My email is carolynsearscook@gmail.com carolyncook@smsd.org and I think it would be awesome for you all to start the email chain before I get to the debate so that we don't have to waste time doing it once I arrive:)

I debated in high school in Kansas from 1999-2003 (SME). I coached high school debate throughout college but did not debate in college. I was the director of debate at Lansing High School where I coached and taught from 2009-2018. This (23-24) is my 6th year directing and teaching speech & debate at Shawnee Mission South.

I dislike when debaters are mean. This activity is awesome--I believe that it pushes us and makes us better thinkers and people--and debaters cheapen that opportunity when we choose not to respect one another. Please just be kind humans.

I learned to debate and evaluate debates as a policy maker but also find that I much prefer seeing you do what you do best in rounds. That being said, you know your lit and arguments better than I do (at least you should). So:

1. If you don't think the aff should get to weigh their 1AC against the criticism, you have to tell me why--same if you think that we should abandon the topic as the aff.
2. If you want me to evaluate an argument and your 'warrant' is described as a specific term: that one word is not a warrant. . . you should include a description of WHY your claim is true/accurate/means you win. Debates that are heavily reliant on jargon that I am unfamiliar with will result in me being confused.
3. If you do little work on literature (especially lit I am not familiar with), please don't then expect me to do a bunch of work for you in the decision.

You should clearly articulate the arguments you want to forward in the debate--I value persuasion as an important part of this activity.

Please be organized--doing so allows me to focus on the quality of argumentation in the round. Debates are so much more fun to watch when you have a strategic approach that you execute with care. Talk about your evidence. Warranted and strategic analysis that demonstrates your understanding of your own arguments, and their interactions with your opponent's, make debates better.

I default competing interpretations on Topicality and think T debates should include case lists and topical version of the aff. I think that weighing impacts is important. I also just enjoy good case debate. I tend to find consult and and condition CPs to be cheating...but you still have to answer them. You should always answer conditionality.

I really prefer that you are as explicit about HOW you would like for me to evaluate the debate and WHY this approach is best.

Please speak clearly... if you are incomprehensible my flow will not be great and the quality of my evaluation of the round will likely decrease.

please add me to the chain– kareemhammouda@gmail.com

I’m a junior at KU. I debated in high school (open). For the 3 years since I’ve been coaching at SMS, mostly working with novices/2nd years. The extent of my knowledge on the topic is the novice case-list.

Because I did open, i’m most comfortable in slower debates.

I'm most familiar with policy oriented arguments, as this is the extent of my experience; However, I am absolutely open to other arguments as long as they are explained well.

Please be organized, signpost, provide roadmaps, etc.

Tell me how you want me to evaluate this round–ex. impact calc is important.

Disclosure is good

Cut cards ethically

Don't clip (I pay attention)

Racism/sexism/ other isms won’t tolerated, and will lose my ballot

TLDR; I’m a policy maker fLAY judge

If you have any specific questions let me know!

Daytona Hodson

Previous Olathe Northwest debater for 2 years (Including quarterfinals at Novice State)

Overall, debate is an educational event. Every competitor should actively participate and contribute to the argumentative landscape. This means promoting a environment that is inclusive of everyone (ie. being polite during CX and other team's speeches), yet competitive to decide a clear winner of the round. The first thing I look for in round is professionalism.

Topicality: While Topicality is meant to establish a more educational definition, I understand topicality as a time skew. When explaining topicality, I want to see all parts of the argument (Counter Interp, Violation, Standards, Voters). Without the key parts the entire argument can be lost. As the Aff team, meeting the interpretation of the Neg is good, but I strongly urge the Aff to provide the interpretation they used to develop their case to promote the educational aspect of topicality. Tell me why to prefer the definitions, debate the definitions. Use education and fairness as your reasons to prefer the counter interpretation.

CP / DA: I prefer a traditional negative argument including CP's and DA's. I look at DAs in four parts UQ, Link, Internal Link, and Impact. I prefer argumentation on the Link and Internal links as it directly brings the DA into relation with the AFF case, but if they have been already debated, Impact debate is the next best option. If the round consists of several different types of impacts (Dehumanization, poverty, war ...etc) I want to see framework on which Impact should be preferred. This can be in the form of Impact Calculus (Magnitude, Time Frame, and Probability), card evidence by an author, or both. Addressing framework should use impact calculus as the reason to prefer the other interpretation. CP's don't need to be topical. If they are topical, that is perfectly fine, but explain why it can't be achieved under the AFF plan. Also, if a CP does not have any net benefits, then I will not vote on it as you shouldn't prefer the CP. I will vote against the argument, and not the team. As long as you run other arguments, I will continue to look at your other arguments not apart of the CP.

