I have been coaching debate since 2008, and debated 4 years in high school. I did not debate in college.

General things that grind my gears:

Don't be a jerk. Assertive is fine, but there is no need to mock or belittle anyone, or make things personal.

I cannot stand any kind of game playing around sharing evidence. I don't care if you disclose or not before the debate, but once you've read it, I can't think of a reason (that is flattering to you) why your opponent should not have access to it for the entire debate round. I will vote a team down for this practice if their opponent makes an argument about why it is a bad with an interp, violation, standards, and voters.

"New in the Two": to my mind, this argument makes the most sense when it is with regards to new OFF CASE. But, in any event, it's not a "rule", so run it as an arg with an interp, violation, standards, and voters, and debate it out, don't just cry foul.

POLICY DEBATE

Framework: I default to policy, but I am happy to adopt a different framework, as long as I am told how and why I should do that. I like framework debates.

I am evaluating the round based on impacts. You need offense to win. I will vote aff on the risk of solvency if there are no impacts on the negative. In a round where neither team has any impacts, I'm voting negative.

Flowing vs. Reading Evidence: Put me on the speech drop, but I keep a flow, and that's what I want to evaluate the round off of. I want you to read your evidence to me and tell me what it says and why it matters. Pull warrants rather than tell me to read the card for myself.

Speed - I don't prefer a very rapid rate of delivery, but in the context of an open, policy centered debate, I can keep up with a *fairly* rapid rate. If you are not familiar with your K literature well enough to teach it to someone within the time constraints of the round, don't run that arg. When it comes to something like your politics disad, or your topicality standards, speed away.

Theory - I love theory debates. Topicality and other theory debates are fun when they are centered on the standards part of the flow.

Any other questions, ask away.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

I believe that LD is a value debate, and I consider the value and value criterion to be paramount. I want you to tell me that you win the debate because the contentions prove that your side of the rez leads to your value, as measured by your criterion. In fact, if you wanted to give that analysis on the bottom of every contention flow, that would be pretty great.

I will evaluate the round based on the arguments made in the round, so if your idea of what LD is differs greatly from mine, you can still win the debate as long as you do a better job of justifying your framework. This doesn't seem like the easiest path to my ballot, but I don't aim to intervene.

Any other questions, ask away.

 

WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATE

Background: I have judged and coached this event over the last 6 years, however I only participate in 1 WSD tournament every year, at NSDA. I love this event, and I do not want you to make it a different event!  That said...

I do my best to adapt to the norms of the event, and I hope you do as well. WSD is scored holistically, so while my flow is important to the "Content" portion of the holistic rubric, it is not the be-all, end-all of the round. 

Consistency Down the Bench - The factors below are all to each speech, but also it is important that the side should have a consistent approach, telling the same "story" across the debate - this includes things like identifying key clash points, and may also include things like team lines and intros/conclusions, both within and across speeches. I love a good rhetorical device spread out across each speech. I should see consistency in terms of prioritization of key arguments.

Style (40%) - Speeches should be presented in a clear and engaging manner. Consultation of notes/prepared speeches are fine in my book, but care should be taken to look up and engage with the judge. Speech should have a natural flow. Rate of speaking may be somewhat faster (though this is certainly not an expectation) but should be clear. It should NOT sound like a fast policy round. Spreading is not the strategy for this event. Speeches should begin with an attention grabber and a roadmap. More on that under content.

Content (40%) - I do keep a flow, and I expect clear signposting of arguments, and an intro that gives me what I would call a "roadmap", but, see above. I am fine with debaters grouping arguments and not necessarily having a highly detailed line by line, but I do appreciate debaters who start at the top of the flow and work their way down. When you jump around, it makes it harder for me to see connections between arguments, and that is important to determining key points of clash. The organization of your speech should be clear and consistent. In third speeches, I generally expect there to be some line by line, but I also think this is where teams can begin to identify clash points/key questions. Reply speeches should narrow the debate down to key arguments - I really expect you to get away from a line by line here and crystallize the debate.

Strategy (20%) - Third substantive points should come out in the second speech, at the bottom of the order. They should be strategic, taking the debate into a somewhat different direction - the best third substantives throw a curve ball at it the other team. The handling of POIs is very important to the strategy score - when taking POIs, you are the boss of your speech! The default should be to ignore the POI until you get to the end of a sentence and refuse the POI. You should say no thank you more often than you say you'll take a POI (generally, you take 2). When offering POIs, be careful not to barrack (asking a POI EVERY 20 seconds), but I am all for offering at a time that is going to throw your opponent off. I like it when teams offer a lot of POIs, and they don't need to be questions.

 

 

Email: debatecards.charlotte@gmail.com. Please add me to the email chain.

NDT/CEDA Experience: Debated at Weber State for Omar Guevara and Ryan Wash. Graduate Assistant at Kansas State for Alex McVey and James Taylor (JT).

Other Experience: Assistant coach for Manhattan High, Layton, and Lincoln Southeast doing LD and speech. Instructor for Harbinger Debate, Shanghai doing PF.

Current Position: 2L at University of Nebraska-Lincoln law school. Clerkship for the Lancaster County Public Defender.

Judging Thesis: I understand my role to be evaluating the PERSUASIVENESS of the arguments debaters make, in whatever format they choose to present it. Factors which make an argument more persuasive to me include: concessions, examples, correct application of key terms from your scholarship, credibility of source authors, internal consistency of the argument, explanatory power, and how the argument fits into other strategic choices the debater has made. This role may shift if I am given a clear and persuasive argument to do so.

Disability Accommodations: All reasonable requests for accommodation for any disability will be granted, or the team will lose. Debaters do not need evidence to prove that they have a disability. I am seeking to reward alternative speaking styles which are not based on the traditional norm of spreading and technical jargon, although mastery of that style is also very impressive. Please see this article for more discussion of disability access in policy debate: https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1281&context=speaker-gavel

Advice for Debaters:

I will only write a ballot for tacky or frivolous arguments if I have no other choice. I want to write ballots which engage with a question of actual SUBSTANCE. Disagreements about rules or procedures CAN have substance and are NOT discouraged, but you must use your judgment to decide whether the argument you are making is worth the air you spend saying it. No category of argument is exempt from this rule.

I think the negative has a burden to ENGAGE WITH THE AFFIRMATIVE in some way. There should be a moment where I am able to see how the strategies interact and where the disagreements are. If the negative approach is never contextualized to some actual dispute occurring in the round, I will be sympathetic to a lot of standard affirmative arguments.

I prefer DEPTH over breadth in almost all cases. In my thesis above I list the kinds of things which constitute depth.

Fairness and education are not real impacts until they are explained. Fairness is only an impact in relation to a particular kind of debate, the value of competition, etc. Education is only an impact in relation to a particular role for debaters, the value of certain literature bases, etc. If you do not ELABORATE ON PROCEDURAL IMPACTS/TURNS THEREOF then don't be surprised if they aren't enough.

Don’t use words you don’t understand. I CANNOT BE RAZZLE-DAZZLED into voting for incoherent nonsense. High theory is cool and good when you are cool and good. I love kritik debating because of the radicalism, not the obscurantism. If you have depth, like the thesis above describes, this will not be a problem for you.

In high school debates, I WILL NOT evaluate an argument which is overly hostile toward another competitor’s identity or presence at the tournament, and I WILL consider dropping the team. Almost everything is permitted, but there are certain lines you cannot cross. In college y’all are mostly adults so go off, but I will probably need some clarification about my role in resolving that dispute, because my default assumption is that I don’t have jurisdiction over the value of a person’s life/presence/identity. I will always have a low bar to defeat hate, because HATE IS NOT PERSUASIVE.

Email: bcunningham7373@gmail.com

In addition to doing debate all four years in high school, I'm currently on my fourth year of coaching it. I'm open to anything really, especially if you're able to articulate your points well. That being said, I'm not fantastic with K's. I'm not saying you can't run them, just do so at your own peril. It is greatly appreciated if you explain them. As for speed, you can go fast so long as your clear (especially if I have access to your evidence).

I'm a big fan of T and on case, but like I said, open to anything. I'll also pay close attention to any framing arguments made. I vote on stock issues, that includes things like T and Inherency. A more skilled, more eloquent aff team will lose if they drop or neglect something like that.

Above all else, I love good clash and a friendly, educational debate.

Don't be a jerk (I used to have a different word here, but tabroom has since smited me for my hubris), I will vote you down on it.

My Philosophy on Judging High School Debate

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” (1:149)

I have been judging high school debate since 1974 because of my strong belief that debate, when properly done, is one of the best ways to expel the ignorance that Thomas Jefferson warns is an anathema to freedom. High school debate is one of the best ways of achieving the goals of public education as outlined by Mortimer J. Adler in the Paideia Program (2:282). It must be judged by a criteria that upholds those principles, which is why I judge rounds on the paradigm of Civic Discourse, as explained in part by Dr. Wende Vyborney. (3)

The Civic Discourse model of judging helps to bring high school debate back to a real world scenario, rather than the disconnect that has taken place since college debate camps have become prevalent training ground for high school debaters. It builds upon the very principles that ought to be the foundation of all public high school education, especially that of preparing all young people to be able to function well as full citizens in a democratic society. Those who have been trained in this manner will be able to debate well the issues that they will face at home, at work, and in the political and social arenas. The Civic Discourse paradigm returns debate back to a persuasive, civil, rational, and logical manner of speaking and arguing issues, rather than the extreme style that has developed and serves no real purpose other than preparation for the equally obscure college level debate.

What does this mean in terms of the style of debate, and the questions that are asked of judges who will judge the NFL tournament?

