I am a recently retired former debate coach of more than 35 years so I am familiar with debate theory and practice. In general I will listen to any arguments put forward by the debaters and evaluate them in the manner the debaters ask me to. That said, if the debaters do NOT give me a framework for evaluating arguments I will have to make one up which is likely to make at least one of the teams in the round unhappy. There are a couple of things that I am "old school" on. I will listen to T arguments and use the voters the teams put forward to evaluate it, but I believe that being inside the boundaries of the resolution is a minimum requirement for the Affirmative so I am not giving any bonus points to Aff. for doing so. In short, reverse voters on T are going to require a lot of work by the Aff to convince me. I also believe that CPs must be non-topical; otherwise they are advocating affirming the resolution. So if Neg want to run a topical counter plan they are going to have to do some work to convince me that is an acceptable position. Otherwise the round belongs to the teams and I will evaluate in the manner they ask me to. Finally, speed is fine so long as it is clear. That said, I am happier as a judge evaluating augments that are developed in depth rather than evaluating many arguments presented rapidly but with little depth or explanation. Good luck and speak well!

Please add me to the email chain: Brenda.aurora13@gmail.com

I debated for Washburn Rural for four years between 2014 and 2018. I debated for the University of Kansas last year, but am not debating this year so I can focus on my nursing degree. Generally speaking, I am not picky about arguments and speed. Do what you want and I’ll do my best to keep up.

T: I believe that topicality is a question of competing interpretations. I like to see good explanations of each team’s offense on the flow, how their offense interacts with the other team, and why their interpretation creates a better model for debate.

Disads: I’m a big fan, especially when you have a specific link. I think impact calculus and turns case arguments are important. I always enjoy listening to a good agenda or election disad.

CPs: Delay counterplans are cheating. I’m willing to judge kick a counterplan unless the affirmative gives me a reason not to. I prefer specific solvency advocates.

Ks: I didn’t read a lot of Ks in high school. I am most familiar with neolib and cap, but I am willing to listen to pretty much anything as long at it is explained well. I will NOT listen to death/extinction good kritiks. These arguments can be triggering for me and for other people that may be competing in or watching your round. When it comes to links, I like when they are specific to the affirmative and describe how the aff increasing/makes worse whatever it is that the neg is critiquing. If you’re going for your alt, you need to prove that it solves, as well as clearly explain to me what a world of the alternative looks like. The framing debate should be more than a block reading competition, especially if the neg isn’t going to go for the alt. The neg’s interpretation should be meaningful and not just “whoever best challenges (whatever the K is critiquing)”

Theory: I believe theory is usually only a reason to reject an argument, not a team, especially considering most theory debates are block reading contests where no one really explains or understands the argument. That being said, I might be willing to vote on condo if you really explain your interpretation and impact the argument out.

Some other things to note: I enjoy a good case debate. Please be kind and respectful to one another. If you are horribly rude and disrespectful I’ll probably vote against you

If I am judging you, then I want your docs. Please set up an email chain and include me (bentonbajorek@gmail.com) or use speechdrop. AFF should have their 1AC ready to send at the start of the round. I will not keep up with time and I expect debaters to keep each other accountable for speech and prep time. I keep my flows, so any questions can be emailed to me.

COVID Online Debate

Issues with clarity and diction compound when listening to debates with headphones. I'm fine with spreading, but please slow down if you are saying something that isn't in your speech doc-- particularly theory and analytics. If they are in the doc you send me, I'll be good to go. Otherwise, I might miss them. I'm more than happy to vote for things like condo in the 2AR, but I likely won't feel comfortable doing it if I couldn't flow all the nuance because were spreading in the 2AC and didn't include your condo block in the speech doc.

Parli Update

I've grown accustomed to the convenience of speech docs, so please make sure you are slowing down for theory and analytics. You should be intentionally slow for any plantext, counterplan text, or K alt.

Weighing mechanisms/roll of the ballot/framework args are extremely important to me. I want to be told how I should evaluate the round, but I'm not inclined to default to whatever the GOV tells me. OPP can successfully challenge this like any theory argument.

Ask me about my preferences before the round starts if you don't find an answer to your question below.

Background

This is my eighth season judging college policy. I was the head coach at Bishop Seabury Academy from 2019-2021 and a coach at The University of Kansas from 2015-2021. As an undergrad, I competed for four years at Arkansas State University primarily in American Parli on the National Circuit. I also debated in Lincoln-Douglas, IPDA, and Team IPDA.

I'm familiar with the debate things, but I'm not paying as much attention to the content from year-to-year now that I'm no longer a coach. Particularly for early in the season, don't assume I know the specific warrants in your DAs and CPs as they pertain to this topic. 

Overview

I view debate as a medium of persuasion and judge accordingly. All too often, I feel debaters focus more on beating their opponent instead of trying to convince the judge on an advocacy position. I believe this model is narrow-minded and the most effective way to win my ballot is to use a combination of ethos, pathos, and logos.

I greatly appreciate if tag lines, plan and CP texts, K alts, theory blocks, and perms could be slowed down so I can get a chance to write them on my flow. If a debater becomes inarticulate, I will yell CLEAR and cross my arms if the speech continues in that manner. If I cannot hear you, then I cannot understand your arguments. If I cannot understand your arguments, then I cannot vote for you.

I will vote on any argument. I consider myself a tab judge and vote based on what arguments are made, not what arguments are stated. Just because you extend an author does not mean you have extended an argument. I have certain preferences and thresholds for arguments that I will do my best to articulate below, but clearly articulated warrants and analysis will make me vote against my predispositions.

2NRs/2ARs that have clear voters and impact calculus are preferred.

If you want to make a role of the ballot argument, I need you to articulate what that means and specifically state how I should view particular arguments under that lens. If you just assert that my job is to vote under a specific framework but fail to clearly articulate what that means, then I will default to my personal standpoint of voting for the team that did the better job debating.

I do not tolerate poor sportsmanship. Every debater puts too much time, effort, and energy to arrive at a round and be belittled by their opponent(s). I love a competitive round where teams don’t back down and are assertive, but keep a level of decorum and respect. Ad hominem attacks and condescending behavior will not be tolerated and I will significantly lower your speaker points.

Bonus**

References to the Clippers = 0.2 speaker points

References to the NBA in general = 0.1 speaker point

Theory

I view debate as a game with rules that can change from round to round. The rules for debate should foster fairness and/or educational gain. I do not particularly favor one over the other.

Teams should slow down and clearly articulate standards for why I should favor their arguments on framework/T/role of the ballot/condo/etc. I really dislike teams that read directly from their blocks and fail to clash with their opponents’ standards and it makes my job difficult if there is not a direct response to specific arguments. In other words, teams that directly respond to their opponents’ arguments on ground loss will fare better than teams that just assert an argument on ground and make me do the work for them.

I am rarely persuaded by potential abuse arguments. I am strongly persuaded by in-round abuse arguments.