K's: If I had to choose to hear or not hear a K, I would lean more on the NO side. I'm not familiar with K debate. I am open to hear it, but you must explain the importance of each piece of evidence and type of argument. If you run a K and the other team drops the argument, Obviously it is an easy vote for the team that ran it. If you want to run a K-AFF, same thing applies.

Theory: I support arguments with Theory about Fiat, Topicality of CP's, and other arguments. The largest piece to win my ballot with theory is to explain why debate overall is better with it being changed. Use Fairness and Education as the voter.

Inherency/ Solvency/ Advantages: Inherency is why you should be passing the plan. If a Neg team can prove that the plan has either already happened or the problem doesn't exist, then the NEG will win. While advantages are benefits to passing your plan, they are not the reason to pass your plan. I will vote NEG if the plan doesn't solve. If the NEG shows that the case will not solve, then your plan no longer has advantages. Circumvention is a viable argument, but the NEG must prove all of the solvency is gone and not just a small part of it. Even if the AFF still solves for some substantial amount, they will win on Solvency. For any governmental circumvention case by the NEG, I am open to listen on how the plan will be circumvented after it's implementation. On Advantages, I look to see that the AFF prevents the largest impact in the round (look at how I measure impacts in CP / DA section). I also look to see if the advantages you claim are probable. Maintaining the link story is the most important part for an AFF team to maintain their advantages in round.

Flowing / Judge Requests: I often cross apply several arguments when flowing. The evidence used in one argument will be compared to the other evidence used in the round. I also please ask don't speed read. I think it completely devalues the entire point of debate. Obviously talking fast is perfectly fine, but if the goal is to run a ridiculous amount of off-case arguments just so you can say that the other team forgot to address 1 of your 5 arguments, that will reflect on your ballot.

I ask that you please provide me with a copy of evidence before speeches. This enables me to better listen to arguments and look into accusations of inaccurate claims by teams. I also ask for closed cross examination as it provides the most education for individuals during the activity. I strongly encourage teams to communicate with each other and track each others time. Unless specifically stated by the tournament, prep times should not include putting evidence on a flash drive. The most important thing I ask is for coherent road maps. If a team brings up new arguments in the rebuttals, I will not vote on them. A response by the other team directing me to the new argument would be appreciated, but not required.

While judging the largest thing I look for is sportsmanship. During my time in debate, I have seen the good, ugly, and bad. Don't make arguments personal attacks on other competitors. At the end of the day, you have to debate both sides of an argument at a tournament. After that, the best way to my ballot is preventing solvency. If the AFF solves, explain why the disadvantages overwhelm solving the problem.

Hello! I debated at Shawnee Mission South for all four years of high school (2016-2019 topics), and I did forensics for two years. I competed in Mock Trial for two years at Washburn University, and I'm now a 1L at Washburn Law. If you want to include me in an email chain, please use this email address: eqjdb8@gmail.com. Please keep in mind that, while I do have debate experience, I have not debated since the 2019-2020 season. My technical knowledge may be a bit rusty. : )

General Notes

As a general rule, be respectful. If someone has preferred pronouns, please use those pronouns. If you do not feel comfortable sharing your pronouns, then you don't have to. To make things simpler, on the ballot, I will refer to each speaker by position (i.e., 1A, 2A, 1N, 2N) or by speech.

I will, for the most part, consider voting and speakers separately. In my opinion, debate is about both substance and performance. Even if you are not the most eloquent speaker, I may still find your arguments to be more substantive, or vice versa. On the ballot, I may leave comments about your public speaking skills, but these do not influence how I vote unless it affected my ability to understand your arguments. (Also, do note that, in the interest of avoiding a low point win, I try not to award the losing team better cumulative speaker ranks than the winning team.)

I prefer closed CX, but I'm willing to listen to open CX if both teams would rather do that. The only thing I would caution against is having just one debater asking and answering the majority of questions on behalf of both partners. To me, CX is a great time to show how well you know your evidence and demonstrate that you're not just reading pre-prepared blocks. If you have to rely on your partner to answer everything/don't trust your partner to be able to answer things, then something is wrong.