First, in delivery, it means low speed, consistent with public addresses, not the vomiting of words that has become predominant in many rounds today. The students must always remember that they are in communication with their audience, even if it is a single judge. The audience seldom knows the case as well as the debaters, and so it must be clearly presented (4:15). The arguments and information need to be understood and comprehended by the audience. Speed does not achieve this. Rather, it obfuscates the information, as emphasis on the important words is lost in the rush to present, diminishing any clear expression of the ideas that may be present. I often quote from I, Claudius, AAs for speaking, again, it is true, I have an impediment. But isn=t what a man says more important than how long he takes to say it?@

Second, the argumentation and ideas are more important than the evidence. Today, many students rely on presenting long quotes to support their position, and then leaving the rest to the audience to decide. The argument being made is what matters, as it shows the ability to think and reach conclusions. The evidence is used to support the conclusion. It is not meant to be the argument. This is why the use of the word “card” is inappropriate; it is a quote from an expert or information about the argument. Sources can be indicted when it is appropriate. This is more easily realized when debater use the correct words for the quote. It is the argument that needs to be at the center of the round, not the quotes. Evidence supports, it does not stand alone.

Which brings us to the third point: the impacts of the arguments and quotes need to be made clear to the audience (judge). Too often we have the spewing of information at the expense of explanation. “When even the slightest chance exists that the meaning or pertinence of a fact or reference may not be grasped, debaters should clarify it.” (5:68). It is the responsibility of the debaters to make clear what the effect of their arguments are on the opposition’s case and on their own issues, rather than for the judge to reach the epiphany of the argument that many students now expect. I was taught, “Tell them what you are going to say, say it, and tell them what you said and why.”

Further, debate jargon does not make an argument. Use of the phrases such as “We turn,” is not a response to an argument unless a clear explanation has been presented demonstrating why the response to the argument makes a turn. Without that, then we descend into the chaos of specialization that Jose Garcia Ortega warns about in The Revolt of the Masses. Too many debaters rely on these catch phrases, and the audience’s perceived ability to see the results, rather than the actual demonstration of their own ability to clearly communicate the complete argument and its impacts to the audience. Debaters must make clear that they understand and know what they are arguing, and to make it clear to those listening. It is not the responsibility of the audience to complete the argument.

There is an aspect of tabula rasa in the round, in that the issues that are raised within the round are the issues on which I will decide; not whether or not certain issues have been presented, and failure to do so means a loss. If topicality is raised as an issue in the round, only then will it be considered and the argumentation evaluated. If a plan is non-topical and the issue is not raised by the Negative, then a comment may be made on the ballot, but it will not be a basis for a decision. It means that common sense rules, and when an argument fails that test, more supporting evidence is required to help me accept the position. Bizarre arguments do not need to be met point for point, only the flaw in logic needs to be exposed for the collapse of the scenario.

This is why it is not a matter of responding to every point with a counter point. Realize what are the most important issues and arguments in the round, clarifying them for the audience, tell why you are winning on those issues, and finally explain what it means to the decision. This demonstrates an ability to analyze the arguments, prioritize them and reach logical conclusions.

As for counter plans, and kritiks, those may be argued, but they must be consistent with all the other issues that Negative is presenting. However, because the resolution is what we really ought to be arguing, and the plan presented by the Affirmative as a solution to the resolution, I would prefer that one argues that rather than trying to create a diversion. There is usually plenty of ground for Negative to argue the Affirmative plan without reason for bizarre off-case arguments that usually waste time and diminish the value of debate.

Because this is so late in the season, and habits have been formed, I am still capable of making fair decisions in rounds that violate every one of these ideas. I will not be happy with what I witness, as it not what we need to be emphasizing at this level of education. If debate is to be reduced to a game, then it needs to be removed from the school curriculum and made an extra curriculum activity. As long as it is part of education, then it must be judged by standards that advance the purpose of education, which is why my ballots on those rounds will be so critical of the gamesmanship at the expense of education.

Debate, as practice for civic argument can be defined, in large part, through common sense. If an intelligent, informed community member can follow what’s going on, then we’re on the right track. If arguments are sufficiently well-formed to classify the speaker as “informed citizen” rather than “dangerous extremist,” then we’re on the right track. If arguments and evidence would pass muster in a term paper, then we’re on the right track (3)

And if those are accomplished, then we are on the right track for educating the youth through debate, and making sure that democracy is capable of surviving another generation.

Bibliography

1. Thomas Jefferson on Democracy edited by Saul K. Padover, Mentor Book, The New American Library, New York, New York, 1939.

2. Reforming Education: The Opening of the American Mind by Mortimer J. Adler, MacMillan Publishing Company, New York, New York, 1988.

3. A New Day for Policy Debate by Dr. Wende Vyborney from the internet, 1997.

4. Mastering Competitive Debate by Dana Hensley and Diana Carlin, Clark Publishing, Inc, Topeka, Kansas, 1994.

5. Decision by Debate, Second Edition by Douglas Ehninger and Wayne Brockriede, Harper and Row Publishers, New York, New York, 1978.

Debated 4 years at Dowling HS in Des Moines, Iowa (09-12, Energy, Poverty, Military, Space)
Debated at KU (13-15, Energy, War Powers, Legalization)
Previously Coached: Ast. Coach Shawnee Mission Northwest, Lansing High School.
Currently Coaching: Ast. Coach Washburn Rural High School

UPDATE 10/1: CX is closed and lasts three minutes after constructive. I won't listen to questions or answers outside of those three minutes or made by people that aren't designated for that CX. I think it's a bummer that a lot of CXs get taken over by one person on each team. It doesn't give me the opportunity to evaluate debaters or for debaters to grow in areas where they might struggle. I'm going to start using my rounds to curb that.

Top Level
Do whatever you need to win rounds. I have arguments that I like / don't like, but I'd rather see you do whatever you do best, than do what I like badly. Have fun. I love this activity, and I hope that everyone in it does as well. Don't be unnecessarily rude, I get that some rudeness happens, but you don't want me to not like you. Last top level note. If you lose my ballot, it's your fault as a debater for not convincing me that you won. Both teams walk into the room with an equal chance to win, and if you disagree with my decision, it's because you didn't do enough to take the debate out of my hands.

Carrot and Stick
Carrot - every correctly identified dropped argument will be rewarded with .1 speaks (max .5 boost)
Stick - every incorrectly identified dropped argument will be punished with -.2 speaks (no max, do not do this)

General
DAs - please. Impact calc/ turns case stuff great, and I've seen plenty of debates (read *bad debates) where that analysis is dropped by the 1ar. Make sure to answer these args if you're aff.

Impact turns - love these debates. I'll even go so far as to reward these debates with an extra .2 speaker points. By impact turns I mean heg bag to answer heg good, not wipeout. Wipeout will not be rewarded. It will make me sad.

CPs - I ran a lot of the CPs that get a bad rep like consult. I see these as strategically beneficial. I also see them as unfair. The aff will not beat a consult/ condition CP without a perm and/or theory. That's not to say that by extending those the aff autowins, but it's likely the only way to win. I lean neg on most questions of CP competition and legitimacy, but that doesn't mean you can't win things like aff doesn't need to be immediate and unconditional, or that something like international actors are illegit.

Theory - Almost always a reason to reject the arg, not the team. Obviously conditionality is the exception to that rule.

T - Default competing interps. Will vote on potential abuse. Topical version of the aff is good and case lists are must haves. "X" o.w. T args are silly to me.

Ks - dropping k tricks will lose you the debate. I'm fine with Ks, do what you want to. Make sure that what you're running is relevant for that round. If you only run security every round, if you hit a structural violence aff, your security K will not compel me. Make sure to challenge the alternative on the aff. Make sure to have a defense of your epistemology/ontology/reps or that these things aren't important, losing this will usually result in you losing the round.

K affs - a fiat'd aff with critical advantages is obviously fine. A plan text you don't defend: less fine, but still viable. Forget the topic affs are a hard sell in front of me. It can happen, but odds are you're going to want someone else higher up on your sheet. I believe debate is good, not perfect, but getting better. I don't think the debate round is the best place to resolve the issues in the community.

Speaker points.
I don't really have a set system. Obviously the carrot and stick above apply. It's mostly based on how well you did technically, with modifications for style and presentation. If you do something that upsets me (you're unnecessarily rude, offensive, do something shady), your points will reflect that.

Tim Ellis
Head Coach - Washburn Rural High School, Topeka, KS
Updated July 23
Email chain - ellistim@usd437.net, fiscalrizztribution@googlegroups.com

Introduction: Hello, debaters and fellow educators. I am Tim Ellis, and I am honored to be here as a judge at this high school policy debate tournament. My background includes [briefly mention your educational and professional background relevant to the debate topic or communication skills]. My role as a judge is to evaluate your arguments, critical thinking, and communication abilities, while maintaining a fair and unbiased approach to the debate.

Debate Philosophy: I believe in fostering an environment where students can express their ideas passionately, engage in respectful discourse, and develop their critical thinking skills. I encourage debaters to focus on clear and logical arguments, evidence-based analysis, and effective communication. Substance will always take precedence over style, but effective delivery can enhance your message.

Argumentation: I value well-structured arguments that are supported by credible evidence. When presenting your case, it's important to clearly define your position, provide relevant evidence, and logically connect your arguments. The use of real-world examples and expert opinions can significantly bolster your points. Remember, the quality of your evidence matters more than the quantity.