Topicality

Topicality must have an interpretation, violation, standard, and voters. I really enjoy listening to T and I appreciate a good standard debate with specific and competitive reasons why your interpretation is better/superior to your opponent.

Voters are often overlooked but are the most important part of a topicality. NEG needs to stress why I should vote on this issue. Refer back to my theory section for this one. I have never voted on a topicality that did not have some sort of education, fairness, and/or jurisdiction voter.

Reverse voting issues are not persuasive. I view topicality as a test of the affirmative case and NEG has the right to make this argument. Do not waste your time trying to convince me otherwise. However, I will say that trying to bury the AFF by running 10+ topicality arguments that are not relevant to the round will make me think poorly of you and I will happily vote for a time-suck argument.

Disadvantages

Disadvantages need to have a clear uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact scenario. DA’s are arguments that I feel everyone knows how to run, but there are some specific things that I prefer to see.

I want advantage and disadvantage debates to come down to impact calculus. Measure out magnitude, timeframe, probability, etc. If your impact is more meaningful, then tell me why and compare it to other impacts in the round. Pull these arguments out in the 2AR/2NR.

I do not have an opinion on intrinsic perms, but I believe these arguments can be extremely abusive and AFFs choosing to run this will need to lay out some sort of explanation for me to consider it.

Counter Plans

A counterplan must be mutually exclusive with the AFF. If you want to run a plan-plus, consult, push back 3 months CP, etc., then you will need to convince me why your modification of the AFF’s plan is severance, mutually exclusive, and/or has a competitive net benefit.

Kritiks

I ran K’s frequently when I competed and I am very familiar with them. However, when you run a K, do not assume that I know the literature. Do not stick to your cards and be prepared to break down what you are trying to argue with your position. I will not vote for a K if I have no idea what your alt does.

As for specifics, I believe K’s need to win framework or alt solvency for me to vote on them. This goes back to needing to know what the alt does. Understanding how your method is key or has the potential to work in the real world is important for me to vote on it.

I am rarely persuaded by links of omission. AFFs that read 1 card or make a smart analytical argument here are very likely to refute the link.

I prefer specific over generic links. Really prove the AFF team violated the ideas you are critiquing.

Performance in Debate/K AFF’s

I believe that AFFs that do not have a plan are untopical and should lose. I also believe that AFFs that run a plan text, but only garner impacts from their performance are extratopical and should lose.

That being said, I have voted for many K AFFs because they won on Framework and/or T. I do not have to be an auto-strike for you, but a framework block on how I should evaluate your position is necessary for you to win. If you fail to demonstrate and justify a framework for why the round should be seen through your performance then it is difficult for me to understand what my ballot should be doing. This allows me to hold you to a standard and have the other team either challenge you on that idea, or compete against you on it. Don’t be a moving target and state this clearly in your 1AC.

I think K AFFs that talk about the educational benefits of their position or justify the need of their AFF within the debate space to counter hegemonic practices are strong arguments that have potential to convince me to vote for you.

Final note: Any team that uses music in their performance can use it, but it needs to be turned down substantially during speeches and CX. I have trouble focusing with loud music/distractions and this is intended to create access for myself in the debate space and not to silence your performance.

I use she/her pronouns.

I debated in college. I have worked with high school policy debate for five years.

I believe debate is a forum for advocacy. I believe it should be accessible to all audiences. I am not lay, but I prefer styles that cater to lay audiences (big pictures, clear impacts, clear explanations, clear voters, etc.)

-Both teams must share speech docs: forgetting to share will result in docked speaker points, refusal will result in an auto-win to your opponent

-I don't flow or vote on new arguments in rebuttals--responsive evidence to support previously made arguments are okay though. If you intend to split the block, you need to articulate that.

-Ad hominem attacks, offensive rhetoric, and any other forms of abuse/violence will not be tolerated. At a minimum, I will dock speaker points. I reserve the right to end a round early due to excessive inappropriate behavior. No one should ever be personally attacked, bullied, or made to feel like they as a person don't matter. Be professional and respectful. Leave it in the ring.

-I'm fine with moderate-fast speeds. Once you have to go way up in your head voice to spread, you're gonna lose me. Enunciation is key no matter the speed. The clearer you are, the faster you can go for me.

-I could not care less about planks. I view plank complaints and arguments as a time-suck rather than proper clash. Debates that focus on the substantive content of the topic are going to automatically get higher speaker points from me than those that don't.

-Roadmap and signpost. Don't leave me searching my flow to figure out what you are talking about. I like titles, tags, and clear delineation between points.

*Framework is a priori.

I will vote how teams tell me to vote, regardless of my real-life opinions. Give me weighing mechanisms. Give me voters. Give me standards.

If you tell me to weigh the round using impact calculus, I need to know how to weigh impacts (magnitude, timeline, probability, etc.).

All conceded frameworks will stand. All competitive frameworks need to be justified.

*Persuasion is key.

I do not flow jargon. "Extend BlahBlahBlah" should be followed with a brief summary/explanation.

"They dropped BlahBlah" should be followed with an explanation of why that is important and why that is beneficial to you.

I like analytics. I love analytics backed up with a card.

*Counterplans

Sure! If you can solve better, do it. I'm cool with viable perms, too. Win the links and impacts, win the CP/Perm.

*Topicality

Not my favorite, but if there is a strong argument for loss of ground/education, then sure! But you have to make the argument; I won't make it for you. I need clear standards and voters. Answer the "so what?"

If an AFF team reasonably convinces me that either they meet a NEG definition or their counter-interpretation is preferable, I will give it to the AFF. There are few instances where I will award the NEG a T win on predictability/ground if I have seen the AFF before. Making ground claims and then running specific DAs or using specific link scenarios moots your grounds argument for me.

*Kritiks

Sure! Clear alt. Clear world of the aff vs. alt impact calc. Clear links. Clear explanations. Don't assume I am familiar with the literature (remember I prefer lay styles), but don't get caught misconstruing the literature (keep in mind I am experienced).

*Advantages/Disadvantages

I'm not going to vote for time-sucks. Walk me through the links and impacts. Weigh the impacts. If you don't have the time to explain it, you probably shouldn't be running it.

I flow. If you tell me that the other team dropped something and I clearly have it on my flow, you will not win any of your extensions.

High School Debate/Forensics – Shawnee Heights (2014-2018)

College Policy Debate (NDT/CEDA) – Wichita State (2018-2022)

Previous Assistant Debate and Forensics Coach at W. East and W. Southeast

Current Head Debate/Forensics Coach at Wichita Southeast High School

Email: kaylab222@gmail.com

I like clean, organized, and well thought out debates that focus more on the depth of the arguments. I also value and reward teams that engage in high levels of clash and attack the warrants of the evidence. I am a policy centric judge, that has coached all types of debate styles. That being said, do what you are comfortable with. However, I am best in debates that revolve around some sort of policy or plan. The best way to win my ballot is doing clean line-by-line and explain why the weight of your arguments matter more than that of the opposing team.