I try to flow the rounds to the best of my ability, but this also means that you should have clear organization and structure in your speeches. This can include signposting when switching arguments, saying "and" or something equivalent before a new card, or labeling your cards as A, B, C, etc. If I can't tell that you're reading a new piece of evidence, I may not flow it as such. A little organization goes a long way.

Voting (Win/Loss)

I will try to vote according to the framework established in the round, within reason. So, if the only framing read is extinction first, then I'll vote based on the worst extinction impacts. If no framing is read in round, then my default order of priority is probability, then magnitude, then timeframe. I like hearing impact calculus and when you talk about things in cards beyond just the tagline. On that note, the Aff winning impact calculus is less important if they can't win that they solve. Similarly, the Neg winning impact calculus is less important if they can't win that the plan links to the DA or the turn.

I am not a fan of spreading because it can be difficult to understand and keep up with. If I can't understand what you are saying, then I can't take those statements into consideration when voting. I'm not well read on Ks either, so you probably shouldn't read one in front of me. (On a similar note, it's also hard for me to vote Aff if you don't have a plan text. If that sounds like your Aff, please reconsider running it in front of me, or be very thorough in explaining why I should still vote for you.)

If you run T, it should be on a blatantly untopical Aff, or you need to explain the violation and standards very well. I generally don't approve of T arguments being read as a way to waste time, but I understand that there are some rounds where you really don't have anything else to argue. I default to competing interpretations, but I can be swayed toward reasonability instead. Don't forget your standards and voters.

I like counterplans; I think they're great! However, I like them more when they do something different from the plan action. If you read a plan-inclusive CP (or PIC), you need to clearly explain why your addition to or tweaking of the Aff's plan is both necessary and an improvement over just the plan by itself. I don't have any strong opinions on conditionality or perms, so it's up to you to convince me how I should feel about those in round.

When you read evidence, you need to read more than just the tags and authors. That is just making a claim, not actually explaining or proving the argument. If you don't read the actual evidence or substance of the card, I won't flow the card or take that claim into consideration, unless you read the card's contents later or re-introduce the claim as an analytic argument.

If you want to call out an opponent for saying something you think or know is false, then you should provide a source for your fact check, even if you don't have a card on hand for it. The only exception would be if the correction is common knowledge. I will not automatically assume that you are correct just because you say your opponent is wrong.

New arguments in the 2AC and 2NC are fair game, unless you can convince me in round that they shouldn't be allowed. They are constructive speeches for a reason. However, I don't think the 1NR should have any new arguments, since it's a rebuttal. I'm not likely to budge on this point, since the Neg team has an entire 8 minute 2NC that they can introduce the new argument in. If I hear a new argument in the 1NR, I won't flow it.

The 2NR and the 2AR should not have any new cards being read (nor any new arguments, but that should go without saying); however, new cards in the 1AR to respond to new cards or new arguments in the Neg Block are okay. If new cards are read in the 2NR or 2AR, I will not flow them. If you feel that the argument must be made, then try to make it an analytic argument and connect it to a previous argument from the round.

Speaker Points/Rank

These are some easy ways to lose or gain speaker points with me.

- You will lose speaker points if you are unnecessarily rude or hostile to the opposing team.

- You will lose speaker points if you swear in round and it's not a direct quote from a card. (Remember, you are still a representative of your school when debating, so you should remain professional.)

- You will lose speaker points if I can't understand what you're saying.

- You will lose speaker points if you can't ask and/or answer questions in CX.

- You will lose speaker points if you continually interrupt or try to talk over the other competitor in CX (or your partner in open CX).

- You will lose speaker points if you look only at your computer/notes the entire time. (Eye contact is a good communication strategy, though not in excessive amounts.)

- You will lose speaker points if your delivery is consistently monotone.

- You will lose speaker points if you read new cards or bring up new arguments in the 2NR/2AR.

+ You will gain speaker points if you have an organized structure in your speeches.

+ You will gain speaker points if you appropriately vary your tone, volume, and inflections to emphasize important points.

+ You will gain speaker points if you can deliver an impromptu rebuttal (i.e., not reading off a script, though you can still refer to your notes).

+ You will gain speaker points if you sound confident in what you are saying.

+ You will gain speaker points if you directly respond to the opposing team's specific arguments.