Clash and Refutation: Debates thrive on clash – the direct engagement with your opponents' arguments. I expect debaters to engage with opposing viewpoints by directly addressing their arguments, demonstrating the weaknesses in their logic, and offering counterarguments supported by evidence. Effective refutation requires a deep understanding of your opponents' case, so take the time to dissect their position and refute it cogently.

Communication: Clear communication is key to conveying your ideas persuasively. Speak confidently, enunciate your words, and maintain a steady pace. Avoid jargon or excessive use of technical terms that might alienate those unfamiliar with the topic. Remember, effective communication isn't just about what you say, but how you say it – engaging with your audience is crucial.

Etiquette and Sportsmanship: Respect for your opponents, your partner, and the judge is non-negotiable. Keep your focus on the arguments and ideas, rather than personal attacks. Maintain a professional demeanor throughout the debate, and remember that good sportsmanship is an integral part of the debate community.

Time Management: Time management is essential. Respect the allocated time limits for your speeches, cross-examinations, and rebuttals. Effective time allocation allows for a balanced and comprehensive discussion of the issues at hand.

Final Thoughts: Debating is a valuable skill that extends beyond the walls of this tournament. Regardless of the outcome, embrace the learning experience. Constructive feedback is intended to help you grow as debaters and thinkers. I am here to provide a fair assessment of your performance, and my decisions will be based on the quality of your arguments, your ability to engage in meaningful clash, and your overall communication skills.

I am looking forward to witnessing your insightful arguments and thoughtful engagement. Let's engage in a spirited and enlightening debate that enriches all of us. Best of luck to each team, and may the discourse be both rigorous and rewarding.

Hello

I am currently the assistant debate and forensics coach at Topeka Seaman School District. I have three years of High school experience in debate and over 9 years of judging/coaching experience. Generally speaking, I consider myself a tabula rasa judge. I vote on the arguments or framework presented in the round itself. Outside of tabula rasa, I tend to default towards a policy maker mindset. In terms of speed, clear communication and professionalism are important in determining who is the better speakers. In terms of speed, clear communication should be prioritize over how much information can be delivered in a speech. Counter plans are acceptable and should be non topical. When presented, they should be competitive to the affirmative case and mutually exclusive. Topicality is very important voting issue. To win topicality, negative team must present a compelling reason why their interpretation and violation meets the burden of the off being untypical. Generic disadvantages are okay as long as specific links are analyzed, but on case disadvantages are preferred. Kritics are acceptable in round if links are clearly analyzed. I prefer to hear case specific kritics rather than generics ones.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Respect for your opponents and the activity is most important.

I think it's critical to stay organized during the round and make it clear when you end/begin talking about a new or the next argument. Tell me where whatever you're talking about goes on the flow.

As long as you are clear and can explain your arguments thoroughly, I don't have any preferences as to what you run.

Not a big fan of spreading.

andie.keck@gmail.com

Policy maker, not a fan of topicality, not impressed by rudeness in cross-ex, explain your arguments, moderate speed is preferred

Email: alake@tps501.org

I debated 4 years in High School, and 4 years for Washburn University for parliamentary debate. I now coach at Topeka West High School (8th year). I am a flow centric judge and I am willing to vote on anything that is articulated well with a clear framework. I can handle most levels of speed so long as you are articulate. It is in your best interest to start relatively slow and speed up as the speech progresses (crescendo). The rest of this judge philosophy is how I will default in the event that you DON'T tell me how to evaluate a position (but why wouldn't you just tell me how I should evaluate the position?).

Lincoln Douglas Debate

I believe that an LD round is decided by both the aff and neg presenting a value, and a criterion that measures the achievement of that value. I vote aff/neg on the resolution by evaluating the contentions through the winning criterion to see if it achieves the winning value. I am very flow centric and will weigh arguments that aren't answered in favor of the other team. I am not a super fan of turning LD into policy debate but if you argue for that and win that position then I will play ball. I am fine with speed. If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round.

Policy Debate

Overall, net-benefits.

Theory: I love theory debates. Generally I will evaluate them through competing interpretations based on the standards and which standards I am told are most important.

Advantages/Disadvantages: Generally, uniqueness controls the direction of the link; extinction and "dehumanization" are terminal impacts. A 1% chance of a disad/adv occurring gives that team offense for the ballot.

CP: Counterplans should be competitive and switch presumption from the negative to the affirmative. Thus, the CP has to give me a net-benefit over the case or a perm to warrant a ballot. I am willing to vote on CP theory if those arguments are won.

K: I wasn't a big K debater, but I have argued them and judged them frequently. You should be able to explain your K, its framework, link, impx, alt and alt solvency. Buzz words, and name dropping are not a substitute for the former explanation. I am willing to vote on framework and similar arguments if those theory arguments are won.

Put me on the email chain: andreamarshbank@gmail.com

Head coach at Shawnee Heights High School in Topeka, Kansas. Assistant coached for Lawrence High School and Seaman High School. I'm a flay judge who errs on the side of a policymaker. I listen to most args, but if we're going to talk about T, please don't claim unfairness/education with the most common aff of the season. Also, I tend to think that delay CPs are cheating 99% of the time.

Washburn Rural High School '20 (barely debated)

University of Kansas '24 (not debating)

Live, Laugh, email chain: medrano0305@gmail.com

The odds are high that I had to look up this year's resolution the morning of the tournament because I do not frequently judge debate, so I would highly appreciate context and explanation behind arguments so that I can judge fairly. This is especially relevant if you are running Ks or counterplans.

Things that are good: Being nice, slow debate (I was a forensics kid so I appreciate speaking skills), having fun

Things that are bad: Stealing prep, being weird and tricky, clipping cards, being obnoxious during CX

Debate is a fantastic and cool activity so please just try to be decent human beings and I am sure we will all be fine.

Currently Head Coach at Campbell Hall (CA)

Formerly Head Coach of Fairmont Prep (CA), Ransom Everglades (FL) & Pembroke Hill (MO), and Assistant Coach for Washburn Rural (KS), and Lake Highland (FL).

Coached for 20 years – Have coached all events. Have coached both national circuit policy & PF. Also I have a J.D., so if you are going to try to play junior Supreme Court Justice, please be reasonably accurate in your legal interpretations.

Address for the email chain: millerdo@campbellhall.org

Scroll down for Policy or Parli Paradigm

Public Forum Paradigm

Short Version

1. If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in every speech, beginning with the 2nd Rebuttal. That includes defensive case attacks, as well as unanswered link chains and impacts that you want to extend from your own case. Just frontlining without extending the link and impact stories from constructives means you have dropped those links and impacts.
2. Absent any other framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm.
3. Send speech docs in a timely fashion BEFORE you give any speech in which you introduce new evidence. If you don't, I will be sad, any time you take finding ev will be free prep for your opponents, and the max speaks you will be able to earn from me will be 28. If you do send docs I will be happy and the lowest speaks you will earn will be 28. This only applies to varsity teams.
4. Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. This should start in the 2nd Rebuttal.
5. No new cards in 2nd Summary. No new cards in 1st Summary unless directly in response to new 2nd Rebuttal arguments.
6. I'm OK w/ theory - IF IT IS DONE WELL. Read below for specific types of arguments.

Long Version

1. Summary extension

If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in the summary. Yes, that includes defense & turns from the rebuttal. Yes, that includes unanswered link chains and impacts. And that doesn't just mean "extend my links and impacts." That doesn't do it. You need to explicitly extend each of the cards/args you will need to make a cohesive narrative at the end of the round. If you want to go for it in the FF, make sure your partner knows to extend it. Even if it is the best argument I’ve ever heard, failure to at least mention it in the summary will result in me giving the argument zero weight in my decision. Basically, too many 2nd speakers just ignore their partner’s summary speech. Attempting to extend things that were clearly dropped in the Summary will result in a lowering of speaker points for the 2nd speaker. This is # 1 on my list for a reason. It plays a major factor in more than half of my decisions. Ignore this advice at your own peril.

1A. 2nd Rebuttal Rebuild

Everything I just said about Summary also goes for 2nd Rebuttal. Anything you want me to evaluate at any later point in the round needs to be mentioned/extended in 2nd Rebuttal. That includes extending / rebuilding the portions of your case you want me to weigh at the end, even those that were not addressed by your opponents in the first Rebuttal. For example: 1st Rebuttal just answers your links on C1. You not only need to rebuild whatever C1 links you want me to evaluate at the end of the round, but you also need to explicitly extend your impacts you are claiming those links link to in at least a minimum of detail. Just saying" extend my impacts" will be unlikely to cut it. At least try to reference both the argument and the card you want me to extend. And, yes, I know this means you won't be able to cover as much in 2nd Rebuttal. Make choices. That's what this event is all about.

2. Offense defense

Absent any other framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm. Just going for defensive response to the the opposing case in FF won’t be persuasive in front of me. Additionally, I am open to non-traditional framing arguments (e.g. rights, ontology, etc), but you will need to have some pretty clear warrants as to why I should disregard a traditional net offensive advantage for the other team when making my decision.

3. Send Speech Docs with the cut cards your are about to read before your speech

This is the expected norm in both Policy and LD, and it is time for PF to grow up as well. I am tired of wasting 15+ min per round while kids look for cards that they should have ready as part of their blocks and/or cases to share, and just paraphrasing stuff without the cut card readily available. To combat these bad practices, I choose to adopt two incentives in varsity rounds to have debaters use speech docs like every other legitimate form of debate.