When debating on the affirmative, what I look for is a team that can articulate a story about what the plan is, how the plan solves, and what the advantage of the plan is. I am noticing more and more in debate rounds that teams are not extending each part of the AFF, with explanations of all the moving parts. Even if the neg does not respond to a part of the aff, your job as the aff is to still extend that argument if you want to keep it viable.

If you are going to read topicality, there are a few things to consider. First, I am a judge that is a sucker for in round abuse. Even if you have to bait them into giving you the link on your ground/limit’s arguments, it is something that I am willing to vote on.

I love a good CP/Net Ben/DA Debate. This is the debate I am probably the most comfortable in, and the best judge for. The only thing I ask for in this type of debate is for the negative to explain how the CP solves the link on the DA/Net Ben, I am not going to be this gracious and do the work for you.

I don’t have a preference on whether teams go for theory or topicality. The biggest thing I look for in these types of debates are 3 things: 1. Proven in-round abuse, I don’t really care for the hypotheticals of “well this could happen” I want to know why the other team violated the rules so egregiously that it made this debate impossible for you to win. 2. Voters, this is something that is being overlooked and I am not sure why. Tell me how and why I should evaluate this argument in the context of the debate. 3. On topicality, I am more apt to vote for T if there is some version of a TVA – especially if you make an argument as to how the tva solves the advantages.

I don’t have much thought on K Debate, well-articulated links and solvency is what I look for in a K debate. I am not the most familiar with K literature, so please make sure to articulate any complex components of solvency or any buzz words.

Other niche thoughts, be nice to people, don’t steal prep, please signpost, analytics is not a part of a roadmap (what are the analytics about?), and have fun.

Questions? Ask me before the round.

Hello my same is Som; I have experience in many fields such as public relations, algaculture, aquaculture, structure design, networking , security, robotics, programing, computers, chemistry, welding, and work place safety are just some.

Things I will look for in debates are;

1. flow and structure of the debate.

2. clear and well supported arguments

3. the pace of your debate (i.e. if you have a steady speech flow or if you speak at a fast and irregular pace)

4. personal opinion to the debate (i.e. if you tell me about a subject but do not include how you feel on the subject or how feel personally from either experience or from researching the topic)

5. well rounded arguments (i.e. if you have information based on 50 years ago but no current information to back up claims or your supporting augments do not line up and conflict)

6. body language

7. creative and intuitive design of your argument (i.e. anyone can state "facts" and say here are the "facts"; that does not make a very interesting debate and makes you appear ignorant; which does not convince someone that you have researched and fully understand the whole argument)

Email:

Mcchristensen@bluevalleyk12.org

I am a Stock Issues/Policy Maker judge.

Use me as an example of how you sometimes need to gear the round to a judge's specifications as I am clear in what I expect in a round--if nothing else, it's good practice

Summary:

• Pay attention to Stock Issues as losing a single one sinks the AFF--AFF must fulfill all burdens
• FIAT is a tool, not magic
• I weigh Probability over Magnitude
• I will not vote for K's (K AFFS or Neg K's)
• CP's need to be fleshed out with solid reasons to prefer over AFF
• Topicality should ONLY be run if you genuinely think AFF is non-topical
• Speak clearly and deliberately; if I cannot understand you due to inordinate speed, you will lose
• I count Stock Issues debate as "Offense"--it doesn't need to be purely off-case offense for NEG to win
• Cross-X is binding
• Impact Calc is important to a Policy Maker judge

My questions for any round that I judge are always as follows:

Is the AFF truly Topical? Does it fit the confines of the Resolution and/or meet the premise intended by the Resolution's drafters?

Does the AFF have Inherency? Is their plan not already happening in the Status Quo and/or is the Status Quo flawed due to a lack of the AFF plan? What is hindering the implementation of the AFF in the Status Quo?

Is the Harm the AFF is claiming to solve significant enough in the Status Quo that it warrants a solution? And, will the AFF genuinely be able to solve for this Harm?

Can the AFF genuinely claim their Advantages? Are they reasonable benefits that will happen because the AFF is passed? If there are no Advantages, refer to the above questions. It is fine if the AFF only has Harms as it still provides me a net benefit with which to weigh against the net negatives provided by the NEG--this applies to only having an Advantage as well.

Can the AFF solve? Does their Solvency hold up to LEGITIMATELY being able to solve for the Harm(s) while also claiming the Advantage(s)? - I put a large emphasis on Solvency. If you can case-debate the AFF's Solvency out of existence, the round will go to the Neg. For Solvency, the AFF needs to be able to convince me that whatever they're claiming will genuinely be able to happen once their plan passes. If you're using some random person on an internet blog to back up what you're saying, then that's not true Solvency as I do not trust their Ethos and the AFF's ability to claim that they solve. Legitimate sources and legitimate means of solving are mandatory. I will be looking at the sources for your evidence and their date of publication when making my decisions on your Solvency.There must be Solvency for the AFF to have even a semblance of merit; an AFF without Solvency is not an AFF.

If the AFF has no Harms they're solving for AND no Advantages they are claiming, they will lose the round as there is no reason for me, as the judge, to pass the AFF. I need to see that my signature on the ballot for the AFF will have Net Benefits that outweigh the negatives presented by the NEG. If you're going to try to sell me something that solves no problems in the Status Quo AND doesn't come with any benefits, then why would I vote AFF?

If the AFF legitimately fails any one of the Stock Issues checks outlines above, they will lose the round. The AFF has the advantage of having infinite prep time going into the round, and so I expect them to come with a fully fleshed out plan that they can defend to the bitter end. Inherency, Solvency, Harms/Advantages are vital for a legitimate AFF. If the AFF is lacking any one of these, it is thereby not legitimate and will lose the round. Topicality matters too; if the AFF isn't Topical, it will obviously lose the round.

If the AFF declares FIAT, then that means that the AFF will pass. There is no debate over this issue. NEG cannot argue whether or not the AFF will pass, because it will. FIAT. However, FIAT is not a magic wand for the AFF team. If FIAT is claimed, the AFF does not have to worry about whether or not their plan will pass, but they DO need to worry about whether or not they have true Inherency, and whether or not they're actually able to provide Solvency to back up their solution to their Harms they're solving for, and/or the Advantages they're claiming. FIAT is a tool, not magic. If FIAT is brought into the round, the NEG needs to focus on the net negatives that will happen because of the AFF passing. I'm not going to hear an argument on why the AFF won't pass because X, Y, or Z if the AFF has claimed FIAT. That being said, if AFF doesn't claim FIAT then I am willing to hear an argument about whether or not the AFF will even be able to pass; if the AFF doesn't want to use a tool that is given to them, then whatever happens next is on them.

How do I weigh the AFF's Advantage(s) over the Neg's Disadvantage(s)?