I debated policy throughout high school and a bit of PF

She/Her

Put me on the email chain, please! loveleenka02@gmail.com

- Flashing/Email + Tech Issues aren't a part of prep

- I'll flow and tolerate spreading but I prefer a few well-developed arguments over a lot of random arguments any day

- Even if I have your case right in front of me, it doesn't mean you can spread the hell out of your case, still BE CLEAR

- I flow cross-ex

- BE RESPECTFUL --> Respect each other's pronouns, no homophobic, racist, etc language

- I'm cool with tag-team

- PLEASE mute yourself while someone else is speaking

REMEMBER:

- The neg get's condo BUT you should not have contradicting arguments. This means running a cap K with an econ DA.

- Impact calc in the last speech is v good

CASE

- LOVE CASE

- If you have well-researched arguments in front of me and reasons why aff doesn't work I'm happy to vote for that

- I think case is a very underutilized part of debate

- I would like at least some offense from the neg whether that be a case turn or an off case position but I am willing to vote neg on presumption if you convince me

T

- I don't hate T debate

- Convince me why aff is abusive

- I don't like arguments that are just a time suck

K

- I hate complex K's and one's that rely on jargon in order to make sense

- You NEED specific links to the aff, I do not like generic K's that only deal with the resolution. The aff needs to somehow make your harms worse

- You don't need some grand change outside of the debate round, as long as you convince me you solve for your harms I am fine with that

- I'm not a K debater, so if you decide to run a K make sure it's thorough

CP/DA

- If you're going to run PICs bad, specify abuse and why PICs good is better for debate

- A good CP has strong solvency

- Have a competitive CP with a net benefit

- No multiple conditional planks, stick to it!

- I have a high threshold for politics DA

- DA needs a strong internal link

- DA needs to specifically link to aff

Hi, my name is Arden, I did four years of varsity level debate for Shawnee Mission South and graduated in 2020. That being said, I am at Colorado School of Mines, so I do not debate in college, so it's been a few months since I've done anything with debate.

If you're doing an email chain you can put me on it: ardenlarsen11@gmail.com

Speed

Generally speaking, speed is fine, but since it's been a while since I've listened to it so bear with me. I would like the ev in case I miss something.

CP's and DA's

Whatever you want to run is fine

K's

Feel free to run any K you want, but I'll want to hear an explanation about how it interacts with the resolution, and keep in mind I did very little K debate in high school.

Other

I'll listen to pretty much anything as long as you can defend it-- please don't be offensive or rude.

Lmk if y'all have specific questions. :)

When it comes to debating, My most important thing is to make sure the debaters understand the arguments that they are presenting instead of Just reading off card. Especially for Novices. If you can't understand what a card says, And summarize it briefly in your own words, I would much rather prefer that you Read a different card.

I enjoy the persuasive aspect of debate far more than I do the technical aspect. Discussion is more than just providing cards and answering questions. It's crafting a very clear narrative. Make it as obvious as you possibly can. If i have to the thinking for myself, i might come to a conclusion you dont want me to

Clash is also something that I do find important. Instead of reading past eachother, I would rather atleast most of the conversation stay on the course of talking back and forth about specific cards.

Fairness args such as Theory, Topicality, And K's are alright with me, but argumentation of how those should operate is something that we should do In the round.

Although I have my own opinions formed, I try to do as little thinking for myself. Debate is about being persuasive. Take the time to lead me to the conclusion you want me to reach.

If you say the word "Mold" or "trumpet" once through out your speech, I'll know you actually read my paradigm and respect you more for taking the time to read this, since I did type it all!

Paradigm

Add me to the email chain - CyanRidge@lclark.edu

I am a second year at Lewis and Clark College. I compete in LD and competed at NFA. I competed in policy, public forum, and congressional debate all throughout high school. I have been to nationals, the DCI all years, and placed at state tournaments.

My philosophy & experience: I have judged two high school tournaments this year so I know a little amount about the current topic.

I will listen to any argument and am very open-minded. I evaluate the link debate heavily when facing nuke war impacts. MOST IMPORTANTLY: I will absolutely not tolerate any behavior that is racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/discriminatory in any way and will not hesitate to vote you down for it. Be nice to your opponents in cx don't make me angry.

Speed?

Any speed that you are comfortable with is fine with me. I will tell you to slow or clear if I am having a hard time. As long as both teams can spread and keep up then fast is excellent. BE considerate of opponents who may not spread and match their energy.

K's?

