please at me to the email chain: madelyn.atkins.debate@gmail.com

pronouns: she/her

expericence:

Debated at Lansing High School for 4 years

Coaching:

Lansing (2021-2022)

Shawnee Mission South (2023-current)

top level:

- tech over truth but arguments must be warranted

- Read whatever aff/neg strategy that you are the most comfortable with and I will do my best to adapt and be unbiased

- Judge instruction is important and often underutilized

topicality:

- I went for t a lot my senior year and I think it is a good strategy that more teams should go for

- I default to competing interpretations

- Explain what your model means for the topic, case lists can be helpful for this

k affs:

- framework - I think that fairness and clash can both be both impacts (but that's also up to the debaters to prove). Don't just read generic framework blocks - try to contextualize them to the aff. Specific evidence can be helpful for a TVA but isn't absolutely necessary

disads:

- make turns case args and impact calc is helpful

counterplans:

- process counterplans are okay, but I probably err aff on theory

- delay counterplans are cheating

- textual and functional is always good

- err neg on condo but can be convinced otherwise

- all theory args except for condo I default to reject the arg not the team

- I will only judge kick if the neg makes the argument and the aff doesn't contest it, best to start this debate before the 2nr/2ar

kritiks:

- answer arguments on the line by line instead of in a long overview

- specific links are better than generic ones

- clearly explain the link, impact, and alt

case:

- neg should utilize case debates more - could definitely win on presumption

Experience

First, introductions. In round, you can just call me Aaron. I’m a graduate of Lansing High School and focused on traditional debate for four years. I was the type of debater to max out the number of tournaments I can go to. I know how debate works and will flow your speeches. I mainly want to see a good debate with thought out strategy and knowledgeable debaters.

Stock issues

- I would not call myself a stock issue judge. If the negative wins on solvency or significance and loses all their offcase, for example, I’ll still vote aff because those positions usually do not generate offense. I am more focused on clash and offense vs defense in a round.

Disadvantages

- Good stuff. Make sure to defend all parts of your disad, and don’t drop impact calc.

K’s, K affs, and Spec

- Not a fan of K’s, but I understand them. Make sure to clearly explain framework. In my opinion, framework is not a priori. If you win framework but lose the rest of the K, then I will vote affirmative. I do like spec though and tended to go for it semi-often in my own rounds.

CP’s and PIC’s

- I like counterplans, just make sure that the CP is mutually exclusive and has a net benefit. I have no reason to vote for a counterplan that solves as well as the aff and nothing else. PICs are fine as long as you convince me that they’re mutually exclusive to the affirmative.

Topicality

- I will listen to T and even like a good T debate, but I will warn the negative that I have a fairly high likelihood of deferring to aff on reasonability. However, if the affirmative is grossly untopical then the neg will probably be able to pick up an easy win.

Cross-x

- Cross-x is binding and teams should try their best to abide by what they say in cross-x. Please don’t get aggressive or interrupt too much; it only makes you look bad.

Tech/Truth

- I tend to be more truth over tech as a traditional debater. That translates mainly into how I weigh impact calc. I tend to prefer probability and timeframe, but that isn’t to say that I wouldn’t vote on a magnitude impact, especially if impact calc was dropped. Just make sure to cover your bases with respect to strategy and be clear on your analytics and you should be fine.

They/Them. You can refer to me as Bailey or Baikey.

I debated at Lansing High school for four years. I am at my second semester debating for KCKCC. In high school i did only did lay debate, but in college I do IPDA, Parli, and LD.

Speed: I am very new to speed as I had never really done it in high school. I can keep up for the most part but I will clear you if needed. Do not go super sonic though, I apologize for my lack of experience in this aspect. I really value my flow now so being able to know what's happening in the debate for me is awesome. I also do expect y'all to be sign posting, I see no reason with y'all having cards to not be sign posting. It also just makes your speech sound cleaner for me.

Ks: I am very new to Ks unfortunately but I really love them! When running them I do think that the framework debate is rather important. Feel free to run them though! For K affs I do not mind them but I'm not a big fan unless there is a good reason. On top of that I feel like the framework is super important and would like that to be touched upon.

T: make it make sense, I think going for T is a a good strat. I like it tho

CP: Run them if you like!

Das: Run them, I like em lot. I think they are really important for impact weighing

#1 thing is don't be mean . I will comment on it and it will change my view on you if you are being for real evil.

Run whatever you like at the end of the day and try your best!

bailey.debate18@gmail.com

they/she

lansing '24

ask me for my email before the round or use a speechdrop – either is fine

novices

make arguments! you will be a lot more successful (at least in front of me) if you focus on arguing why you are winning your arguments and why that means you win – if you only read cards, that doesn't prove why you win the debate – the cards are your evidence, now you can use that evidence to make an argument to convince me to vote for you

extend arguments in your rebuttals instead of making new arguments – answer your opponents responses and tell me why you are winning the arguments you made earlier in the debate and why that means you win the round

use your rebuttals to resolve loose ends in the debate and prove why you are winning yours' and your opponents' arguments

if you flow, i’ll boost your speaker points! it’s a really good habit to start early and greatly improves your debating (please flow the debate)

be nice to your opponents – tournaments are really long and we're all tired

top level

tech > truth

depth >>> breadth

in-depth off case > more off case – don't sacrifice the depth of args just to read more and spread your opponents thin

spreading is fine, but make sure that you are clear and everyone is comfortable with you spreading – clarity is important and should be prioritized before trying to spread faster than you are able to – if you sacrifice your clarity to go faster to add like one more card to your speech, speaks will get docked

debate however you are comfortable and be willing to accommodate for your opponents – if you rely on tricks to win rounds, you probably won't make it very far

i'm pretty familiar with both policy and k debate, so read the args you want

i will try to evaluate the debate as a tabula rasa judge unless given a different role in the round – if you do read a role of the ballot and/or judge, explain it and tell me how it implicates my decision

judge instruction is important – tell me how i should vote because i won't do the work for you

pls be nice to everyone in the round, this should be fun and educational, not something that people dread showing up to

i'll write a lot of feedback on the ballot, but if you have further questions feel free to email me abt it

disads

the more specific the link, the more i will appreciate the disad

evaluate the story of the disad and how it affects the rest of the flow – how does it implicate the aff? why does it win you the round?