I weigh Probability over Magnitude when it comes to Policy Maker, which means that I absolutely do not prefer Kritikal argumentation in a round. I am completely and totally open to Topicality, Disadvantages, and Counterplans when it comes to off-case argumentation. Again, however, Probability outweighs Magnitude in my mind 100% of the time; if a Disadvantage has a probable impact then I am much more inclined to weigh it against the AFF plan as opposed to a Disadvantage that claims the AFF will lead to the extinction of all life on Earth...somehow. I understand that some resolutions lend themselves to global extinction more than others, but if you're going that route then you really need to sell me on the PROBABILITY of total human annihilation.

If you run a K, just know that I almost certainly will not vote for you--this is for both AFF and NEG. The only way I would vote on a K is if it holds legitimate probability and isn't just random incoherent noise meant to distract or confuse the other team; K AFFs are just as much to blame for this as a K introduced by the NEG. I've been around Debate long enough to not be impressed by whatever K or K AFF you found on that Camp file that was written by other high school debaters at 3AM after 27 energy drinks. They're just not how I base my decision in a round.

If a Counterplan is being run, it must be a full Counterplan; there must be plan text and solvency that supports the Negative's ability to link to the AFF's Advantages and/or Harms and solve for them better than the AFF can. Alternatively, I am willing to listen to an Advantage Counterplan where the Negative offers up a Counterplan with their own Advantages that the AFF cannot Perm and link to; were this to happen, I would weigh the advantages provided by the Neg's Counterplan against those of the AFF. Finally, the Negative must be careful not to link into their own Disadvantage with their Counterplan. Nothing is more awkward than when a Negative team goes all in on a CP that links to their own DA. Ultimately, with a CP, if you can convince me that the CP is more net beneficial than the AFF plan, I will vote on it without hesitating and give the round to the Negative.

If you're going to run Topicality, you need to give me reasons to prefer. You need to give me standards and voters, and tell my why the AFF is a violation/why I should prefer your interpretation of the resolution. Do not run T for the sake of running T and spreading the AFF as thin as possible. Only run T if you are genuinely convinced that the AFF is not Topical.

The last time I checked, Debate is a speaking event. Because of this, I expect you to speak clearly as opposed to reading so fast that you are only able to squeak out mere syllables of the text. Reading faster than normal conversation is fine, but if you speak so fast that I cannot understand the argument you are making--let alone process it--then it will count against you.

I don't agree with people that claim that the Negative has to be purely offensive debate in order to win the round; we might as well not have Stock Issues in that case. If the Negative can poke holes in the AFF with case-debate, then I say more power to them and am completely and totally willing to vote on a stock issue as opposed to a DA, T, or a CP. I'm fine with off-case as I mentioned, but the Neg won't lose a round purely because they chose to debate on-case evidence rather than going pure offense. Best case scenario is to combine the two. As mentioned, I put an incredibly heavy weight on Stock Issues and will look at arguments against them favorably in the round. So, AFF, don't try to tell me that the NEG should lose because they have no offense; if they attacked your Stock Issues and ran pure on-case in the round, that counts in my book and it's not an argument that will hold any merit in my book.

New evidence in the Rebuttals is fine; new arguments are not fine. You can bring up new cards to support pre-existing arguments, but don't try to bring up anything new to the round.

Stop reading 8 minutes of bad arguments in the 1NC hoping that the 2AC will undercover/forget one and you'll win that way. Spaghetti debate is bad Debate; the Neg shouldn't only touch the AFF in the 2NC and 1NR--the 1NC matters too. I look for clash in the round and expect each team to provide it.

Anything you say during Cross-X can and will be held against you in the court of Me. Cross-X is binding, so be careful what you say as I cannot tell you how many times I've had teams sink their argument due to poor responses in the Cross.

I am a Policy Maker judge through and through--though I put a large emphasis on Stock Issues. Impact Calc in the Rebuttals. Weigh your arguments and give me reasons to prefer. Again, I give you the advantage of telling you that I weigh Probability over Magnitude, so make sure you are clear when telling my why I should prefer your argument over the opposing team's. I go into each round knowing that I, as the judge, am either signing a plan into action or denying its existence. I need to be convinced that the AFF is either net beneficial to the Status Quo or that it is net detrimental, and it is your job to convince me of this.

I've been an assistant coach at Campus HS (Haysville, KS) for 7 years, and I was an assistant in Valley Center, KS, for 3 years. I also debated in high school.

Clarity of arguments is most important to me. Debaters should be understandable, and they can speak at a rapid pace. However, extreme speed--like that of an auctioneer--is unnecessary. It is better to have quality arguments that read a ton of evidence. I like for debaters to explain how the evidence supports the argument he/she makes. Merely reading a ton of evidence with no analytical link to voter issues is not productive debating. Don't assume that I will use the same reasoning or make the same connections as you do. It is your job as the speaker to help the audience understand and prefer your position in the debate. Keep it civil as well. I prefer arguments based in reality not theoretical or philosophical impossibilities.

If I stop flowing and cross my arms, that means you have lost me. Either you are confusing or you are reading so quickly I can't understand the words coming out of your mouth. This is your visual cue to adjust your speaking style to make yourself more understandable. Debaters often make the argument that the way a judge votes determines if a policy passes. I have never heard or seen a legislative session in Congress use spreading to pass laws. I really don't want to hear this in the round.

Above all, I vote on the logic and clarity of the arguments. This means that you must do more than read evidence.

Tabula Rasa but I'll default policy maker, if I dont have context or why I should vote on something I'm not going to vote on it. That being said I'm ok with most arguments (T, Ks, CPs, etc.) but if it has to be able to make sense. If I can't understand whats being run I can't vote on it, always summarize.

For Counterplans if its not necessary and competitive don't run it. If a debate comes down to evaluating the pros of two plans I'll vote aff.

Line by line, signpost and fully respond to arguments; a well covered point is more effective than a sweeping generalization. I'll vote on generics but you have to prove to me why I should.

Umm, just debate and I'll catch on.

I hate topicality. Don't waste my time. :)

Debated through high school and for one year at the University of Kansas.

I would say that I'm a hybrid stock issues/policy maker but with a strong policy-maker lean. However, I'm also there to arbitrate your arguments, so if you want me to apply another paradigm, as long as you can cogently argue it and convince me why I should change, I'm flexible and willing to change for the round.

I will accept the K, provided you capably understand it and can demonstrate that understanding to me and translate your understanding to a compelling rationale for voting for it. I tend to flow Kritikal arguments similarly to disads. Seriously. Spoon feed me the K and I will happily vote on it, but you should assume my understanding is, um, "not advanced." Here is where I blatantly steal a line from the paradigm of Jeff Plinsky: My policy maker lens is difficult for me to put down here, so you had better be able to tell me how your advocacy can actually solve something. In a K v K debate, this still applies - you need to prove you actually solve something.