First, if you do not send a speech doc w/ all the cards you are about to read in that next speech to the email chain in a timely fashion (less than a minute or two) before you begin any speech in which you read cards, I will cap your speaker points at 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 27. If you do send a speech doc with the cut cards you are about to read in order, I will guarantee that the lowest speaks you receive will be a 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 29. If you don't have this ready before the round, or can't get it ready in a minute or so before each speech, don't waste time trying. It defeats the part of the purpose aimed to speed up rounds and prevent tournaments from running behind because kids can't find their evidence. Just accept that your speaks will be capped, learn from it, and put together your cases and blocks more ethically for next time. Two caveats to this general rule: 1) the obvious allowance for accidentally missing the occasional card due to honest error, 2) if you engage in offensive behavior/language/etc that would otherwise justify something lower than a 25, providing a speech doc will not exempt you from such a score.

Second, I will utilize the approach that has been used in the past at the TOC, where teams are free to prep while the other team is searching for the evidence that they have been requested to share and should already have available, and that time will NOT count against the requesting team's 3:00 of prep. If you read this and can figure out how to use it to your advantage, more power to you.

Basically, I won't require you to provide speech docs, but I will use these two measures to incentivize their use in the strongest possible way I feel I reasonably can. This hopefully will both speed up rounds and simultaneously encourage more transparency and better overall evidence quality. If you don't like this, strike me.

4. Narrow the round

It would be in your best interest to narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key turns on your opponents’ case, and then spend most of your time doing impact comparisons on those issues. Going for all 3 contentions and every turn you read in rebuttal is a great way to lose my ballot. If you just extend everything, you leave it up to me to evaluate the relative important of each of your arguments. This opens the door for judge intervention, and you may not like how I evaluate those impacts. I would much rather you do that thought process for me. I routinely find myself voting for the team that goes all in on EFFECTIVE impact framing on the issue or two they are winning over the team that tries to extend all of their offensive arguments (even if they are winning most of them) at the expense of doing effective impact framing. Strategic choices matter. Not making any choices is a choice in itself, and is usually a bad one.

5. No new cards in Summary, unless they are in direct response to a new argument brought up in the immediately prior speech.

1st Summary: If you need to read cards to answer arguments first introduced in opponents case, those needed to be read in 1st Rebuttal, not 1st Summary. Only if 2nd Rebuttal introduces new arguments—for example a new impact turn on your case—will I evaluate new cards in the 1st Sum, and only to specifically answer that new 2nd Rebuttal turn. Just please flag that your are reading a new card, and ID exactly what new 2nd Rebuttal argument you are using it to answer.

2nd Summary: Very rarely, 2nd summary will need to address something that was brought up new in 1st summary. For example, as mentioned above, 2nd Rebuttal puts offense on case. 1st Summary might choose to address that 2nd Rebuttal offense with a new carded link turn. Only in a case like that will I evaluate new evidence introduced into 2nd Summary. If you need to take this route, as above in 1st Summary, please flag exactly what argument you say was new in the 1st Summary you are attempting to answer before reading the new card.

In either case, unless the prior speech opened the door for you, I will treat any new cards in Summary just like extending things straight into FF & ignoring the summary—I won’t evaluate them and your speaker points will take a hit. However, new cross-applications of cards previously introduced into the round ARE still OK at this point.

5A. No new cross-applications or big-picture weighing in Final Focus.

Put the pieces together before GCF - at least a little bit. This includes weighing analysis. The additional time allotted to teams in Summary makes it easier to make these connections and big-picture comparisons earlier in the round. Basically, the other team should at least have the opportunity to ask you about it in a CF of some type. You don't have to do the most complete job of cross-applying or weighing before FF, but I should at least be able to trace its seed back to some earlier point in the round.

6. Theory

I will, and am often eager to, vote on debate theory arguments. But proceed with caution. Debaters in PF rarely, if ever, know how to debate theory well enough to justify voting on it. But I have seen one or two rounds recently that give me some hope for the future.

Regarding practices, there is a strategic utility for reading theory even if you are not going for it. I get that part of the game of debate, and am here for it. But if you think you want me to actually vote on it, and it isn't just a time suck, I would strongly encourage that you collapse down to just theory in the 2nd Rebuttal/1st Summary in a similar fashion that I would think advisable in choosing which of your substance-based impact scenarios to go for. Theory isn't the most intuitive argument, and is done poorly when it is blippy. If it is a bad practice that truly justifies my disregarding substantive arguments, then treat it like one. Pick a standard and an impact story and really develop it in both speeches AND IN GCF in the similar way you should develop a link story and impact from your substantive contention. Failing to collapse down will more than likely leave you without sufficient time to explain your abuse story and voter analysis in such a way that it is compelling enough for me to pull the trigger. If you are going to do it (and I'm good with it if you do), do it well. Otherwise, just stick to the substance.

My leanings on specific types of theory arguments:

Fiat – For policy resolutions, until the “no plans” rule is changed, PF is essentially a whole-resolution debate, no matter how much teams would like for it to be policy. That means the resolution is is the plan text. Thus, if teams want to exclusively advocate a specific subset(s) of the resolution, they need to provide some warrants as to why their specific subset(s) of the resolution is the MOST LIKELY form the resolution would take if it were adopted. Trying to specify and only defend a hyper-specific example(s) of the resolution that is unlikely to occur without your fiat is ridiculously abusive without reading a plan text, and makes you a moving target – especially when you clarify your position later in the round to spike out of answers. Plan texts are necessary to fiat something that is unlikely to happen in the status quo in order to create a stable advocacy. Basically, in my mind, “no plans” = “no fiat of subsets of the resolution.” Also, please don't try to fiat things in a fact-based resolution (hint, it's probably not a policy resolution if it doesn't look like "Actor X should do Thing Y").

Multiple conditional advocacies – Improbable fiated advocacies are bad enough, but when teams read multiple such advocacies and then decide “we’re not going for that one” when the opposing team puts offense on it is the zenith of in-round abuse. Teams debating in front of me should continue to go for their unanswered offensive turns against these “kicked” arguments – I will weigh them in the round, and am somewhat inclined to view such practices as a voter if substantial abuse is demonstrated by the offended team. If you start out with a 3-prong fiated advocacy, then you darn well better end with it. Severance is bad. If teams are going to choose to kick out of part of their advocacy mid-round, they need to effectively answer any offense on the "to-be-kicked" parts first.

Paraphrasing - I tend to come down strongly on the side of having cut cards available. This doesn't mean I will automatically vote for paraphrasing theory, as I think there is room for a conceivably viable counter-interp of having the cards attached to blocks/cases or something similar. But blatant, unethical, and lazy paraphrasing has, at times, really threatened the integrity of this activity, and it needs to stop. This is the way to do that.

Trigger Warning - I am not your guy for this. I'm not saying I won't vote on it, but it would be an uphill battle.

Disclosure - Disclosure is good. My teams do it, and I think you should too. It makes for better debates, and the Wiki is an invaluable tool for small squads with limited resources and coaching. I speak from experience, having coached those types of small squads in policy against many of the juggernaut programs with armies of assistants cutting cards. Arguments about how it is somehow unfair to small teams make little sense to me. That being said, I don't think the lack of disclosure is as serious of a threat to the integrity of PF as the bad paraphrasing that at one point was rampant in the activity. Disclosure is more of a strongly suggested improvement, as opposed to an ethical necessity. But if the theory arg is run WELL, I will certainly vote on it.

7. Crossfire

If you want me to evaluate an argument or card, it needs to be in a speech. Just mentioning it in CF is not sufficient. You can refer to what was said in CF in the next speech, and that will be far more efficient, but it doesn’t exist in my mind until I hear it in a speech. Honestly, I'm probably writing comments during CF anyway, and am only halfway listening. That being said, I am NOT here for just not doing cross (usually GCF) and instead taking prep. Until the powers that be get rid of it, we are still doing GCF. Instead of just not wanting to do it, get better at it. Make it something that I should listen to.

8. Evidence citations

You should probably read the citations according to whatever the NSDA says, but I’m not likely to vote on any irregularities (e.g. no date of access) unless the abuses are proven to be especially egregious and substantive in the round.

9. Speaker points

See my policy on Speech Docs. If I were not making the choice to institute that policy, the following reflects my normal approach to speaks, and will still apply to how I evaluate within the 25-28 non-speech doc range, and within the 28-30 speech doc range. My normal reference point for “average” is 27.5. That’s where most everyone starts. My default is to evaluate on a scale with steps of 0.1, as opposed to steps of 0.5. Below a 25 means you did something offensive. A true 30.0 in HS debate (on a 0.1 scale) doesn’t exist. It is literally perfect. I can only think of 3 times I have ever given out a 29.6 or higher, and each of them were because of this next thing. My points are almost exclusively based on what you say, not how you say it. I strongly value making good, strategic choices, and those few exceptional scores I’ve given were all because of knowing what was important and going for it / impact framing it, and dumping the unnecessary stuff in the last half of the round.

10. Ask for additional thoughts on the topic

Even if you’ve read this whole thing, still ask me beforehand. I may have some specific thoughts relating to the topic at hand that could be useful.

11. Speed

Notice how I didn't say anything about that above, even though it's the first questions like half of kids ask? Basically, yes, I can handle your blazing speed. But it would still probably be a good idea to slow it down a little, Speed Racer. Quality > quantity. However, if you try to go fast and don't give a speech doc with cut cards before you start speaking, I will be very, VERY unhappy. The reason why policy teams can go as fast as they do is that they read a tag, which we as the audience can mentally process and flow, and then while they are reading the cite/text of the card, we have time to finish flowing the tag and listen for key warrants. The body of the card gives us a beat or two to collect ourself before we have to figure out what to write next. Just blitzing through blippily paraphrased cards without a tag (e.g. "Smith '22 warrants...") doesn't give us that tag to process first, and thus we have to actively search for what to flow. By the time we get it down, we have likely already missed your next "card." So, if you are going to try to go faster than a broadly acceptable PF pace, please have tags, non-paraphrased cards, and speech docs. And if you try to speed through a bunch of blippy paraphrased "cards" without a doc, don't be surprised when we miss several of your turns. Basically, there is a way to do it right. Please do it that way, if you are going to try to go fast.