impact calc is important, esp to tell me how i should evaluate the impacts

counterplans

needs to have a net benefit in the 2nr – this doesn't have to be a disad, but there needs to be offense that the cp avoids for this to be a reason to not do the plan – i think counterplans should be used to solve some/all of the affs impacts to lower the threshold for a neg ballot on the disad/offense that the cp doesn't link to. win a disad/offense to the aff plan and then use the counterplan to solve some of aff's impacts to make the disad outweigh the affirmative's advantages (e.g. if aff has a climate impact, a disad that says the aff causes nuke war likely wouldn't outweigh the climate impact, but having a climate advantage counterplan that solves climate change would zero the aff's impacts making the nuke war impact against the aff the only impact left which definitely outweighs at that point)

perms need analysis and warrants on both sides – i won't be convinced by "perm do both" without an articulation of what that world would look like and my threshold for the neg's answers will be lowered, but if the 2a articulates what the perm actually does, it would increase my threshold for neg beating the perm – it should answer: what does the perm look like and how does it solve the link?

kritiks

you should win a link to the aff plan, research practices, etc. – however, i can be persuaded to not evaluate a link based on how you debate framework

do analysis between the flows about how the k functions (e.g. what your theory of power means for the aff's impacts – are they non-unique? does the k outweigh?)

tell me if the alt solves the aff or why it doesn't matter that it doesn't

perms need analysis and warrants on both sides

t

you need an interp and should have a warranted violation, don't just assume everyone else knows what model you are promoting and how aff doesn't meet it just from the definition

read standards/voters in the 1nc shell, and don't add new ones in the block. if you can read several other off case alongside t, you can spend an extra 30 seconds making actual arguments – pls don't sacrifice depth to spread your opponents thin

procedural fairness is an internal link, not an impact. tell me why unfair debates actually matter (e.g. education or burnout impacts probably result from skewed debates). if you win fairness as an impact, i will vote on it, but make sure you terminalize your impacts and use it as an internal link to your opponents' impacts (e.g. argue that education decreases under unfair debates and give examples)

both sides should give examples of the worst scenarios in their opponents' model, especially with k affs – what does their model justify and why is it bad?

debate is a game is not an argument on its own, but is a true statement – warrant out why it matters and how it implicates the impacts

Lansing '22

KU '26

please add me on the email chain: ryan.f.corrigan@gmail.com

pronouns: he/him

good judge for = policy v. policy, policy v. k

ok judge for = k-aff v. t-usfg, k-aff v. k

(I’ll do what I can to follow along but I just have the least experience with k-aff rounds so my comments and understanding of the round will not be as good as other judges. This isn’t to say to not read k-affs in front of me, but I may need a little more explanation than some judges.)

Debate the arguments that you want to debate. The best rounds come from both sides understanding their content and doing what they enjoy/have spent the most time prepping out.

I am pretty well versed on the lit people have been reading this year, but it is probably good to make sure it is clear and understandable for everyone in the round.

When I debated I did DCI and primarily ran policy affs, politics DAs, and more traditional Ks (cap, set col, anthro) if you care, but don't let that dissuade you from running what you want. As a coach/judge I am learning more about different types of arguments than what I typically ran, so you do not have to worry too much about judge adaptation as I will do what I can to follow along. If you have any specific questions though feel free to clarify before the round, but I will likely tell you to read what you are comfortable with.

Maybe this is a hot take, but I do think that not sending your pre-written analytics is kind of silly. I get the strategic advantage, but if you are scared of the other team having your analytics on a doc then they probably are not good and you are trying to capitalize off of them dropping it rather than just winning it upfront. I see it similarly to the Wiki in the sense that disclosing what you read is important to make it accessible for good debates.

Overall, you do you and I will try my best to keep up.

tech > truth, but truth influences the burden of proving an argument as false

depth > breadth

in depth off case > more silly off case arguments

specific links > vague links

speed is good just make sure it is clear and understandable

Impact calc and judge instruction are super important. Make it easier for me to evaluate your arguments the way you want me to rather than assuming I am perfectly understanding your argument and evaluating it like you are in your head.

Overall, be a good person and keep the space inclusive for everyone.

..and yes, I am Jack Corrigan's older brother

-- Info --

email chain - austin.n.davis15@gmail.com

Lansing High School '23 / GMU '27

NDT qual x1

-- Truth over Tech -OR- Tech over Truth --

Tech >>>>>>>>>>Truth

-- DAs --

I don't have any specific preferences on what type of DA you choose to read. As long as you are taking time to clearly articulate a solid link/internal link chain story you'll be alright. Additionally, PLEASE impact out why your impact should be favored (i.e. why your ! o/w, how your ! means their impact can't be solved, etc). Once again no real preferences so do as you please.

-- CPs --

I mean, its a CP so I don't have any preferences besides, please don't read a CP-text w/o a solvency advocate. I'm just going to flow it as an analytic, so the Aff better punish them for this. Make sure you got a solid net-bene or I'm probably going to defer Aff on the perm pretty fast.

