (Congress, LD, PF & Speech)

Go ahead and add me to the email chain: MEswauncy@gmail.com

Quick Prefs:

Phil/Trad - 1

K - 2 or 3

LARP/Theory- 4

Tricks - 5/Strike

Overall Philosophy: I do not believe "debate is a game". I believe in quality over quantity. Clear argumentation and analysis are key to winning the round. Narratives are important. I like hearing clear voters in rebuttals. While I don't mind a nice technical debate, I love common sense arguments more. This is DEBATE. It isn't "who can read evidence better". Why does your evidence matter? How does it link? How does it outweigh? These things matter in the round, regardless of the style of debate. Pay attention to your opponent's case. Recognize interactions between different arguments and flows and bring it up in CX and in speeches. Exploit contradictions and double-turns. Look for clear flaws, don't be afraid to use your opponent's evidence against them. Be smart. You need to weigh arguments.

I am typically a "truth over tech" judge. I think tech is important in debate and I pay attention to it but tech is simply not everything. Meaning unless the tech violation is AGGREGIOUS, you won't win obviously questionable or untrue arguments just because you out teched your opponent. Arguments need to make sense and be grounded in some sort of reality and logic.

I am one of those old school coaches/competitors that believes each debate event is fundamentally different for good reason. That means, I am not interested in seeing "I wish I was policy" in LD or PF. Policy is meant to advocate for/negate a policy within the resolution that changes something in the SQ; LD is meant to advocate for/negate the resolution based on the premise that doing so advances something we should/do value as a society; PF is meant to effectively communicate the impacts of whatever the resolution proposes. This is not in flux. I do not change my stance on this. You will not convince me that I should. If you choose to turn an LD or PF round into a policy round, it will a) reflect in your speaks b) probably harm your chances of winning because the likelihood that you can cram what policy does in 1.5 hours of spreading into 1 hour of LD/PF while ALSO doing a good job doing what LD/PF is SUPPOSED TO DO (even if you spread) is very low.

Theory I will not vote on:
Disclosure theory, Paraphrasing Theory, Formal Clothes Theory, Dates Theory. All of these are whack and bad for debate. If your opponent runs any of the above: you can literally ignore it. Do not waste valuable time on the flow. I will not vote on it.

Spreading theory: Feel free to run it in LD or PF. It is the only theory I really consider. Do not run it if you are spreading yourself, that is contradictory.

I "may" evaluate a trigger warning theory IF your opponents' argument actually has some triggering components. Tread VERY carefully with this and only use it if there is legitimate cause.

Kritieks:
I am not amused by attempts to push a judge to vote for you on the vague notion that doing so will stop anti-blackness, settler colonialism, etc etc. As a black woman in the speech and debate space, IMO, this approach minimizes real world issues for cheap Ws in debate which I find to be performative at best and exploitative at worst. That being said, I am not Anti-K. A K that clearly links and has a strong (and feasible) alt is welcome and appreciated. I LOVE GOOD, WELL DEVELOPED Ks. I am more likely to harshly judge a bad K in LD as LD is supposed to be about values and cheapening oppression and exploiting marginalized people for debate wins is probably the worst thing for society.

Tricks: No.

Conditionality: I believe "Condo Bad" 89% of the time. Do not tell me "Capitalism Bad" in K and then give me a Capitalism centered CP. Pick one.

Decorum: Be respectful, stay away from personal attacks. Rudeness to your opponent will guarantee you lowest speaks out of all speakers in the round, personal attacks will net you the lowest speak I can give you. I recognize that being snarky and speaking over your opponent and cutting them off in CX is the "cool" thing to do, particularly in PF. It is not cool with me. It will reflect incredibly poorly on your speaker points. Do not constantly cut your opponent off in CX. It's rude and unprofessional. WORDS MATTER, using racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic or any other type of biased phrases unintentionally will reflect on your speaks. We need to learn to communicate and part of learning is learning what is offensive. Using it intentionally will have me in front of tab explaining why you got a 0.