________________________

Policy Paradigm

________________________

I debated for 4 years in high school (super old-school, talk-pretty policy), didn't debate in college, and have coached at the HS level for 20 years. I am currently the Head Coach at Campbell Hall in Los Angeles, and previously was an Assistant Coach at Washburn Rural in KS, and head coach at Fairmont Prep in Anaheim, CA, Ransom Everglades School, in Miami, and The Pembroke Hill School in KCMO. However, I don't judge too many policy rounds these days, so take that into account.

Overview:

Generally, do what you do, as long as you do it well, and I'll be happy. I prefer big-picture impact framing where you do the comparative work for me. In general, I will tend to default to such analysis, because I want you to do the thinking in the round, not me. My better policy teams in the past where I was Head Coach read a great deal of ontology-based Ks (cap, Heidegger, etc), and they often make some level of sense to me, but I'm far from steeped in the literature. I'm happy to evaluate most of the normal disads & cps, but the three general classes of arguments that I usually find less persuasive are identity-based strategies that eschew the topic, politics disads, and to a lesser degree, performance-based arguments. But if any of those are your thing, I would in general prefer you do your thing well than try and do something else that you just aren't comfortable with. I'll go with the quality argument, even if it isn't my personal favorite. I'm not a fan of over-reliance on embedded clash, especially in overviews. I'd rather you put it on the line-by-line. I'm more likely to get it down on my flow and know how to apply it that way, and that's the type of debating I'll reward with higher speaks. Please be sure to be clear on your tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks. Hard numbering/”And’s” are appreciated, and if you need to, go a little slower on those tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks to be sure they are clear, distinct, and I get them. Again, effort to do so will be rewarded with higher speaks.

Topicality:

I generally think affs should have to defend the topic, and actually have some sort of plan text / identifiable statement of advocacy. There are very few "rules" of debate, thus allowing tons of leeway for debaters to choose arguments. But debating the topic is usually a pretty good idea in my mind, as most issues, even those relating to the practices and nature of our activity and inclusion therein, can usually still be discussed in the context of the topic. I rather strongly default to competing interpretations. I like to see T debates come down to specific abuse stories, how expanding or contracting limits functionally impacts competitive equity, and exactly what types of ground/args are lost/gained by competing interps (case lists are good for this in front of me). I usually buy the most important impact to T as fairness. T is an a priori issue for me, and K-ing T is a less than ideal strategy with me as your judge.

Theory:

If you are going to go for it, go for it. I am unlikely to vote either way on theory via a blippy cheap-shot, unless the entire argument was conceded. But sometimes, for example, condo bad is the right strategic move for the 2AR. If it's done well, I won't hesitate to decide a round on it. Not a fan of multiple conditional worlds. With the notable exception of usually giving epistemology / ontology-based affs some flexibility on framework needing to come before particulars of implementation, I will vote Neg on reasonable SPEC arguments against policy affs. Affs should be able to articulate what their plan does, and how it works. (Read that you probably ought to have a plan into that prior statement, even if you are a K team.) For that reason, I also give Neg a fair amount of theoretical ground when it comes to process CPs against those affs. Severance is generally bad in my mind. Intrinsicness, less so.

CPs:

Personally, I think a lot of the standard CPs are, in any type of real world sense, ridiculous. The 50 states have never worked together in the way envisioned by the CP. A constitutional convention to increase funding for whatever is laughable. An XO to create a major policy change is just silly (although over the last two administrations, that has become less so). All that being said, these are all legit arguments in the debate world, and I evaluate and vote on them all the time. I guess I just wish Affs were smart enough to realize how dumb and unlikely these args actually are, and would make more legit arguments based on pointing that out. However, I do like PICs, and enjoy a well thought out and deployed advantage CP.

Disads:

Most topic-related disads are fine with me. Pretty standard on that. Just be sure to not leave gaping holes / assumptions in your link chains, and I'm OK. However, I generally don't like the politics disad. I would much rather hear a good senator specific politics scenario instead of the standard “President needs pol cap, plan’s unpopular” stuff, but even then, I'm not a fan. I'll still vote for it if that's what is winning the round, but I may not enjoy doing so. Just as a hint, it would be very easy to convince me that fiat solves for most politics link stories (and, yes, I understand this places me in the very small minority of judges), and I don't see nearly as much quality ground lost from the intrinsic perm against politics as most. Elections disads, though, don't have those same fiat-related issues, and are totally OK by me.

Criticisms:

I don’t read the lit much, but in spite of that, I really kind of like most of the more "traditional" ontological Ks (cap, security, Heidegger, etc). To me, Ks are about the idea behind the argument, as opposed to pure technical proficiency & card dumping. Thus, the big picture explanation of why the K is "true," even if that is at the expense of reading a few more cards, would be valuable. Bringing through traditional line-by-line case attacks in the 2NR to directly mitigate some of the Aff advantages is probably pretty smart. I think Negs set an artificially high burden for themselves when they completely drop case and only go for the K in the 2NR, as this means that they have to win 100% access to their “Alt solves the case” or framework args in order for the K to outweigh some super-sketchy and ridiculous, but functionally conceded, extinction scenario from the 1AC. K's based in a framework strategy tend to be more compelling in front of me than K's that rely on the alt to actually solve something (because, let's be honest here - they rarely do). Identity-related arguments are usually not the most compelling in front of me, and I tend to buy strategic attacks against them from the left as more persuasive than attacks from the right.

Random:

I understand that some teams are unbalanced in terms of skill/experience, and that's just the way it goes sometimes. I've coached many teams like that. But I do like to see if both debaters actually know what they are talking about. Thus, your speaks will probably go down if your partner is answering all of your cross-ex questions for you. It won’t impact my decision (I just want to know the answers), but it will impact speaks. Same goes for oral prompting. That being said, I am inclined to give a moderate boost to the person doing the heavy lifting in those cases, as long as they do it respectfully.

________________________

Parli Paradigm

________________________

Parli is not my primary debate background, so I likely have an atypical paradigm for a parli judge that is influenced by my experiences coaching policy and circuit PF. Please adapt accordingly if you want to win my ballot.

First, I honestly don't care how you sound. I care about the arguments you make. Please, don't read that as an immediate excuse to engage in policy-style spreading (that level of speed doesn't translate super well to an event that is entirely analytics and doesn't have cards), but I will likely be more accustomed to and be able to handle debates that are faster than most of the HS parli rounds I have seen to date.

Two general things that I find annoying and unnecessary: 1) Introducing yourself at the top of each speech. I know who you are. Your name is on the ballot. That's all I need. This just seems to be an unnecessary practice designed to turn an 8 minute speech into a 7:30 speech. Forget the formalities, and just give me the content, please. 2) I don't need a countdown for when you start. We aren't launching a rocket into space or playing Mario Kart. Just start. I am a sentient enough of a being to figure out to hit the button on my timer when you begin talking.

I'll go speech by speech.

1st Gov: Spending the first minute or so explaining the background of the topic might be time well spent, just to ensure that everyone is on the same page. Please, if you have a contention-level argument, make sure it has some kind of terminal impact. If it isn't something that I can weigh at the end of the round, then why are you making the argument?

1st Opp: Same as above re: terminal impacts in case. Any refutations to the Aff case you would like me to evaluate at the end of the round need to be in this speech, or at least be able to be traced back to something in this speech. That means you probably shouldn't get to the Aff case with only a minute or two left in the speech. If your partner attempts to make new refutations to the Aff case in the 2nd Opp, I won't evaluate them.

2nd Gov: Similar to the 1st Opp, any parts of your case that you want me to consider when making my decisions need to be explicitly extended in this speech. That includes all essential parts of an argument - link, internal link, and impact. Just saying "extend my Contention 2" is insufficient to accomplish this task. You will actually need to spend at least a modicum of time on each, in order for me to flow it through, in addition to answering any refutations that Opp has made on it in the prior speech. Considering that you will also need to spend some time refuting the Neg's newly introduced case, this means that you will likely NOT have time to extend all of your contentions. That's fine. Make a choice. Not all contentions are equally good. If you try to go for everything, you will likely not do anything well enough to make a compelling argument. Instead, pick your best one (or maybe two) and extend, rebuild, and impact it. Prioritizing arguments and making choices is an essential analytical skill this activity should teach. Making decisions in this fashion will be rewarded in both my decision-making at the end of the round, as well as in speaker points.

Opp Block: If you want me to evaluate any arguments in the these speeches, I need to be able to trace the responses/arguments back to the 1st Opp, except if they are new answers to case responses that could only have been made in the the 2nd Gov. For example, 2nd Gov makes refutations to the Opp's case. New responses to these arguments will be evaluated. However, to reiterate, I will absolutely NOT evaluate new refutations to Gov case in these speeches. Just as with the 2nd Gov, I also strongly advocate collapsing down to one contention-level impact story from your case and making it the crux of your narrative about how the debate should be decided. Trying to go for all three contentions you read in the 1st Gov is a great way to not develop any of those arguments well, and to leave me to pick whatever I happen to like best. I don't like judge intervention, which is why I want you to make those decisions for me by identifying the most important impact/argument on your side and focusing your time at the end of the round on it. Do my thinking for me. If you let me think, you may not like my decision.