-- T -- policy v policy

Now I'll be real with you. I don't like topicality, I find those debates very boring. That doesn't mean I won't evaluate it, and if you are losing on T don't think I'm going to let that slide just cuz I don't like Topicality. With that being said, if you don't need to, please don't read T with me in the back. If its blatantly obvious, then go ahead. Regardless I won't tell you what to do, its your choice.

-- K --

I read afro-pess, afro-futurism, vampiric necropolitics, Taoism, queerness, cap, + ableism in HS. But by no means do I know everything about all of these topics, just enough so that I understand the language and general theory you will be arguing. So make sure you are taking the time to explain your theory, what it means for the round, and what my voting Neg is going to do to resolve or address these impacts. The most important part of the K debate is the link debate. Please try to have topic-specific links. Links of omission (the Aff doesn't mention X-thing so they exclude it) are not good links, but sometimes are all you have. So, if the Aff doesn't bring it up, then I'll give it to you but if they do, you better have a valid reason why you should get this link; but that'll be tough. Rejection alts are alts. MAKE SURE whether your impacts are physical or metaphysical that they are contextualized and impacted out in the round, this is where you will win SO MANY DEBATES. I am a lot more persuaded to vote for an alt that solves or mitigates the impacts of the Aff in some way. Lastly, I'm not gonna kick the alt for the team. If you don't want it, do it yourself.

sidenote: would love to see some KvK rounds :D

-- K Aff --

- have a strong TOP, winning this will keep you in almost every debate you have

- i'd prefer the aff have a topic link, without one, FW becomes very convincing. It doesn't mean I'll vote Neg on FW 100% of the time, but you'll need to really articulate why not having one is good. So, make it easier on me, urself, and your opponents, and jus have a topic link, so get creative. [example #1: Is the topic about nukes? (queerness) nuclear family bad, (anti-blackness) resolution is a nuclear bomb on black folks in the community, etc - example #2: Is the topic about the econ? (queerness) debate = libidinal econ = violent, (anti-blackness) black markets, etc.]

- Judge instruction!!! what is my role as the judge? why do you need the ballot? does the ballot resolve ur impacts? why is this round key? 2ARs, I need you to draw a clear path to aff ballot and tell me what tf u need me to do.

- You should know/understand your Aff, if you don't get it you prolly shouldn't read it.

-- Clash Debates / T-FW --

I'm going to vote for who T-FW. At the end of the debate, you need to be clearly explaining how your interp creates the best model of debate. I think limits and clash are very compelling impacts. Fairness isn't an impact, its a I/L (but if you win fairness is an ! that o/w the aff need for being, good for u, but it'll be an up hill battle).

if aff, make sure you are impact turning T to use the Aff to leverage offense on FW

Unasked for opinion: I think these debates can provide a much-needed discussion about the current state and future of this activity and what debate could and should look like. At the end of the day, we need to realize that debate is what we make it, and at the end of the round, rather than seeing each other as opposites due to debate style that instead we are all just people here who care about debate and want to grow. So, please stick together, and have fun in these debates, because these will be some of the most educational conversations you will have.

Goodluck!!!

I am a 4-year senior debater for Lansing High School (she, her/they, them). I am well versed in tech, open, and LD.

For email chains: dayvend05@gmail.com

Disclaimer: I will give you an automatic loss for intentional bigotry. (Btw assuming people's gender is not cool) Just be good people. 

Cross-Ex is binding 

Note: I will be on my phone during prep to make it clear I'm not listening.  

General:

1. Discourse is reasonable and should be done before the round(file share is better) and disclosure theory is excellent.
2. I will default to judge instructions, if not given I will default to my own opinions(which is likely to work against you) While I will default to my own thoughts without instruction, I will not do any analysis for you. I.e if NATO is good, but I have zero explanation for what makes NATO good, then I will flow it but don't expect me to vote on it---consider me the technical judge
3. Speed can be a tool but only when still at a level reasonable for your opponent(s) to compete. I will, not clear you more than twice, if I have to, then your speaks will reflect that. That being said, articulation is everything(logic>tech>truth). Me being intimate with debate knowledge and argumentation does not give you a pass on articulating. (your logic needs explanation)
4. IMPORTANT: Consistency is key. You can win every argument on the flow, but if you drop crucial warrants in the last speech/change your advocacy, you will lose. 

T:

T is underrated. If you're the aff, you need a counterinterp and tell me why it's better. T isn't T without voters&standards; if you don't provide voters&standrads, I will not weigh T in the round. NOTE: Resonablity isn't being reasonably topical. Reasonability is that aff causes a reasonable amount of abuse. Failing to articulate this = :(. 

DA:

DAs must have 4 parts to be a DA(uniqueness,link,  internal link, and impact).

^DO impact calc and turns, easy ways to win the ballot and speaks.(OV>UV)

CP:

Competition theory is important. If a cp violates this and aff points it out, I will er aff.  Solvency is not an internal net benefit and isn't a reason to vote for the cp. Internal net benefit needs to be mutually exclusive. There is no such thing as a cheating counterplan, if the aff doesn't run theory. 

K:

I LOVE kirtiks. They are wonderful and can have important ethical uses, but the framework is important. If fmwk is conceded, then I can't vote on the k. Do not run a K if you cannot articulate the alt. You must compare the world of the aff and the alt. The K must link to the aff and be competitive(I.e. running fem k against a fem aff won't work, unless you articulate it as a case turn).