I will accept generic disads, but try to have them link. Specific disads are always better and with what seems like functionally all affs available via wiki, there's no reason not to do the research to find a specific link. In evaluating disads, my natural inclination (which you can overcome) is to prefer realistic impacts even if they are small, to enormous but highly attenuated impacts such as multiple extinction events/cannibalism/nuke wars/etc. I don't like to count who has the highest number of nuclear exchanges at the end of the round, but if I have to, I will.

I am a dinosaur and, as such, value topicality. I will almost certainly not make topicality a "reverse voter" and give the aff a win if the only thing they've accomplished is to beat neg's T arguments. However, I will vote neg on T only, assuming neg wins it. In line with my feelings on T, before you run a PIC, ask if the aff is topical. Please note: I am not telling negative teams that I want them to run topicality. That is your decision. I am just telling you that I will vote on it if you win it.

Speed is fine and I can usually follow and flow very fast debaters. If I am holding a pen, even if I'm not writing at any given moment, I am following you. If I have put down my pen, it means you've lost me and should probably back up or make some other effort to get me back. I greatly prefer closed cross; my view is that you should be able to spend three minutes defending the speech you just delivered. While speed is fine, in my position as a dinosaur, I still value rhetoric and persuasion. If you're a compelling speaker, let that shine. Group the other side's arguments and go slower and compel me to vote for you.

Again indulging my prerogative: I not only accept, I encourage new in the two. It's called a "constructive" speech for a reason. Go ahead and construct. Similarly, I will accept add-on advantages from the aff and internally inconsistent arguments from the neg as long as they have kicked out of whatever makes them inconsistent and still allows the affirmative a chance to respond by the end of the round. Do not abuse this. If I think that you're purposely spreading them with inconsistent arguments just to force them into a time suck and not running the argument in good faith, I will not be happy about it and you will bear the consequences of my unhappiness. For example: I once watched a team run the thinnest of topicality shells in the 1NC. They basically did little more than say "topicality" and read one definition and that was it. No voters, no standards, no warrants. That forced the aff to answer in the 2AC and left the neg in a position to have forced the timesuck or blow up topicality in the 2NC. That, to me, was faithless argumentation by the neg. Don't do that.

As befitting a Gen X'er, I value courtesy and think you can absolutely hammer someone and not be a d**k about it. Play nice. Being a jerk probably won't earn you the loss, but I will punish you on speaks if your conduct warrants it. This is intended to be a very strong warning against racism, ableism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia. Engaging in those things will get you an L even if you might have otherwise won the round. My politics lean left, but I consciously try to monitor and check my biases. If your best argument is something that I would not support in real life, you can run it and know that I will make every effort to fairly consider the argument, the way you argue it and its merits in the debate.

On vagueness and topicality: I have noticed a trend where the aff's plan text is essentially the text of the resolution but with a specific "whatever" (country, program, etc.,) stated within the "plan." This is not a plan. It is vague and if the aff is not willing to specify what they are or are not doing/curtailing/removing/adding/replacing, then I will absolutely be open to the argument that they are unfairly claiming and denying territory necessary to allow a fair debate. I won't vote on this if no one brings it up, but I think it's fair to expect an affirmative case to actually specify what it will do. Edited to add: I REALLY MEAN THIS ONE. I find it very frustrating when an aff not only doesn't say in the 1AC what it is exactly that they're doing, but then refuse to answer (or not know the answer) when asked about it on cross. Affs should not do this and negs should beat the snot out of any aff that tries this.

Thoughts on the email chain: I do not want to be on it. This is still a verbal activity. If you say something clearly and intelligibly enough for me to hear it, I will hear it and flow it. From time to time I might ask you (during prep, for example) to give me your tag or the name of the person cited. But if you say something so unintelligible that I can't understand it, I won't credit you for having said it and the fact that it might be on the email chain isn't going to change my mind. I might ask you to show me a card or cards at the end of the round so that I can make sure it says what I think it says or what you say it says. But I don't like the notion of crediting a verbal statement because I read it in an email.

Bottom line: I'm the arbiter of your arguments. While the above is a statement of my preferences, I'm more than happy to judge a debate outside those boundaries and you should feel free to argue your best stuff if I'm your only judge. If you find me on your panel, you should consider going for the other judges as I consider myself to be highly adaptable and can judge a round geared for lay judges and I can also judge one geared to impress college judges.

Thank you for allowing me the privilege of watching and judging your debate.

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

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

4 years of high school debate; state novice, 1 year on state two-speaker, 2 years on state-four speaker. Judged for 5+ years.

Policy-maker.

I like to see impact calc during rebuttals.

I do not weigh an entire round on T alone. You may run it, but know that you will need to make other arguments as well. I don't like K at all. Any other type of Neg argument is fine to run.

Any speed is fine.

This is petty, but I can't stand it when someone says "is anyone NOT ready?" (Consider this a litmus test to see if you've read my paradigm).

I debated four years in Kansas in the early '80s. State medalist. No college debate experience. I did compete in college forensics.

I default to Policymaker with a strong emphasis on the resolution of key arguments. A speaker's ability to organize thoughts, address all arguments, provide clear analysis, and advocate for the ballot are important. T is fine if developed well. Disadvantages need to link. Counterplans are acceptable- but stick to issues rather than theory. No Speed. No K.

I have coached at the 4A level in Kansas for over three decades. I have coached 15 state championship teams and many other state medalists in 2 and 4 speaker formats. I have qualified policy teams for national tournament policy debate and had teams reach elims several times.

Hello, this is me, your Judge. Koalten

email: koalten.hornback@gmail.com

Debate Experience:

- Debated competitively 4 years at Nickerson High School

-2 years of debate coaching at Hutchinson High School

TL;DR: I'm a tabula rasa judge who defaults to policy-making when there are no framing arguments made. Good ol' fashioned policy is what I like to see, but I'll roll with anything.

Delivery:

I can keep up with about anything. However, my biggest thing is that clarity is more important than speed. Debate is supposed to be an activity that is accessible to everyone, and spreading cuts down the potential audience of a round. Communicate in a way to educate, not just to win. If you do choose speed, be able to justify it if the other team argues against it knowing my preference. Something that is rarely discussed is the skills policy debate teaches you that you can bring to other aspects of your life, and I have yet to be convinced that reading super fast off of prepared evidence is something you can apply to other areas of your life.

2020 Update: obviously I'll be super understanding with the stuff over virtual, don't worry about this so much, just make sure that I can actually tell what you're saying over zoom and don't rely on an email chain with me

Kritiks:

If you choose to do it, do it well. Be succinct with the alternative and tell me why I should be voting for the alternative over the case. Links need to be specific here. Impact debate is a great way to win me over. I know most of the common K's, but still explain the theory of what you're kritiking and how the alternative will help fix the status quo. BTW I don't buy the "reject the affirmative" alternatives and don't debate the role of the ballot, it's just a way to record data and we assign too much meaning to it. Perms usually get sloppy so make sure to explain what a perm would actually look like in the real world.