Both Rebuttals: Listing a bunch of voters is a terrible way to debate. You are literally just giving me a menu of things I could vote on and hoping that I pick the one you want. You would be much better served in these speeches to focus in on one key impact story, and do extensive weighing analysis - either how it outweighs any/all of the other side's impacts, or if it is a value round, how it best meets the value framing of the debate. As I stated in the Opp Block section, please, do my thinking for me. Show that you can evaluate the relative worth of different arguments and make a decision based upon that evaluation. Refusing to do so tells me you have no idea which of your arguments is superior to the others, and thus you do not have a firm grasp on what is really happening in the round. Be brave. Make a choice. You will likely be rewarded for it. Also, there is very little reason to POO in these speeches. I keep a good enough flow to know when someone is introducing new arguments. If it is new, I won't evaluate it. I don't need you to call it out. I largely find it annoying.

I debated for four years at Topeka Seaman HS (2010-2014). I'm a leftist hippie that has spent the last 5 years in the Navy, and am now an Interdisciplinary Computing major at KU, with a focus on physics. I am not debating in college.

I would like to be on an email chain if there is one: moserrj@ku.edu. I've also used a SpeechDrop in the past. I will not flow off of the document, but will read the evidence in case I miss something.

When I debated, I debated on what was considered a lay circuit, and never traveled out of the state. While I generally know how to flow and understand debate concepts, the combination of the large timeframe since I actively competed and the circuit in which I competed means you would be more successful if you slow down and explain your arguments more than usual, as it's been a bit since I have really thought about debate.

I spend a decent amount of my time around a person who is active in both coaching high school debate and debating in college, which means despite not always wanting to hear about debate, I hear a lot about debate and arguments nonetheless, and therefore am not as out of it as the above may make it seem.

I would rate myself a 6/10 on the speed scale and prefer emphasis and inflection vice a cold monotone speed read. Just reading cards at me, with no discernable purpose, explanation, or intonation is not a pathway to my ballot. While I can probably read the card to understand its purpose, I would rather you explain that purpose either in a tagline or underview, and extend the evidence with a claim, warrant, and impact throughout your later speeches. I am of the opinion that debate should be about constructing well-founded arguments and disassembling lesser ones, not simply attempting to allegedly spew most of the words to a higher volume of "cards" than the opposing team and asking the judge to read all of them and perform the analysis for you.

I think that the affirmative team should defend hypothetical government action that beneficially shifts from the status quo. I think the negative team must prove that the affirmative plan is a bad idea.

I am not a good judge for the K, or hyper-technical debates like counterplan competition. These are something I have very little, to no experience with. I have very little experience with international relations, with the exception of the topics I debated on, so I would prefer if your arguments relied less on debate jargon/shorthand/abbreviations that are not commonly used in the real world because I am unlikely to understand it. I did meet NATO once in the navy though.

I would prefer impacts that are more real world. While I understand the need to have endless extinction scenarios, I prefer debate when we talk about the real world implications of policies. However, I understand that this topic probably prevents those types of discussions. I will not vote on arguments that argue that death is good, that going to war would be good, or that dropping nuclear bombs would be good. If you run a K or weird theory argument, that is fine, you just need to make sure that you have shown that you leave ground for Aff teams to exist and YOU MUST PROVE A NET BENEFIT TO THE PLAN be it solving their advantages, turning them, or whatever. A K without it's own solvency dies at the feat of a mitigated Aff. Prove it solves for something and I'll vote for it. e.g. if your cap K just says capitalism is bad and we should reject the Aff for a global worker revolt, you need to convince me that workers both can and will revolt globally to beat/steal the Aff's impacts, just like the Aff has to prove solvency for their impacts.

Just make it make sense and tell me why your arguments matter at the end of the round.

Put me on the email chain please: lexi.ellis227@gmail.com

General Stuff:

-I will not evaluate arguments that are about something that happened outside of the debate round.

-unless otherwise argued, I default to judge kick is okay. If you want to get into specifics like cp planks, then I would prefer you make an argument about why judge kicking one part is okay.

-I believe that affs should be in the direction of the topic

-Impact out theory debates

~More specific arguments~

Kritiks:

-I don't think that a link of omission is a link. My threshold is pretty high for this so if you do so feel compelled to go for this argument, just know you will need to dedicate a lot of time to it.

-I like to see a lot of work done on the alt debate in the block. I need to see clear arguments as to what the world of the alt looks like and why the alt solves better than the aff.

Framework:

-I think fairness is more an internal link than it is an impact. (i.e. fairness is an internal link to topic education, clash, etc)

-In addition to framework there needs to be some sort of argument to indict the aff's methods. In rounds where this doesn't happen by the neg, I find the aff's argument to weigh the impacts more compelling. Read arguments as to why their theory is wrong.

Topicality:

-Limits are universally good.

-You should slow down

-T-USFG is more persuasive to me than a framework arg.

I am the head debate coach at Lyndon High School in Kansas. I was an assistant coach at Washburn Rural High School for 23 years. However, I didn’t coach the varsity teams. I mainly worked with the open teams. I have not listened to a round at speed for over four years. So I would not decide to pick it up any more than just a moderate competition speed. I don’t listen to K’s. Mainly because I am not current on the literature. So I wouldn’t suggest taking that risk. I will vote on a good T argument. However, if it is frivolous I can be convinced to vote against you. Generic DA’s are ok with specific link analysis. Finally, I default to a Policymaker paradigm. Good luck and have fun.

macp@usd383.org

I debated for 4 years in Spring Hill High School in Spring Hill, KS. Now a coach for Manhattan HS (2017-Present)

Top Level: I am definitely a policymaker and will vote for the side/scenario that does the most good while causing the least amount of harm. My view of Policy maker does leave room for in-round impacts. Impact calc in the rebuttals will go a long way with me. An overview is always appreciated. I, like many judges, can get lost in high-speed rounds. Don't just assume I know things or will do any work for you. I default to tech over truth but don't push it. If your evidence is bad, I can't vote on it. I can't pretend like Russia didn't invade The Ukraine.

Speed: I'll keep up alright in higher speed rounds, but always run the risk of getting lost. I'll flow off of the speech doc, but I need slow and clear analytics. Doing your job breaking down the round in the 2NR/AR benefits me.

Kritiks: I am relatively comfortable with the basics of the K, but my lit knowledge base is quite low. I am not receptive to Kritiks of Rhetoric if you can't give me a clear link to the AFF. Don't just say "their security rhetoric is problematic" if you can't highlight that rhetoric for me.

K-AFFs: I'll vote for a K-AFF, but you'll have to do enough work to prove that the ballot of a random Debate judge matters to your aff. A strong understanding of how the debate ecosystem functions will help you here. There are opportunities for a Perf Con debate that I haven't been seeing with enough teams.

Identity-centric Kritiks: Don't use black and brown narratives as just a route to the ballot. Cheapening these narratives because you know you can beat a policy team causes real-world harm. Seeing that you are carrying your advocacy in and out of the round that I am watching matters to me.

Topicality: Topicality violations have to be generally pretty blatant for me. There are fairly standard responses an Aff can make that will generally sway me on Topicality. If the Aff doesn't do some simple work, then I am forced to vote Neg. I default to competing interpretations and will evaluate the standards in a way to determine which interpretation best upholds an equitable debate experience. I have a hard time voting for a potential for abuse. In round abuse (like the aff linking out of everything) will weigh more heavily on my ballot.

Counter plans: I'll listen to a good counter-plan debate, but I have a hard time voting for a Consult CP. They are messy debates.

Politics DA's: I'll evaluate a politics DA, but I always want some great uniqueness evidence and a strong link. Many politics DA's I have been seeing lack the latter. Generic Politics DA answers will often win me over. I don't love the Politics DA

Don't be an awful person. I'll vote you down. Keeping this activity healthy for all students is important to me.

Please feel free to ask me questions. You all knowing my preferences benefit me just as much as it benefits you all. Don't be afraid to ask for additional feedback. If I have time, I'll chat with you :)

I competed in policy debate for 3 years in high school and this is my 6th year coaching policy.

Language matters to me. I will dock your speaker points or vote you down for racism, sexism, ableism, etc. regardless of the outcome of the round. I don't tolerate rudeness and am not impressed by competitors who attempt to humiliate others. Be kind.

Give me a content warning if you are going to read domestic/sexual violence content - if you don't, you risk disrupting my ability to focus on your arguments.

I am a tab ras judge but probably default to policymaker if I'm not given framework to evaluate the round. If you don't answer framework, you will probably lose. I'll evaluate the round the way you tell me to.

I will listen to pretty much anything you want, and can handle moderate to high speed. If you are worried about speed, slow your tags and things will probably be fine. Don't spread to push the other team out - that's bad for debate and it's also just rude.

I'm fine listening to the K or critical AFFs, but if you can't explain it I probably won't vote on it - I may or may not be familiar with your lit ahead of time. Assume I'm not, and give strong analysis. If you are running the K only as a "gotcha" I will not be impressed and probably won't vote on it. Don't co-opt others' narratives in order to win debates.

I like theory args but I won't vote on theory based on strictly reading some blocks. Do the work.

I like specific links on disads and specific solvency on CPs but I will listen to generic args. Don't neglect the impact debate. It would take a lot (basically proven, in-round abuse) to get me to vote on condo bad.

T is my favorite argument of all time and I love love love a good T debate. I really hate voting on reasonability (but I have) and will default to competing interpretations. That said, I will listen to everything and make a careful decision, so do the work on the flow. The standards debate is especially key for me.