I specialize in Fem, set col, cybernetics, tautology, anthro, and matrix. I am familiar with others, but do not assume I know the lit. 

EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND

K Affs:

I've dabbled with K-Affs since my freshman year and LOVE them. That said, I am not a  professional, so I need the K story to be clear and consistent. Strong offense and reasoning why rejecting the plan text is necessary.

Advocacy must be there and have solvency--advocacy statements are good. 

T is a generic neg strat against K affs so please spice it up and lean into something outside of your comfort zone. I won't disregard an arg just because it's generic, but K affs are good for debate.

Case:

I'm not keen on primarily stock issues paradigms, but if I'm put in a situation where a round forces my hand, I will become a STOCK issues judge. 

Neg should clash with every contention. I WILL BE UPSET if I have to vote aff. because the neg conceded Barry 17 which says the aff solves cancer by abolishing the death penalty. Get something on every flow and extend warrants(reading the tagline back to me does not count). 

I think human extension is a good, and funny argument and I personally love to run it. I will weigh it as a joke and possibly and rvi if the opposition makes genocide/bigotry turns. 

ASK QUESTIONS BEFORE ROUND IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SOMETHING!

LHS '23

KU '27

For email chain: michaelim2005@gmail.com

Policy General

Debate is a game that can be more than a game, and the ballot is a tool that can be more than signifying win/loss

Disclosure is good (and something that everyone should be doing), and file share is even better (something that everyone should also be doing)

IMPORTANT: Any amount of intended bigotry will result in 0 speaker points and an immediate L, so don't be a terrible person and we won't have a problem

PLEASE ask questions. If you don't understand what my paradigm is talking about, ask me before round

Speed is only a problem once it becomes unreasonable for your opponent(s) to compete. For me, don't worry about going too fast--that doesn't mean you should go as fast as possible--signposting is important

don't be a terrible person

Theory

I love theory and will weigh it first. That doesn't mean that that will be an easy win. Voters need to be extended and are always a reason to reject the arg (only exception is condo)

condo is the only argument I would consider a viable theory 2ar

T

T is very important and I am easily swayed by standards debate. If I am not directed, I'll default to competing interps and weigh the debate from there

Reasonability isn't being reasonably topical. Reasonability is that the aff causes a reasonable amount of abuse

T is generally not an rvi

DA

I'm chill with linear da's or 2 card da's

DO IMPACT CALC & TURNS--that includes how the internal link chain should factor in impact calc

Brevity is still good and doesn't mean you need a 3 minute o/v

CP

Competition theory is important.Solvency is not an internal net benefit and isn't a reason to vote for the counterplan--that includes impact calc

There is no such thing as a cheating counterplan if the aff doesn't read theory. I don't care how abusive the cp is and I will vote on it given that aff offense is lacking

If you're going for a meme/joke advocacy, run it as a k--that makes it funnier on k proper and framework

K

I love kritiks. They are wonderful and are some of my favorites args, but framework is important. If fmwk is conceded, then I can't vote on the k.

Severance is very persuasive on the perm level. I will understand most arguments and it's more likely than not that I kick the arg because I believe severance happens

I debated set col, psychoanalysis, and cybernetics k debate. Don't assume I'm familiar with the lit. I've researched some wacky k's before (STEM, anthro, hauntology, pearl harbor, deleuze, baudrillard, cioran, todestrieb, matrix, etc.) but that doesn't mean I will automatically understand the k

Kicking the alt is bad unless fmwk permits it

I like rejection alts, but material and educational solvency need to be won (depending on fmwk interps)

K Aff

I've experimented with k affs and run a few, but know this: I love them. I'm not a professional, so I need the aff story to be consistent and have a clear reason and strong offense as to why rejecting a plan text is necessary

The advocacy needs to be clearly articulated and have solvency

T is a generic neg strategy, so please spice things up with unique offense other than debate bad--I won't devalue the args if they're generic--although I do believe k affs are good for debate (but who cares if neg is winning the t flow)

Weighing the aff fmwk vs neg k fmwk is messy and typically devolves to impact calc--do that plus compartmentalize

Case

I'm not a fan of primarily stock issues paradigms, but if the round doesn't provide me anything else, I will become a stock issues judge. Inherency, harms, solvency, and t are important

If the aff is exceptionally bad, case 2nr's are fine, but make sure there's offense to talk about instead of exclusively defense

I think human extinction good is a funny arg, but will only weigh it as a joke and possibly as an rvi if the opposition makes genocide/bigotry turns

BTW, I consider impact calc to have 2 levels: the in round impacts and the imaginary fiat impacts and I weigh in round impacts over fiat impacts

Fun fact, kicking the aff can be strategic (and funny), but prob shouldn't be done

Again, ASK QUESTIONS BEFORE ROUND IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SOMETHING

LD General

I debated LD for 4 years in high school, have gone to nationals and was the 2023 5A state champ, so I have quite a few feelings about the activity

The most valuable part of LD is time: maximize offense and be concise always or you'll lose

I debated pure offense in LD: everyone else's value/criterion is problematic and maximize offense on the contention debates

V/Crit

i believe the value is the primary lens through which the round is voted on and the criterion is the means or thesis the case achieves the value

clash on v/crit is super underrated and makes the debate really easy to win

defense is mid for me because i don't have a clear reason to prefer one or the other without sufficient offense

Contention debate

i interpret the contention debate as your opportunity to meet the criterion by a preponderance of the evidence and will frame impacts as implicit reasons opposing value/criterion structure doesn't work

contentions can take the form of policy speeches or kritiks, but i'd prefer if they were formatted appropriately: don't run policy debate offcase, just read it on case or make it a main contention

topicality is rare, but if the violation is egregious without counter definitions, i'll allow it