CP's:

Go for it, but don't turn it into a theory debate unless there's clearly been some sort of detrimental harm to education. See above on perms too.

Case and Disads:

This is the stuff that I really love to see. Attack case all day long and tell me why they fail. Run DA's and see if they stick. Generic disads are fine - it's the affirmative's job to uphold the resolution and if they can't kill a DA that links to the resolution, they fail to uphold it. I love a good old fashioned policy debate, and I think the educational value in preparing for a case debate is really quite valuable.

Topicality:

I like a smart T argument, especially those that use contextual evidence. I'm open to just about anything on T.

Decision Making:

I'm pretty open when it comes to framing the round and I think that it's a great debate to be had. Having said that, if framing is just not touched on at all, I'll resort to a policy-making paradigm, and weigh the impacts of the plan vs the impacts of the DA's (touching on impact calc would do well for you here if you don't argue for a different framing method).

History: for some reason, a tabroom glitch doesn't display to you my full judging history to you, but rest assured, I have voted almost exactly 50/50 this entire year and past years.

Education:

I am a Wichita State University student with a Bachelors's in English and a minor in Criminal Justice. Currently enrolling in a Fort Hayes State University Master's program for Education.

I am fairly new to debate so I am still learning some of the fundamentals of debate. I prefer debates that are reasonably slower pace with a bent towards flow policymaking.

I have been judging debate for over twenty years, but am old myself so when I debated in high school it was very different (real cards). I am a teacher (I teach cultural anthropology so we discuss a lot of social justice issues) but not a debate coach. I like to see that debaters understand what they are saying - that they can explain in their own words, not just read endless cards at top rate speed without explaining why the cards are relevant.

Harms, inherency, and solvency are the most important Aff stock issues for me. I want to know what problem you are trying to solve and how you are going to do it. And why it will continue to be a problem without your plan. I am very interested in real world problems.

Counterplans and generic DAs are fine from Neg, but again, I like to at least see a firm link.

Topicality is fine - but I don't love the generic harm to debate, I love some good word play, so if you can convince me something isn't topical by really delving into language I will sometimes judge on that.

Kritiques are sometimes okay- I like to see real world issues being brought up and debate tied to real world issues. But if they get really esoteric I honestly get lost.

Again - I like to see direct clash, ties to real world, debaters who understand what they are saying and can explain it to me.

I prefer medium speed - if you are unintelligible I get nothing out of that.

Despite the fact I have never been a debater, nor have I ever coached debate, I have been judging debate for 15 years.

As a judge, I value the following:

A logical stream of arguments that are tied to solid evidence and even stronger analysis.

Respect and professionalism between debaters.

Passion for the art of debate.

Insightfulness

Humility.

I do NOT appreciate the following:

Belittling your opponent

Speed-talking--I must be able to follow the argument.

ksumccoy@gmail.com

Introduction

I'm an assistant coach for debate and forensics at Blue Valley North. As a theater and English teacher of nearly 20 years, interp. events are probably my strongest area. You should probably see me more as a community judge with some background in the event rather than someone that pays close attention. I'm more of a sponsor than a coach most weekends that just makes sure students get to their rooms. As of October 2023, I have only judged a couple rounds and have little contact with the topic research file.

Policy...

I know this isn's succinct and what advanced debaters are going to want to hear or debate to, but I hope the following helps.

1. I'm a theater and English Lit. teacher first. Don't just read at me. I think this is an oral communication event. Communicative issues and telling the story are still important. I'm not going to try to listen or flow speed. Honestly, I'm tired of people reading a powertag with a whole bunch of stuff they don't really understand or not linking it to the round we're in. I'll jump on the email chain/speechdrop, but I'd rather be listening to your rather than reading highlighted text.

2. I'd like to think that I'd listen to just about anything in the room and be willing to vote on it, but I'm probably a policy maker who prefers reasonable and probable impacts over magnitude. I haven't had a lot of Ks to consider or vote on so I'm not sure how I feel about them philosophically. I'm not a games player that will vote a team down for missing one minor arg. on T in the 1AR. I don't like ridiculous spreading args. from the neg. that then kicks everything that doesn't stick. I'd rather have a couple speeches debating the merits of an argument and find some depth than shell out ten things that don't matter.

3. I'm good with judge instructions. Explain to me why I should be voting a certain way. I'm not going to be reading every sentence of your evidence and make the arguments for you. I'm also not an expert in the event that will know every piece of the game y'all do.

4. If you open the abuse story in the round, you better not be doing it elsewhere. I think new in the 2 is typically slimy if off case, but I'm primarily talking anything running a ton of T you plan to kick in the 2NR, turning CX into a speech, stalling finding a timer and prep time, fiddling with the file share, et al. If you waste time on an abuse story when you could have used that time to debate this issue, or your opponent points out you were just as or more abusive in the round, I'll vote you down for wasting our time discussing it. Debate the topic.

Congress

I've scored a few rounds in Kansas invitationals over the years. Probably 5-10 rounds. I've used Congress as a model for various classroom activities and projects in my English and Speech classes and worked with students here and there on some speeches. I enjoy an efficient and respectful chamber with obvious connections and clash between speeches to show active listening. Yes, speeches will be prepared with credible evidence and relevant sourcing, but there should be clear sections responding to the debate in the room. Strong POs will be considered in ranking. As a theater director for 10 years, I'm used to watching the entire stage. You are always "on" in a session. A congressperson who is listening, engaging, efficient, and respectful will be rewarded over one who is simply domineering.

LD - I've judged these rounds here and there and at the national tournament, but it has been awhile. Be sure to take care of the value and VC debate as that is the framework that lets me know how to vote in the round. Evidence to show how real world examples have worked are great, but don't forget the values work. This is why I like this style of debate. We aren't focused primarily on the policy but the ideas and values. If you keep that in mind and can explain it for a theater/English teacher that prefers a communicative style, you'll have a better chance at the ballot.

PFD - Well, this is something I haven't seen a lot of, so I'd encourage you to look at the other comments regarding LD and Policy and cross apply to this event. Haven't coached it. Only seen a few rounds of it.

I'm between a flow and a lay judge. I can follow arguments very well, and typically try to flow rounds. I will struggle somewhat with high-speed talking, but as long as I'm provided evidence I can manage. Composure and logic will help convince me in rounds, however, it is not the deciding factor for me. I am mainly a stock issues judge, but I am able to understand things as complicated as a K (Theory). The burden will be on the AFF to prove that they will solve completely, and if that is disproved then NEG will win. Although, the NEG will have to do a substantial job of demonstrating how the AFF doesn't solve.

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.

I debated policy and competed in forensics for four years in high school. I am comfortable with any arguments and speeds, although I would prefer you not run Topicality solely as a time suck.