In general, I am not a fan of teams that try to bludgeon their opponents. If you are winning, I will know that. It is never necessary to treat others poorly to win.

Questions? Ask!

Put me on the email chain: dustinrimmey@gmail.com

I think you should have content warnings if your arguments may push this debate into uncomfortable territory.

Quick Background:

I debated for four years in High School (Lansing HS, KS) from 1998-2002, I debated for four years in college (Emporia State University, KS) from 2002-2006, Coached one year at Emporia State from 2006-2007, and from 2007 to present I have been a coach at Topeka High School (KS) where I have been the director of Speech and Debate since 2014. In terms of my argument preference while I was actively debating, I dabbled in a little bit of everything from straight up policy affirmatives, to affirmatives that advocated individual protests against the war in Iraq, to the US and China holding a press conference to out themselves as members of the illuminati. In terms of negative arguments, I read a lot of bad theory arguments (A/I spec anyone?), found ways to link every debate to space, read a lot of spark/wipeout and read criticisms of Language and Capitalism.

In terms of teams I have coached, most of my teams have been traditionally policy oriented, however over the last 2-3 years I have had some successful critical teams on both sides of the ball (like no plan texts, or slamming this activity....). For the past 2-3 years, I have been working with teams who read mostly soft left affirmatives and go more critical on the negative.

My Philosophy in Approaching Debate:

I understand we are living in a time of questioning whether debate is a game or an outreach of our own individual advocacies for change, and I don't know fully where I am at in terms of how I view how the debate space should be used. I guess as a high school educator for the past decade, my approach to debate has been to look for the pedagalogical benefit of what you say/do. If you can justify your method of debating as meaningful and educational, I will probably temporarially be on board until persuaded otherwise. That being said, the onus is on you to tell me how I should evaluate the round/what is the role of the ballot.

This is not me being fully naive and claiming to be a fully clean slate, if you do not tell me how to judge the round, more often than not I will default to an offense/defense paradigm.

Topicality

I tend to default to competing interpretations, but am not too engrained in that belief system. To win a T debate in front of me, you should go for T like a disad. If you don't impact out your standards/voters, or you don't answer crucial defense (lit checks, PA not a voter, reasonability etc.) I'm probably not going to vote neg on T. Also, if you are going for T for less than all 5 minutes of the 2NR, I'm probably not voting for you (unless the aff really messes something up). I am more likely to vote on T earlier in the year than later, but if you win the sheet of paper, you tend to win.

I do think there is a burden on the negative to either provide a TVA, or justify why the aff should be in no shape-or-form topical whatsoever.

In approaching T and critical affirmatives. I do believe that affirmatives should be in the direction of the resolution to give the negative the basis for some predictable ground, however in these debates where the aff will be super critical of T/Framework, I have found myself quite often voting affirmative on dropped impact turns to T/Framing arguments on why the pedagogical model forwarded by the negative is bad.

Hack-Theory Arguments

Look, I believe your plan text should not be terrible if you are aff. That means, acronyms, as-pers, excessive vagueness etc. are all reasons why you could/should lose a debate to a crafty negative team. I probably love and vote on these arguments more than I should.....but....I loved those arguments when I debated, and I can't kick my love for them.....I also am down to vote on just about any theory argument as a "reject the team" reason if the warrants are right. If you just read blocks at me and don't engage in a line-by-line of analysis....I'm probably not voting for you...

I am on the losing side of "condo is evil" so a single conditional world is probably OK in front of me, but I'm open to/have voted on multiple conditional worlds and/or multiple CPs bad. I'm not absolutely set in those latter worlds, but its a debate that needs hashed out.

I also think in a debate of multiple conditional worlds, its probably acceptable for the aff to advocate permutations as screens out of other arguments.

The K

Eh.......the more devoted and knowledgable to your literature base, the easier it is to pick up a ballot on the K. Even if you "beat" someone on the flow, but you can't explain anything coherently to me (especially how your alt functions), you may be fighting an uphill battle. I am not 100% compelled by links of omission, but if you win a reason why we should have discussed the neglected issue, I may be open to listen. The biggest mistake that critical debaters make, is to neglect the aff and just go for "fiat is an illusion" or "we solve the root cause" but....if you concede the aff and just go for some of your tek, you may not give me enough reason to not evaluate the aff...

I am the most familiar with anti-capitalist literature, biopolitics, a small variety of racial perspective arguments, and a growing understanding of psychoanalysis. In terms of heart of the topic critical arguments, I've been reading and listening to more abolitionist theory, and if it is your go-to argument, you may need to treat me like a c+ level student in your literature base at the moment.

Case Debates

I like them.....the more in depth they go, the better. The more you criticize evidence, the better...

Impact turns

Yes please......

Counterplans

Defend your theoretical base for the CP, and you'll be fine. I like clever PICs, process PICs, or really, just about any kind of counterplan. You should nail down why the CP solves the aff (the more warrants/evidence the better) and your net benefit, and defense to perms, and I will buy it. Aff, read disads to the CP, theory nit-picking (like the text, does the neg get fiat, etc.) make clear perms, and make sure you extend them properly, and you'll be ok. If you are not generating solvency deficits, danger Will Robinson.

I think delay is cheating, but its an acceptable form in front of me...but I will vote on delay bad if you don't cover your backside.

Misc

I think I'm too dumb to understand judge kicking, so its safe to say, its not a smart idea to go for it in front of me.

Don'ts

Be a jerk, be sexist/transphobic/racist/ableist etc, steal prep, prep during flash time, or dominate cx that's not yours (I get mad during really bad open CX). Don't clip, misrepresent what you read, just say "mark the card" (push your tilde key and actually mark it...) or anything else socially unacceptable....

If you have questions, ask, but if I know you read the paradigm, and you just want me to just explain what I typed out.....I'll be grumpier than I normally am.

As of 11/4/2023, I have yet to judge any rounds on this particular topic. That having been said, I generally operate under the assumption that you, as debaters, will propose the political and philosophical foundations for the round during your first constructive speeches. I am open to most ideas, taking into account both context and decency. In other words, do not read something inherently abrasive, discriminatory, or flagrant in order to take a stance off the beaten path, or worse, in an attempt to simply win the round. I expect cordial cross-examinations and a general level of kindness throughout the debate. If any of the debaters in the round wish to claim some form of abuse committed by the other team, please structure your abuse arguments so that I can evaluate them accordingly within the context of the debate. I coached policy debate for almost three years, and I was a policy-debater for four. I am comfortable with most speeds, and I greatly appreciate a copy of speeches in-round. With respect to my ideas on debate, as I mentioned, I am fairly open-minded. I am sympathetic to creative arguments designed to fulfill the topic's spirit in the most charitable way possible, but I will vote on flow for major issues, such as but not limited to: Topicality, Solvency, Ks, and CP/DAs. Please, if you have any specific questions about my paradigm, ask me before the round begins, and I would be happy to answer.

Pronouns: he/him

Email chains: Yes, please add me. johnsamqua@gmail.com

speech drop is fine as well.

TLDR:

I coach.

I don't coach that many fast teams. Clarity is what I put the most stock in.

Speed=4-6/10

Debaters that clean messy debates up will get my ballot.

I understand the K to a serviceable degree, but I wouldn't stake your hopes on winning on it in front of me unless you're just miles ahead on it.

Experience:

I competed in Kansas in both speech and policy debate for 4 years in high school.

I've judged and coached for 10 years. I tend to judge infrequently, and I haven't had many rounds on the economic inequality topic.

Judge Philosophy:

Generally: Run the things you want to run. My background basically makes me a policy hack. If you want to read something out of my wheelhouse just make sure you have good explanations. I coach teams that compete on a mostly traditional (meaning there's an emphasis on communication, and the debates are much slower) debate circuit, where it is seldom we see that type of argumentation. However I have coached a handful of varsity teams that do contemporary varsity style debate and I'd say they're pretty damn good. I may not be the most qualified judge when it comes to very fast and very technical debating.

Inclusion: I think that the debate space should be accessible to everyone, and if you engage in behaviors that negatively affect the people in the round then I will vote you down. I do not care if you are winning the debate. It's simply over. I've voted teams down in the past for being rude, racist, sexist or otherwise problematic. Just don't be a horrible person, don't talk over people, if you must interrupt try to do it politely.

Style: It's seldom that I see really good line by line. The more organized that you are during your speech the better chance you have of winning in front of me. Otherwise it's hard for me to parse where one argument ends and another begins and things get missed which is going to cause you to be not happy with me. Basically I'm saying that you're the master of your own destiny here.

Delivery:

Speed 4-6/10

I emphasize clarity

If I'm on panel with other judges that can handle more speed, I understand if I get left in the dust.

I mostly coach teams that are slow.

Argument Specific:

Disads: Read a specific link. I don't care for huge internal link chains. The bigger the chain the more untrue the argument sounds to me. But also if the other team completely bungles it then I guess I have no choice.

Counterplans: yep.

T: yep. If you're going for it, make sure you spend a lot of time on it!

K: I have pretty limited experience with K's. But that doesn't mean you should avoid them in front of me. My wheelhouse in terms of critical theory is Cap, and Biopower. I think that framework should be accessible to both teams. I would prefer that your alt actually did something

Theory: This is usually very hard for me to wrap my head around unless it's something like a spec argument. But also if we're reading spec then maybe you've already lost?

Basic practice preferences

If you want an email chain - msawyer@tps501.org

I will be flowing the round and that will be the largest decider in our round. Defend/debate all portions of an arguments and that will reflect well for you on the flow. I want to see ya'll interact with the arguments read - if you choose to discount an argument without just refutation, it'll be a yikes for all involved.