Again, ASK QUESTIONS BEFORE ROUND IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SOMETHING

Baylor University '25 (not debating)

Lansing SR '21 - debated in DCI and TOC varsity (in-state and out) and KDC - stuck primarily to policy debate and public forum

add me to the email chain: chloe.kautt.debate@gmail.com

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Basic Preferences

-I'll ask before the round starts, but I would appreciate it if everyone disclosed their pronouns

-I can handle any speed you are comfortable with it, but I haven't debated for about a year so do with that what you will, but I'll clear you if I can no longer understand

-If you have a question, ask before the round not when you are about to give your speech

-Don't be an ass, debate is a fun activity and we are all here to learn don't let your crappy attitude get in the way of anyone's learning experience

-Read any racist, sexist, homophobic, or any offensive argument in front of me and expect to lose the round and get 0 speaks. I've had someone impact turn queer theory and the past and it didn't go well for them.

-I'm pretty expressive about different arguments so if you see a head nod while I'm flowing, I guess you're doing something good

-I'm not a typical stock issues judge or a "policymaker", you should tell me what I should vote on. I go on a defense vs offense scale. Both teams should have offense. Aff - throw in a link turn or two on the disad or turns arguments on the counterplan, or a good impact turn and GO FOR THEM! Neg - same. Go for impact turns and turns case arguments on the disad. Your one answer to case as "Warming isn't an issue" definitely won't do you any good if they answer it or if there is a broad spill-up claim (same for you aff).

Theory

-Condo is fine as long as you don't read an egregious number of counter plans

-Dispo is weird so I wouldn't do it tbh

-You need an impact to theory and proof of in round abuse

-Most likely, it will be a reason to reject the argument, not the team unless there is substantial abuse that would make it impossible for you to win a round (rare)

Topicality

We stand a good T debate, but there are a few things to consider:

-I'll default to competing interps. You should do analysis on the impacts you have. Don't just give me "FAiRneSs and EdUcaTion aRe ImpActs" explain to me why they are

-*NOVICES*- Start adding standards into your T shells, reading an interpretation and a violation won't cut it as a voting issue - if you don't read standards or don't extend them I won't vote on it

-Pointing out in round abuse is FIRE! Please do it!

-If you read offense on T such as overlimiting or underlimiting good, I'll love you forever

Disads

-I like specific links I don't know who doesn't

-PLEASE have warranted internal link chains that make sense

-Run any disad you want (linear, politics, etc) I don't care

-You should be extending each piece of the disad otherwise you won't get access to different arguments

Counter Plans

-I'll go with Jamie Welch on this one. DON'T SAY CP SAY COUNTERPLAN!

-I don't like PICS that much, but I've run them so don't think you can't run one in front of me- you should block out answers to PICS bad though

-the better the solvency advocate, the better the counterplan

-If your only answer to "perm do both" is that it links to the disad, probably holding it to a high threshold

-PLEASE READ OFFENSE ON COUNTERPLANS- aff make the neg have to defend every single portion of the counterplan

K

-I've run them and I've gone for them. Feel free to read anything but Nietzche and Baudrillard. I am the most familiar with neolib, fem, settler colonialism, and militarism. If you plan on reading one in front of me that isn't those, please be sure to explain it.

-You should have specific links, that's always a good thing.

-Links of omission are bad and uneducational, please block out specific links to the affirmative

-You can have an alt or you can go for the linear DA, whatever you think the best strat is, go for it

-If you are going for the alt, you must explain how the alternative is able to solve for every link you read and why its key to access your impact.

-Be prepared to answer the framework debate please!

K affs

Like I said before, I don't care what you read in front of me. I would prefer if you read one with some residual link to the topic. If your aff has literally no link what so ever to the topic, probably gonna lean more on neg for framework. Please be prepared to answer framework. I've read a K aff before so I know what's up.

For framework, you need to explain to me what the impacts are. Fairness to me is an internal link to clash and education, but if you think it is a legitimate impact go for it.

If you plan on reading one in open, please talk to your coach about framework, the last things I want to see is you not knowing what the hell you are talking about. If you read a K aff in open for clout, you are doing more harm for the group you are talking about. Doing it for a ballot is not the best way to debate. That being said, if it is a strange K aff explain it, but I'm open to many types of literature including the ones mentioned in the "K" section

LD

For the sake of clarity, I am somewhat familiar with the value/criterion style of this debate, but offense/defense is easier for me to follow (everything above applies)

Hello, I am Stephen Kautt, I am a traditional debater, but I vote tech over truth. If you drop an argument you lose that argument, make sure you extend everything. This is my 4th year debating at Lansing High School. I do know some technical arguments in debate, also I love clash, if there is no clash, the debate is just boring.

If you are doing an email chain, my email is: stephen.kautt.lansing@gmail.com

TLDR: Debate the way you want to, but make sure you signpost, extend, and are clear, so that I can make sure I flow the round properly, if you are not clear, I may lose arguments you read, and I am voting off my flow. I also have a high threshold for new arguments in the rebuttals, you can read new evidence (even though you really should not unless you absolutely need to), but do not read new arguments. I also read evidence, but if your evidence does not make the claim you said, I will not vote you down unless the other team brings it up. I will just mention it on the ballot.

Speed

I can handle fast speeds, I speak fast myself, but I do take clarity over speed, so if you just sound like you are mumbling, I will deduct speaks.

Topicality

I like topicality, but do not make topicality the focus of the debate, do not make it the one thing you go for, unless it makes sense, I will vote on T if the aff does not do a good job answering the parts of T, also make sure you extend your counter interpretation standards, and the impact of the T.