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 :)

Hi,

I’m Alina. My pronouns are she/her. I was mostly a block boy when I debated but I do prefer judging lay style debate rounds. I’m fine with Ks and like open cross x and all that stuff whatever you want to do I just think the most important thing is to have fun.

I am a "Stock Issues" paradigm which means that the affirmative team must present a prima facie case to win: Aff must prove their policy proposal will result in a significant advantage free from disadvantages. If the affirmative plan does not solve (produce the advantage), they lose. If the affirmative plan does result in the advantage but it is not significant, they lose. In other words, the negative has presumption and the aff the burden to prove.

I'm currently a Third Year law student. I debated for four years in high school. Did KDC and DCI but did Oration for national tournaments. I'm on my fourth year coaching for Blue Valley.

I'm not picky on the arguments you run I'll vote on whatever you win on the flow.

In electronic debate, I prefer people to be as efficient in transitions as possible to account for technical difficulties and so I usually count prep until teams have pressed send on their documents in exchanging speeches.

I have been the head coach at Blue Valley High school for the last 28 years. Before that, I debated in college at the University of Missouri Kansas City and in High School at Shawnee Mission West.

I am primarily a policy maker as a judge. I will filter all arguments through the lens of what policy I'm voting for and if it's the best policy on a cost-benefits analysis. Kritiks should also be filtered through this lens unless the team issuing it presents really compelling reasons why my policy lens should be suspended. I have a high threshold for the Negative on Topicality. The plan has to show clear abuse to the negative or future negatives through its interpretation in order for me to be persuaded on topicality. I would rather see counterplans run non-conditionally since affirmative plans rarely get to be conditional. However, this could change based on who convinces me in the round.

Stylistically, I still feel like debate should have some element of persuasion to it. You should be able to speak extemporaneously at me at times and not just read off your laptop. Talk to me about why you deserve my ballot through the issues presented. I hate open cross examinations because I feel like they tend to make one of the debaters look weak and another look domineering. I can listen to a fairly fast round but I don't like speed being used when it is not necessary to the the round. I should be able to understand your evidence as it is read to me and only have to look at it if I need a deeper understanding or context. Be polite and be efficient in sharing files so we're not all abusing prep time.

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?

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!

Last update September 2023 in an attempt to majorly condense down to what you actually want to know.

Yes email chain (I like Speechdrop or Tabroom Share even better but will defer to what y'all want) - eskoglund@gmail.com

POLICY DEBATE

Background

Olathe South 2001, 1 year at KU

Head coach, Olathe Northwest HS, Kansas (assistant 2006-2016, head 2016-present)

90%+ of my judging is on a local circuit with varying norms for speed, argumentation, etc.

1) My most confident decisions happen in policymaker-framed rounds. I will do my best to follow you to other places where the debate takes us.

2) If your aff doesn't advocate a topical plan text, the burden is on you to ensure that I understand your advocacy and framework. If you don't make at least an attempt to relate to the resolution, it's going to be very hard for you.

3) I flow what I hear but I will follow speech docs to watch for clipping. Egregious clipping will lead me to decide the round even if a formal challenge is not filed.

4) Whether you've got a plan, an advocacy statement, or whatever - much of the work coming out of camps is so vague as to be pointless. You don't need a six plank plan or a minute of clarification, but a plan should be more than the resolution plus a three word mission statement. I will err neg on most questions of links and/or theory when affirmatives ignore this.

5) I don't judge kick unless given explicit instruction to that effect. Conditional 2NRs are gross.

6) Flow the debate, not the speech doc.

7) Anytime you're saying words you want on my flow, those need to not be at 400 wpm please.

8) On T, I primarily look for a competing interpretation framework. "Reasonability" to me just means that I can find more than one interpretation acceptable, not that you don't have to meet an interp. My understanding of T is more "old school" than a lot of the rest of arguments; a T debate that talks a lot about offense/defense and not a lot about interpretations/violations is less likely to be something I comprehend in the way you want.

9) Long pre-written overviews in rebuttals are neither helpful nor persuasive.

10) I will not lie to your coach about the argumentation that is presented in the round. I will not tolerate the debate space being used to bully, insult, or harass fellow competitors. I will not evaluate personal disputes between debaters.

11) I think disclosure probably ought to be reciprocal. If you mined the aff's case from the wiki then I certainly hope you are disclosing negative positions. My expectations for disclosure are dependent on the division and tournament, and can be subject to theory which is argued in the round. DCI debaters in Kansas should be participating in robust disclosure, at a minimum after arguments have been presented in any round of a tournament.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

First and foremost, this is a debate event. Any speech after the authorship/sponsorship speech should be making direct, meaningful reference to prior speakers in the debate. Simply repeating or rehashing old points is not an effective use of your, or my, time. Several speeches in a row on the same side is almost always bad debate, so you should be prepared to speak on both sides of most legislation.

The fastest path to standing out in most chambers is to make it clear that you're debating the actual content of the legislation, not just some vague idea of the title. Could I get your speech by just Googling a couple of words in the topic, or have you actually gotten into the specific components of the legislation before you?

I come from the policy debate planet originally but that doesn't mean I want you to speed. We have different events for a reason.

Role playing is generally good, particularly if we're at a circuit or national tournament where your constituents might be different from others in your chamber.

I notice and appreciate effective presiding officers who know the rules and work efficiently, and will rank you highly if your performance is exemplary.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE

Speed is fine but I will not clear you (see longer discussion in policy below). I come from a fairly traditional LD circuit, so while I can understand policy type argumentation, my decision calculus may be a bit unpredictable if you just make this a 1 on 1 CX round with too-short speech times.

I am watching for clipping and will directly intervene against you if you clip cards in a way that I judge to be egregious, even if the issue is not raised in the round.

My default way of evaluating an LD round is to compare the impacts presented by both sides through the lens of each side's value and criterion, if presented. If you want me to do something different please run a clear role of the ballot or framework argument and proactively defend why your approach is predictable enough to create fair debate.

Your last 1-2 minutes, at least, should be spent on the big picture writing my reason for decision. Typically the debater who does this more clearly and effectively will win my ballot.

PUBLIC FORUM

Clash is super important to all forms of debate and is most often lacking in PF. You need to be comparing arguments and helping me weigh impacts.

Pointing at evidence is not incorporating it into the round. If you don't actually read evidence I won't give it any more weight than if you had just asserted the claim yourself. Smaller quotations are fine, but the practice of "this is true and we say this from Source X, Source Y, and the Source Z study" is anti-educational.

*Disclaimer*: I'm a parent judge. I know what I am doing but I am not an expert at debate by any means and this paradigm is being written with assistance from my son.

I default to policymaker, but will become tabula rasa if framework is presented to me.

You can speak quickly, but I have to be able to understand what you are saying for me to listen. If I can't understand you I don't care about what you are saying.