I love performative affs, k debates, and identity politics. I’m generally familiar with most K lit but please do not assume I know exactly what you are talking about.

Topical policy?

fantastic! go off.

I really appreciate impact calc done in the NR. Although speed and tech are important, explaining your arguments in context is the most valuable skill to learn in the debate.

I write lots on ballots, but feel free to send/ask me questions! You can reach me at cyanridge@lclark.edu

I am currently an elected official, 16 years as County Clerk/County Election Official, and have over 20 years experience in politics and policy. I work at the state and national level on elections policy and legislation. My background is in Speech and Forensics, have judged Forensics and Congress but new to judging Policy Debate, so clarity and sign posting can be helpful. Working at levels of government, I am extremely familiar with policy, legislative processes and political issues. I appreciate logical well researched arguments presented professionally and look forward to teams using those tools to persuade me. Ad hominem, insulting or demeaning arguments don't work for me. Because of my background, presentation does play into speaker points, be sure I can understand you so extensively spreading not appreciated. Cross-X and clash are vital part of the debate round, if used sucessfully it can strategically set-up your position and also give the judge reasons for voting against the other ballot.

Add me to the email chain :) tuoheydebate@gmail.com

I don't like asking for pronouns in rounds. It could force someone to out themselves to their partner and just lead to uncomfortable situations in general. That being said, I don't assume pronouns, I will simply address you by your name and/or your speaker position.

Experience:

- 3 years debating at Shawnee Mission South

- 2 years on varsity

- 2019-2020 DCI

Unfortunately, I do not do college debate at KU (engineering major tings) and I do not have experience debating on this topic. HOWEVER, I consider myself very informed on prison reform and criminal justice as it is an interest of mine. When running Ks on this topic, be sure that you are explaining it well. Don't assume I have heard all the usual args on this topic, but I do have enough background knowledge where I will be able to decipher what is true.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will listen to everything, but I definitely have preferences for how I like debates to fold out. I will NOT vote purely based on personal biases or preferences, but it is always good to adapt to your judge.

Yes, open cross-ex is good.

Speed: Any speed is fine, as long as you are not slurring your words. I will not hesitate to clear you if I can't understand. If you spread badly, don't spread. If you spread, slow down for tags and authors.

T: I'm not a huge topicality debater, but topicality is all about competing interps. Make sure you are answering and extending all the parts! If you spread, don't forget to slow down for theory and T, it makes it really hard to flow.

Disads: No preferences, I like them. I especially like when the disads turn case.

CPs: Your CP has to solve what it says it solves. Articulate what the world of the perm looks like and why that is good/bad. I really like counterplans, be clever! If you can use some of their evidence as a solvency advocate, that's amazing.

Ks: I like Ks. I wouldn't recommend running Ks your novice year, but if you can do it well, go for it. I'm most familiar with Neolib, Fem, and Security Ks. I am not familiar with psychoanalytical Ks, be careful. Make sure you win a link and an impact! I don't think the alt always needs to solve, I'm completely fine if you kick out of it (just watch out for condo, otherwise this makes for a fun debate). Framework is also important to a K and you should communicate how I should be evaluating the round, otherwise I will likely default to my own K opinions. Make sure you understand the literature of the K, don't run a K just to be edgy. I likely won't vote on an arg I think you are explaining wrong or just completely don't understand.

Theory: I'm a big fan of theory. I don't think theory is a reason to reject the team, just reject the arg. You can go for any theory, just make sure you articulate it well. Don't make your theory blocks whiny.

Miscellaneous:

- Be nice! I will call you out if you are rude during cross-ex or speeches and you will lose speaker points. Help keep debate a safe space. If you are disrespectful (laughing during other's speeches, saying problematic/offensive things, or making cross-ex threatening) I will not hesitate to tell your coach!

- Stealing prep will also dock you speaker points, as well as taking wayyyy too long to flash docs. I understand the occasional computer issue, but we should not be waiting 5 minutes for one doc.

- love that line-by-line! this is something that should be present throughout the entire debate. Gimme dat clash.

- please don't shadow extend your args. If you say "extend our case" or "extend this author", I will not be doing all that work for you. Extend the warrants.

- I think cross-ex is the easiest way to tell if someone is a good or bad debater. Be confident, you know your stuff!

- don't be a tight-wad. Debate should be fun! I love joking around and getting to know people.

- death is always bad

All in all, I think debate is a great way to showcase cleverness. Have fun with it, but do not be rude.