Disads

I have ran disads a ton, so I know whats going on. Make sure when you run a disad, I buy the link chain, I do not want some stupid link chain to make me believe that the Aff leads to your impact. I will vote on generic links, but I prefer specific links, I will read evidence. Also make sure you extend your link, impact, and internal link. Just extend and make me buy the argument. If the Aff is able to make me believe there is no link or there is no impact, then I will flow the disad to the aff.

Counterplans

I have ran counterplans a ton, so I know what's going on. Make sure the counterplan is able to solve the aff, make sure the cp has a net benefit, if you lose the net benefit you lose the cp. I also love perms, read a lot of them but do not forget to extend them, or answer them on the neg.

Kritik

I know what ks are, and i do not mine hearing. I am the most comfortable with setcol and cap. Be careful though, i am especially attentive when it comes to framework. And be careful, I am attentive, I will hear if you make the debate space unsafe on the topic of race or gender. If it does not make sense, I will not vote for it. Explain your k and the world of the alternative.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I enjoy debate, I am excited to hear everyone debate, just listen to what I said above, and listen and have fun. Debate is all about having fun.

Cant wait to judge you,

Stephen

4 years of debate (KDC) at Lansing High (2017-2021)

KCKCC Debate (NPDA/NFA LD) (2021– current)

Assistant Coaching at Lansing High School

I'm down for speech drop or email whichever works best for you. christopherlapeedebate@gmail.com

TLDR: I've learned that as I judge more the more I realize I don't particularly care for certain arguments over others. Rather, I care more about debaters doing what they're good at and maximizing their talents. Granted to whereas I'm ok with you reading whatever, do keep in mind that the experience I've had with debate/arguments might not make me the best decision maker in the back of the room for that round. So if you get me in the back of the room read what you want but be mindful it might need a little explanation in the Rebuttals.

Speed–I'm cool with it if I can't keep up i'll say speed if you arent clear i'll say clear. People never slow down on analytics so imma just start clearing folks if I cant understand what your saying without the doc. This will allow me to keep up better. If you ignore my speed/clear signals I'm gonna be bound to miss stuff so if you get an rfd you don't like after the round thats prolly why.

LD– All of the stuff below applies if you wanna read a plan and have a policy debate do it idc its your debate have fun!

More in depth version of how I evaluate

Top level:I default tech over truth. The only time I'll use truth as a means of decision making is to break a tie in an argument which usually will only happen if the debate is very messy.

T: On T I'll default to competing Interps unless I get a good reason to favor reasonability or if reasonability goes conceded. I think T is a debate about models of a hypothetical community agreement to what the the topic should look like, in this I think the debate comes down to the internal links like who controls limits and ground and who's limits/ground is best for education and fairness. I don't think you need proven abuse but if there is you should point that out.

CP: I think CP's can be a good test of solvency mechanisms of the aff I wont vote on a cp unless it has a net benefit. I think the CP is a reason why 1% risk of the DA means I should probably vote neg if the CP solves, even if case outweighs. I don't think the CP alone is a reason to vote neg, just because there is another way to solve the aff doesn't mean I shouldn't give it a try. Internal net benefits are real and I'll vote on a CP with one.

Condo: I tend to think condo is good unless the neg is just trying to time suck by reading like 5 CP's and then just going for whichever you cant get to in time

DA's: I have quite a bit of experience with these but not a lot to say on them, I think a DA being non uq means no risk. I think no Link means the same, I think the I/L strat is commonly underrated if the link doesn't actually trigger the mpx then there is probably no risk, MPX turning a DA is underrated too. If you go for the DA in front of me focus on the story of the DA and form a coherent story and focus on the internals if I understand how the plan actually causes the MPX I'm more likely to vote for the DA.

Spec: If you go for spec go for it just like you would T. I'll listen to 5 mins of spec and vote on it. Same thing as T I view it as a models debate and you should focus on the internals because that tends to show who actually controls the mpx debate.

The K: On the link level first. I think the links to the k page operate in the same way as links to the Disad. What I mean by this is that the more specific the better. Just vaguely describing "the apocalyptic rhetoric of the 1ac" seems like a very generic link which is prolly not that hard for a turn and or no link argument.

On the impact debate. I think you need to be weighing the impact of the kritik in the round I find that a lot of debaters get jumbled up in line by line and forget to actually weigh the impact. Just extending it and saying "they cause xyz" isn't good because it isn't developed and lacks the warranting of why that matters and why I should vote neg because they cause that.

On the alt debate. It's a common stereotype of K debaters that we can't explain the alt. What does the alt look like? Why is that good? And so on so forth. I think that while I hate this stereotype I dislike even more that in the rounds I've watched debaters have tended to just read their tag line of the alt solvency and the alt whenever asked in cx what does the alt look like, and or do that to extend the alt in later speeches. This is not a good way to debate and doesn't help you convince anyone your alt is good, you should be able to articulate the method of your alt whatever that may be and how that changes the debate space or the world. I don't think this means you need to be able to tell me exactly what goes on at every waking point of the day.

K aff:

On the case debate– I think k affs should link to the topic/debate in some way shape or form otherwise they feel very generic. specificity >>>>>>>> generics (on every arg tho). There should be a clear impact/impacts to the aff. I think where the aff falls short is in the method/advocacy debate I think that I should be able to understand the method and how it is able to resolve the impact in some way shape or form. I think the rob/roj should be clearly identified (the earlier in the round the better). That way I understand how I should evaluate the rest of the debate and process through things (I think in close debates both teams wind up winning different parts of the flow, I need to understand why your flow comes first). I think that performance K affs lose the performance aspect which sucks, I think that applying the performance throughout the rest of the debate is >>>>>> rather than losing it after the 1ac.