In regards to Disadvantages, I don't like impacts that are unrealistic. I rarely listen to nuke war impacts. I'd rather you use realistic impacts that are highly likely. Other than that, specific links are preferred but not absolutely necessary.

In rebuttals you need to tell me why I should vote for you and why I should not vote for the other team. If you don't lay out a reason I should vote for you, I most likely won't do so.

I will rarely vote on topicality so don't run it unless the aff is ridiculously untopical.

Do not run a counterplan unless you are very good at them. If you run it wrong it will just confuse me and I probably will not vote for you in that case.

I will listen to theory, but you have to explain it very well.

I don't like kritiks so don't run them.

Policy Maker - former high school debater 4 years. Current assistant coach.

I've judged a lot of rounds at various levels of competition. These stem from local tournaments to KDC to Nationals.

Your speed is your speed. If you go so fast no one can understand you then you should consider slowing down. I'll let you know if that's the case.

I'll listen to your generic D/A's but I won't give you the if you can't defend it. Get your impact calc out early, and use it throughout the debate.

T is not your best argument. However, it matters especially if the abuse is clearly defined.

K's are acceptable. Give me a realistic alternative that isn't "think different."

I'll default to the best policy every time. This means that either the SQUO, the CP, or the aff is where the vote will end up. Make that clear.

Please, PLEASE, don't make me place arguments for you.

Please add me to the chain: oli.debate@gmail.com

I do my best to evaluate the round without intervening personal ideals. I enjoy how different arguments take different strategic developments and want to see you develop whatever argument you are best at because that will be the most fun for all of us. Speed is fine but slow down when you are trying to emphasize an issue or when debating theory/dense portions of the flow (proper signposting helps tons here). I wont follow you on the doc, I want them for reference but will attempt to decide with as little reading as possible. If I can't flow you then i will set my pen down and clearly not be flowing.

Be nice to each other.

Name: Jessica Trudell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have fun and enjoy yourselves!

I debated for four years in high school and did forensics in College.

I am currently the assistant coach at Moundridge High School in Moundridge Kansas.

Policy Debate:

I tend to vote policymaker, if there are no policy options in the round I will vote stock issues.

Individual Issues:

Counter Plans: I will vote for a counter plan both nontopical and topical.

Disadvantages: I will vote for a generic DA. Saying the DA is generic is not an answer that will win.

Topicality: Topically must be argued more than just in a 1NC Shell. If you drop standards and voter I no longer care about your Topicality.

Theory: I will vote on theory arguments if you have evidence along with standards and voters.

Kritik: I will vote on a K. I prefer ones that are in a policy framework but will consider any alt as long as the team defends the position.

I will not vote on just defensive arguments as a policymaker, if there is no reason not to try the plan then I will vote for the plan.

Lincoln Douglas:

I will consider the value and criterion debate first when weighing the round.

Your criterion should logically support your value.

Speed- LD is intended to go deeper rather than broader and more philosophical, your debating about interpretations, not plans. I don't think speed supports this kind of debate. Don't lose depth for the sake of speed.

Evidence- I think that evidence is important, however, a lack of evidence does not mean a loss. Empirical examples can be just as weighty as traditional evidence.

Both debaters are responsible for clashes, don't ignore your opposition's value or criterion. I don't want to hear a debate in a vacuum.

Updated 10/20/23

(If you have any questions about anything below, please feel free to ask me before the round).

Please note that I have not judged a lot of rounds on the fiscal redistribution topic. So please be thoughtful about your use of acronyms or technical terms without definitions. Thanks!

Please add me to the email chain - andrew dot vanderlaan @ gmail dot com - or provide me with the code for the SpeechDrop room.

I debated for four years on the national circuit in high school, and more recently I’ve been judging a handful of round every year on and off since 2012.

As much as possible, I try to be a tabula rasa judge; my goal is to be as open-minded as possible, and maximize ground for the debaters. I am open to on case arguments and off case positions including disads, T, counterplans, and kritiks, and I have cast ballots based on each of those arguments. Debaters are also welcome to argue what my judging philosophy should be - stock issue, policymaker, game player, etc.

Having said that, we all have biases. Here are mine:

1. Clash is the MOST important aspect of a policy debate round. The hardest rounds to judge (and the most boring!) are those in which one team dumps a block of cards, and the other team groups them and reads a response block. I much prefer debates about evidence quality and relevance, close textual analysis of a key card, and smart framing of how the cards interact and how I should weigh them.

2. I can flow, and it is unusual (though not impossible) for me to be spread out of a round. I will not yell clear, but I will put my pen down and stop flowing. Speed over clarity is not effective communication.

3. Theory is a really interesting part of debate, and I’d like to hear your arguments. Please don’t blip through your T standards, K framework and theory, and CP perms; give these arguments the time they deserve. I am 20+ years removed from my high school debate career, and I'm not on the cutting edge of the latest debate arguments. If your argument is new and fancy, please take the time to explain it. I didn't debate K's myself, so that's probably where I need the most guidance on particularly esoteric arguments. And you should always assume I don't know the literature underlying your K.

5. The crucial parts of any disad debate are the link and uniqueness, focusing your efforts here will pay off (true for either team).

6. If you don’t argue to shift my paradigm, I’ll default to a policymaker and weigh advantages vs. disadvantages of the arguments in the round.

7. I rarely read evidence before casting my ballot; evidence really matters, but I need you to be able to make good arguments with your cards. I can recall asking for a card only once, when the entire round collapsed to one crucial card and each team offered a radically different interpretation of what the evidence said. (And if you ask me to read a card, I will.)

8. Passion and competitiveness are important, and so are civility and respect. Please treat the other team well, there's no faster way to lose speaks and possibly even the round.

Thanks for reading, and have fun!

I believe I am a what used to be a traditional policymaker. I will weigh advantages vs. disadvantages. I will listen to topicality arguments. I am not fond of time-suck T arguments, but if the argument is serious, I will consider it. I view T as a voting issue.

Policy Debate:

I am certified and currently teach/coach policy debate and have for the past 5 years. I participated in speech events when I was in school and love nerding out over good speeches and logic.

Speed:

Speaking fast just to get your evidence in is not high quality debate, but this is my opinion. Speaking well, flowing, and with confidence will get you much farther.

Flex Prep

No.

Arguments

Stock issues should all be addressed and upheld.

Each negative position tests the validity of the affirmative. Don’t drop an argument. Even if you feel like you answered it before, always answer it in the ending AR.

Topicality: Don’t rely on it. Justify the impact of topicality

Your argument doesn’t directly influence your speaker points - This is based on how well you convey your augment and confidence in speech.

Theory: While theory is fine, I would much rather see a debate on logic and advantages of policy.

CP: Fine, but still must prove why CP and Aff plan cannot coexist and why your plan has am adv over neg and how.

I do not take points off for speed; however, I do take points off for a lack of clarity. A speech impediment or obvious pre-existing condition will also not count against a debater.