I will never vote on arguments which are discriminatory and encourage violence (racism good, ableism good, anti-queer literature, etc.) If you create spaces which encourage violence or are the source of abuse in the round in any way, you will lose this debate. I view my privilege in this round is to protect education and the safety of all debaters - in no way will I sit by and watch another team/debater be attacked for any identity they may possess. Debate space should be a space to act without fear of oppression - I will make sure that is reflected in my judgments and comments. I would rather see ethical debaters than those who read awful arguments in hopes of gaining a winning edge. Be a better person than you are a debater at all times.

I am fine with any speed you choose, but I will hold you accountable for creating a safe and accessible space for the debate to occur. If the practice is used as a way to push a debater/team out of the round, that's a problem. I will not directly intervene in this case, but if the team/debater chooses to critique your process or read in-round abuse theory, I will prefer it.

Argument breakdown

Framework: I will flow what you want from me to either change my evaluation of the round or use it as a critique of debater methods. This can be important at the end of the round if you make it to be. I will evaluate the round as your framework dictates if you give me the solid reasoning as why it should be preferred over default consequentialism. I want to see your ability to interact with the framework throughout the round, not just a one-time read at the end of an aff or at the start of a neg argument. If you are willing to read it, work with it during our time.

Author debates are tedious and boring. Do the work. Do the analysis. Disprove the argument written and presented rather than count on me to judge whether a piece of evidence should be included. Again, I want to see you engage with the evidence as read rather than dismiss it.

Topicality: I love it. A good T debate is my favorite debate to judge and was my favorite argument to run. By default, the aff needs to win the interpretation and work through the standards/voters. Don't discount the argument and make sure to prove T through thorough argumentation.

Counterplans: Always a fun time! As the neg, I feel this gives you automatic offense which can lead you away from the "the aff is still better than the SQ" debates. The thing that will irritate me quickest is the aff simply saying the perm to be argued rather than adding a simple line or two to analyze how that perm performs its abilities within the round and in the world of the aff. Do the work! In my opinion and practice, condo bad can help guard importance analysis space. Go for it! Other theory arguments are chill with me if you provide adequate analysis for how it negatively/positively shapes the round.

Criticisms/Performances: As a debater, I ran a few K arguments and have coached students through lit bases. There is a high chance I will be familiar with the base you are pulling from, but if I am not, I am sure I can understand the argument through the flashed evidence! Any K read should be an advocacy. This means that I want to see these arguments function as something you/the team truly believes and truly are a part of the community the literature bases itself within. Running literature from a community of which you are not a member runs the line of commodification which is bad for many reasons! I am willing to hear any K and will rely on the you to prove link and solvency clearly.

BOTTOM LINE

Debate is about education and learning how to interact with arguments on great topics. I want to see your work, your passions, and your way of debating. Make this activity fit you and your teammate, not the other way around! With as much as I value education, I want you to value and safeguard that education for all involved. This is why I will never vote up a team which places that in jeopardy for the round. As I tell my team: be better people than you are debaters. Never sacrifice parts of yourself for arguments that may seem competitive. Be a part of the reason this community is becoming safer for its members, not a reason people dread the activity.

I have 3 years of experience in high school speech and debate, including policy debate, LD, and World Schools. I have judged on and off over the last 5 years, including KDC, DCI, and Kansas state tournaments, but the majority of my experience comes from traditional circuit judging. I am currently a Political Science major and an assistant coach for Hayden High School Speech and Debate.

I would classify myself to be a stock issues flow judge. There is some leniency to this, but for the most part I am looking for a team to win on paper. This means that you can only win on arguments that are explicitly introduced during speech time and carried throughout the round. That being said, I have no issues with anything that you choose to run, no matter how complex or absurd. The more creative and thoughtful, the better.

I am very comfortable with Ts, CPs, and Disads and highly recommend that you read them if they have any merit. T is obviously a voting issue and should be prioritized in all applicable speeches. I have absolutely no bias against Ks, but I will admit that I have limited experience with them. That being said, absolutely go for them as long as you have good alt solvency.

If your going to weigh value judgment heavily in a round I would prefer if you had a theoretical shell to back it up. I am also a stickler for framing and want your impact calc to be concrete and warranted.

I don't have a problem with spreading, as long as you are intelligible and not purposefully obstructing productive debate.

Most importantly, I will not tolerate any disrespect towards the other team.

Thanks and good luck!

I debated 4 years in high school, and have judged/assistant coached at plenty of tournaments since I graduated in 2018. I am currently a college student. I value communication skills a lot, but the arguments being made MUST have substance. I'm typically a tab judge, and will value what you convince me is most important; but if no perspective is given by the debaters, I will default policy maker. I have no preference in speed as long as you speak clearly. CPs are fine, and topicality is fine, Ks are okay if you break them down for me. Disadvantages should have clear links to the aff, and should all be impacted out.

Big Questions Debate Paradigm

For Big Questions, it is hard to put a paradigm into words (unlike with my policy paradigm, which is below if you are interested). Because you cannot run the K (thank you Jesus!) this is about clash, argumentation, and evidence. This is what debate should be about in my opinion. So, present your arguments, provide some evidence, and listen to your opposition and try and prove your case is the better option than theirs. I know this is not much, and this sounds simple, but this is what good, real-life applicable debate is all about.

If you have more questions, ask before the round and I can clarify things further (well, hopefully).

CX Debate Paradigm

I am an old man. I am angry. I generally hate the K. instead, why don’t we talk about the resolution and throw an actually somewhat serious plan out there. Then, maybe the Neg could run a DA or two, and maybe an off-case item or two, all which have some basis in reality. I realize The Butterfly Effect sounds really cool and all, but a gnat farting in Florida should not provide enough impetus to launch a global thermonuclear war. I do not mind speed, but please be clear. If you cannot be understood, it does not really count as an argument. Also, I will also note that I hate open cross-ex. Both members of your team should know your case or arguments and be able to defend or expand upon them.

Final, fun note. I flow on paper. It means I will not take your document/data dump like the other team. It also means that I will give you the benefit of the doubt for reading the contents of a card if you do not actually do so. What is actually said in the round during a speech is what I judge upon. Nothing else. In addition, do not argue over a card the other team never read that somehow got mixed into a speech transfer by accident (I have watched this and I still do not understand it to this day).

I hope this helps.

Email: Mtaylor@silverlakeschools.org

General:

I really appreciate nice humans. Rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. behavior will not be tolerated.

Overall, I like debate...in all its forms. If you want to win something in front of me just do the work to make it matter.

Some general thoughts...

Don't flow from the speech doc. Every debate round I have judged for the past 3 years on the circuit has pretty much been won by the team who was flowing properly. When you aren't flowing, you aren't able to see the round properly, you miss really important things like turns and cross applications, your line-by-line is terrible, and you reduce the debate to a bunch of overviews that don't help me decide anything.

I can handle most rates of speed fairly comfortably, but if you are going top-rate, I'm going to be less confident in my ability to get everything, especially virtually. If I am not able to understand I will say clear. Obviously, don't race through theory or any blocks of really important analysis that you are going to want me to vote on later.

The 2AR/2NR should be telling me when, what, where, why and how. If you want me to vote for something tell me explicitly how to evaluate it and why it matters. "even if" arguments are really important in your framing of the round in rebuttals. Contextualization is important.

Topicality

I will always listen to everything you read, but I generally subscribe to the theory that if it is not blatantly untopical, then I really don't care to waste time on T. I am going to break from tradition and scandalize a few people here...but I will generally evaluate reasonability with the same frequency I do competing interps...UNLESS you don't impact it out and give me some analysis why reasonability is good. Blocked out blurbs about ground and predictability are not going to do much in terms of showing me why this argument is important. I hold T to the same standards of analysis and impact development as all other arguments. That being said, do the work and I will be more likely to vote on it.

Disads

Generic is fine...but in my old age I am starting to really prefer specific links and I love a really unique/specific link story. Really good analysis and inference can take a mediocre DA and make it pretty good, so take the time to do the specific analysis. Ptx is fine, but please do your updates.

CPs

In a world where a lot of our big topics become overly generalized by the affirmative team without much attention to rule of law or specifics, I think the CP has a lot of value. I like a well thought out plan text with good Solvency. What ever happened to dispositionality? I don't think affs utilize their cases enough when answering and I think that there needs to be a lot more debate on the CP proper than what currently happens. I will listen to theory, but I generally don't vote unless there is evident abuse.

Ks

Don't expect that I can do much work here for you in terms of lit; I just don't know enough to be able to make those connections in my head. I'm fairly familiar with Neolib, Cap, Set Col and Fem, the rest I'm really going to need you to slow down and give me some analysis. I was not a K debater in school, but that was mostly due to a lack of exposure, not necessarily preference and I really enjoy the critical side of debate. Context is important. It is much easier for me to vote Neg on the K when the negative can show that their alt resolves the links to the K and takes time to contextualize how the Alt functions in the world of the Aff.

I have 3 years of high school debate experience, as well as judging at least 5 tournaments this year including novice state. When judging, speakers should seek to balance communicative skills, as well as technical debate skills. I highly value when speakers summarize their most important arguments, not only for my benefit, but it also proves your understanding. Generic DA, T's, CP's, and K's are all fine by me so long as you have a clear understanding of what you are saying and substantial supporting evidence. Speed not an issue when reading cards as long as I have access to your speech via Speech Drop or a similar service. When you're addressing me as the judge however, your speed show slow down and speaking should become more deliberate.