V FW– I tend to think debate is a game that shapes subjectivity – Ie y'all wanna win rounds and fairness is good, and also the arguments we make/debate shapes who we become as advocates. I will technically sway based off args made in the round (ie debate doesn't shape subjectivity/debate isn't a game) I think from the neg I need a clear interp with a brightline for what affs are and are not topical extended throughout the debate. I need a clear violation extended throughout the debate. I think standards act as internal links to the impacts of fairness and education. I think you should be able to win that your fairness is better than the affs fairness and that it outweighs their education. for the aff I also think you need a clear interp for what affs are and are not allowed under your model of debate extended throughout the debate. If you go for a we meet I think that the we meet should be clear and makes sense and also be throughout the debate. I think the aff should win that the TVA doesn't resolve your offense/education, that your fairness is just as good or better than the neg's model of fairness. And that your education outweighs. I think top level impact turns to t/fw are good. And use the rob/roj against the T debate (remember it all comes down to filtering what arguments are most important and come first)

KvK– uhhhhhhh I tend to get a little lost in these debates sometimes tbh bc I think its tough to evaluate and weigh two methods against each other especially if they aren't necessarily competitive with each other. I think in these debate the fw debate including the rob/roj is most important, and judge instruction is likely how you'd pick me up if I'm in the back of the room. If you don't tell me how to evaluate arguments and what they mean in context to the round we'll all prolly wind up frustrated at the end of the round bc I'll intervene or make a bad choice. (I'm not perfect and make mistakes so judge instruction is crucial to make sure I don't make them)

Email (For Email chains): natalieriggs05@gmail.com

Pronouns: They/Them

Policy Debate
I am mostly going to be judging based on knowledge of your resolution, speaking skills, and ability to answer arguments. I have done both debate and forensics throughout High School.

I debated at Lansing High School for 4 years

I currently do speech and debate at Western Kentucky University

email: nik.schintgentf@gmail.com

they/them

I don't care if you say judge, N, or Nik... just not Niklas

\\ I have an apd which makes it difficult to hear spreading so I'm probably not the best judge if you wish to do that, im sorry. Either way, you can go slow or spread in front of me but on the chance that you do spread don't blitz through the tags so I can actually pick up what you're trying to put down - the same goes for analytics or the rebuttals - if you need me to write make it so I can hear it. I cleared people at the end of my career as a debater and I will clear you now.//

General

Be respectful towards you're opponents

I think pre-round disclosure is good

Judge Instruction is going to be the most important for me. I want to know why you win the debate and how. Do comparative analysis, should be able to explain your evidence and why it is better than theirs and why this one thing means the debate goes entirely in your favor. If you don't then that's on you and will probably require me to do more intervening on my part.

I'm not going to read the evidence unless you tell me to. Don't just insert a rehighlight - tell me why it proves the aff/neg thesis to be false and then prove where that is in the ev.

I'm open to pretty much any arg - I've never had a problem with too many but if you as a debater think ev is bad and can be violent or exclusionary then tell me why. My debate partner and I in highschool made arguments like this in highschool so I can find them compelling.

IK this doesn't have a lot in it but I have a lot of the same debate philosophy as Jam Hoffman, Azja Butler, Joshua Michael, Alaina Walberg, Nate Nys, and some other folks as they have greatly influenced my debate career

___________________________________________________

Tech/Truth

I always find myself to be tech over truth - unless you give me a reason not to be

Disadvantages

I like disadvantages and think the creative ones with a good link story end up winning my ballot the most. There are lots of tricks teams don't utilize enough, especially with ptx DAs. Do the impact calc and link work - you know.

Counterplans

I love counterplans and I don't feel like they get used creatively enough. I don't think a counterplan needs to solve for the entirety of the aff but you should have a reason why it doesn't need to.

Kritiks/K-Affs

I did K debate my last year of highschool reading Afro-Pessimism, Afro-Futurism, Vampiric Necropolitics, Taosim, Cap, Empire, and Ableism. I think the link debate is always important, you need to be able to answer questions like how does it link to the aff/topic? Impacts need to be impacted out- duh. You need to explain the alt/advocacy and how it resolves your impacts. Teams don't do this enough and just repeat the name of their alternative and other teams don't call them out enough on it.

T-FW/Framework

I don't think the negative spends enough time trying to frame aff offense out of the debate and that causes the negative to lose lots of rounds. Same goes for the aff, there are sometimes just lots of easily conceded arguments that can cause you to immediately lose the debate. I find these debates become extremely messy and make following very difficult so please keep it organized.

Topicality

A lot of the same stuff on T-FW applies over here. T violations are better when they are carded and I don't see people answering we meets well enough

MISC.

Clipping is an academic malpractice and will result in a loss and low speaks.

Same with slurs, etc.

I've noticed I have lots of feedback sometimes, especially for novices, so I'm sorry if you do not like that. Sometimes my writing tone can come off as mean or passive aggressive, I pinkie promise its not.

I've done debate for 4 years and have gone to KSHSAA state for two of them in the Open division. My style is primarily traditional, persuasive debate. Think of it like a courtroom, not a chess board. I will still judge heavily based on who wins the flow, but your skill as a public speaker will also play a role in if you win my ballot.