Lastly, there is no reason to yell during the round, regardless of the format. I love passion, but do not love being yelled at.

Public Forum Debate

Speed/Spreading: While I accept spreading in Policy rounds; I DO NOT ENTERTAIN SPREADING IN PF. I will absolutely wreck you in speaks for trying to spread in PF, and I will stop flowing you if it is excessive and you don't bother to share the case. That is not the purpose of this format.

Weighing: You must weigh. I need to know why I should care about your argument and why it matters. If you do not do this, you might lose no matter how great the evidence.

Impacts: If your argument has no impact it is irrelevant. Make sure your impact makes logistical sense.

I will ignore any new arguments presented in second summary (unless it is to answer a new argument made in first summary), first final focus or second final focus.

Lincoln Douglas Debate

I am somewhat annoyed by the trend in LD to become "We want to be policy". LD cannot do policy well due to time constraints and things LD is actually supposed to do. That being said if you choose to present a plan: I will judge that plan as I would judge a policy debate plan. You must have inherency, you must have solvency for your harms, etc etc. If your opponent shows me you have no inherency or solvency and you can't really counter within your four minute rebuttal, you lose by default. If you choose to run a K: I will judge you like I would judge a K in a policy debate. Your link must be clear, your alt must be well developed and concise. If your opponent obliterates your alt or links and you cannot defend them well and did not have time to get to strong A2s to their case, you most likely will lose. I am well aware that you probably do not have "time" to do any of this well within LD speech constraints. But so are you before you make the decision to attempt to do so anyway. So, if you opt to be a policy debater in an LD round; do know that you will be judged accordingly. :)

LD is meant to be about values, failure to pull through your value, link to your value, etc will likely cost you the round

Speed/Spreading: Spreading in LD will reflect in your speaker points but I can flow it and won't drop you over it.

Value/Criterion: Even if I do not buy a particular side's value/criterion, their opponent MUST point out what is wrong with it. I do not interventionist judge. I base my decision on the value and/criterion presented; make sure you connect your arguments back to your criterion.

Framework: UNDERSTAND YOUR FRAMEWORK. I cannot stress this enough. If your framework is absolutely terribly put together, you will lose. If you blatantly misrepresent or misunderstand your framework, you will lose.

I will ignore all new arguments after the first AR.

Policy Debate

Solvency: THE AFF PLAN MUST SOLVE

Topicality: I am VERY broad in my interpretation of topicality. Thus, only use Topicality if you truly have a truly legitimate cause to do so. I am not a fan of hearing T just to take up time or for the sake of throwing it on the flow. I will only vote for T if is truly blatant or if the aff does not defend.

Ks: If you are unsure how to run a K, then don't do it. I expect solid links to case, and a strong alternative. "Reject Aff" is not a strong alternative. Again, use if you have legitimate cause, not just to take up time or to have something extra on the flow.

Critical Affs: If you are unsure how to run a K, then don't do it.

DAs: Make sure you link and make your impact clear.

CPs: Your CP MUST be clearly mutually exclusive and can NOT just piggy back off of your opponent's plan. Generic CPs rarely win with me. (Basically, "We should have all 50 states do my opponent's exact plan instead of the Federal Government doing it" is just a silly argument to me)

Speed/Spreading: I don't mind speed as long as you're speaking clearly.

Fiat: I don't mind fiats AS LONG AS THEY MAKE SENSE. Please don't fiat something that is highly improbable (IE: All 50 states doing a 50 state counterplan on a issue several states disagree with). "Cost" is almost always fiated for me. Everything costs money and we won't figure out where to come up with that money in an hour and a half debate round.

Tag Team Debate/ Open CX: For me personally, both partners may answer but only one may ask. UNLESS tournament rules state something different. Then we will abide by tournament rules.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me before the round begins.

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!

This is my first year judging debate. I will give the win to the best argument.