Arguments

Pretty much any argument is okay. I will catch any T argument, but if the T doesn't actually apply/make sense on a debate theory level, I may flow the T arg to the aff. Ks are also good, but you will have to do a lot of work to explain the K to me, b/c I generally don't run Ks in round. Role of the ballot is important to me in a K debate -- what does my vote do?

if you run a counterplan, make it unconditional. i don't buy that condo is good. that's probably the only argument I wouldn't bother running with me as a judge

Theory

i prefer tech over truth until it gets to very outlandish and obviously untrue arguments

cx is binding by default -- Anything you say in cross-ex WILL apply in future speeches

do impact calc on both sides -- if you can't explain the significance of your harms/impacts i won't vote for it. i am able to interpret pretty much any set of evidence you throw at me but if you can't explain it in your own words it will be harder for me to consider.

i will automatically shoot down any problematic behavior (racism or racist rhetoric, disrespecting pronouns/gender identity, etc.)

4 years of debate (KDC/OPEN) at Lansing High

add me on the email chain gagethompsondebategang@gmail.com however I'd prefer speechdrop.net its overall faster

Top Level: I've learned as I've began judging more that I don't necessarily like certain arguments over others just how the arguments are ran and extended. Right now I'm big into the K in pretty much every way. That doesnt mean you dont have to explain anything to me in fact I believe that the kritik is the argument that will always require the most explaining but basically I'm cool with whatever you'll do just make sure to explain the argument and respond to what the other team says against it extend the voter and do impact calc and youll basically win my ballot. And dont be racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/or overall a dick it's prolly the fastest way to not only get speaker points docked but also to lose my ballot. Overall this activity should be fun and inclusive for all lets make it be that way.

More in depth version of how I evaluate

Judge intervention freaking sucks dont make me do it please that means extend voters/read voters and do impact calc/extend impacts. After getting screwed in a semifinals round because of judges intervening the idea of voting on something that never comes out of your mouth genuinely makes me like the worst human in the world.

T: On topicality I'll default to competing Interps unless you give me a reason to favor reasonability. I think competitive equity and education are the best impacts to run on T. IE: Its not necessarily about the ground you lose but the ground they gain bc lets be honest the aff already gets Infinite prep First and Last speech so they prolly shouldn't be getting another leg up on the neg. For the aff tho I find that "we meet" arguments are very convincing and if its pretty obvious you meet you dont have to win a counter interp for that. Also a lot of aff teams will read that Lit checks abuse ( I do this all the time LOL) but its not a good arg and is easily beaten with this line "Lit exists for everything just because the lit exists doesnt make what youre doing good for the activity" also if your neg focus on the impacts we see if affs can read untopical plans and win every aff round. Ie: they make being the neg impossible which means lower novice participation and lower rates of people coming into the activity. That's prolly the fastest way to win my ballot NGL because hey guess what if that happens I lose my job and the activity I love goes into the grave.

CP: ah yes this part of the paradigm oh boy put on your seat belt for this one... I like CP's I think that theyre a good test of the affirmative however too many people end up reading these and they develop into super complex theory debates super fast like lighting mcqueen fast. So lets break it down

Condo: Condo is good if the neg reads one cp i feel like they should be able to kick it and go for something else but if they read like 3 cp's come on G dont be like that please only read 1 cp so that way we all dont get confused.

PICS: haha PICS are super bad if you read one youre prolly gonna lose the round so dont theyre one of the most abusive args you can read.

50 states: easily permable unless you read tix IG even still dont know how i feel about 50 actor fiat so the aff could maybe snag you on that but it also depends on the topic. the framers lowkey never like to give neg ground on domestic topics so 50 states and like federalism/tix is all you got so im chill with them then just explain how they do the same thing as the aff or are better and that they avoid the NB

net ben: please please please for everything thats good in the world read a net ben with your CP otherwise i have no reason to vote for your CP

Consult CP's: I view these similarly to PICS because thats what they are change my mind

Delay CP's : Same exact thing as consult cp's and PICS because its a PIC

DA's: Not a whole lot to say here tbh Da's are pretty straight forward um make sure to tell me that they outweigh case if your neg and if youre aff prove that theyre either non unique/ turn the DA's link/ Turn the Impact and um given the neg doesnt answer that youll win id say. also if youre aff tell me why your case outweighs i dont just want to hear the words i also want to hear why. overall tho I want to hear debate in each level as you condense the round.

Spec: I have an interesting love hate relationship lowkey spec args are one of the nit pickiest things in the book and are older than a dinosaur. but I also love them for that reason exactly. make sure like a DA or ig more like T provide an interp, violation, standards, and a voter/MPX. ill vote on spec given that you actually go for it fully in the 2nr. it can be an effective strat tho if you read a spec/vagueness arg in order to protect the links to a politics DA or to some like agent specific DA.

K: This part of my paradigm used to be super vague but now is not :) ya boi got some experience with the kritik finally. Alright so as the aff the things I think you need to do to in round is one respond to every link including links of omission if not they have proof that you cause the impact to happen. second weigh the impact of the aff against the impact of the Alt. Third, perm the Kritik unless the perm would create a link of omission then be careful. Fourth challenge Alt solvency if the alt cant solve for the root cause of its problem it means I shouldnt vote for it. thats prolly the easiest way to tell you how to answer. you can also give me a ROB arg which tells me how i need to frame the debate round IE: h=whoever has the best durable solvency or whoever prevents the biggest impact in terms of magnitude. or whatever you wish it to be. and on the negative be able to defend everything above and any sketchy things the aff might do.

Speed: im okay with speed but beware if its not on the doc slow down and sign post otherwise i will lose track and wont get it on my flow and whatever i flow is king IE: if i dont catch it i wont use it in my RFD