Hi, my name is Sarah and I graduated from Shawnee Mission East in 2020 and was the 2A and the 1N if anyone cares.

So for a quick paradigm, I am pretty much up for any arguments that you can present well. I will vote on your understanding of arguments over mine. I know what T is, but I will evaluate it by how well I believe you understand what you are reading. (Note: If the affirmative drops T it is an automatic win for the neg as long as they point out the affirmative's mistake.)

Quick comment on cx: I would consider myself an assertive questioner and will continue talking when interrupted so yes — be assertive. Just don't let it get to the point of absurdity b/c I will still weigh it in speaks. Having said that I don't really care about open or closed cx but make sure not to overpower your partner if you chose to do open cx.

On the Neg -

I love Topicality

Read detailed CPs (if the CP is just a plan text it will be hard to convince me to vote on it so make sure you have specific solvency and explicitly explain your net benefit)

DAs need to have uniqueness, internal link, link, and impact. Be sure to answer offense and explain your link chain well. Tell me the story of the disad.

I also don't mind K if ran correctly

On the Aff -

Solvency is one of the most important arguments in a round. If the neg chooses not to address solvency then I will assume that the affirmative can solve for all advantages because I have not been told differently. That being said if the neg does choose to go for solvency the aff almost always has to win it in order for me to vote for the plan. On that note, be able to articulate your plan well. I need to understand what it is I'm voting for before I put your team on my ballot.

I'm a lay judge, but I used to do high school LD debate.

I am a lay judge. I did pfd and policy, as well as info and congress in high school.

I am a lay judge!

Policymaker/Games player: I believe it is important to win the debate and the contest. I default to policymaker but I also think winning the "game" is important and is a way to level the playing field.

Ill pretty much go along with anything as long as you defend it and make a good argument. I believe policy debate is about exploring policies, ideas, and concepts, and testing the theoretical reasoning behind a specific notion. That said, it is important to try and win the competition aspect of the activity and if you make bad arguments it is difficult to win.

A little about me, I work in the Government Affairs/Legal industry, I debated about 15 years ago, I have judged sporadically since 2008/09.

I debated in high school and began judging while I was in college. I believe the purpose of the debate is active learning and building critical thinking skills. I am a stock issue voter; I am open to being told what debaters find salient in a round and how I should vote. I am also a flow judge, so I like being told how/where to flow. Road mapping is so important to me, that I am fine with them being off time. With that done, and good tagging/signposting, speed is not a problem. If it compromises your ability to read fluently or speak articulately, slow down. The cards do not speak for the debater- the debater speaks for the card (provide summaries or explain relevance). That being said, I am open to Ks and turns. I do not like counterplans, as I think they are a kind of a debate hack. Policy debate is about policy- real world problems, real world solutions, real world consequences. Impact calc and solvency args are important for both teams. NEG teams, I do not care how generic your disad is if you can make a good argument for your link. AFF teams, inherency, topicality and a thorough understanding of your own plan are musts. I like speakers to fill time and take advantage of cross-examinations for clarification purposes. These things ensure a good CLEAN debate (with lots of clash).. because courtesy/professionalism matters! My email address is elizahemmer@gmail.com

Overview: I was a policy debater from KCMO circuit with Pembroke (class of '19). Qualified to NSDA Nats in policy.

General: Feel free to run any args you want, as long as it's clear you understand what you're saying. I'll be able to handle it as long as you provide overviews and explanations. I won't vote for an arg without a warrant/impact. Proper impact calc and framing are a must. Quality > quantity. Don't think sending me a speech doc is a reason to stop enunciating. Tech > truth. You should be writing my ballot for me. CLASH IS KEY.

Speed: Speed is fine. I won't bother flowing if you aren't clear. Keep it simple and go down the flow. Pay attention to what I’m doing (having a computer doesn’t mean you can’t make eye contact) eg if I stop flowing.

Affs: I don't have much experience with K affs, but I don't have anything against them. I've always preferred policy affs.

Disads/CPs: Love them. Down for anything (e.g. topical CPs) but be ready to debate theory on it.

T: Spicy stuff. Love a good T debate, as long as args are well warranted. Don't just yell "reasonability" at me.

Theory: Even spicier stuff. But don't just spread blocks to overload your speech.

*Ask if you want to know anything else*

IMPORTANT: I will automatically vote you down if you are rude, disrespectful, yell over your opponents, or act sexist/racist/discriminatory in any sort of way. I believe in morality in debate. Don’t be a horrible person just to win, because you won’t win my ballot.

Policy debater from KCMO area. Qualified to NSDA Nats year bevore COVID in CX. Never went to Circuit tournaments, but spent a good two years trying to convince my coach.

General: Feel free to run any args you are confident with. I'll be able to handle it as long as you provide overviews and explanations. I won't vote for an arg without a warrant/impact. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE articulate your impacts. You can read a dozen nuke war cards for mpx calc, but if I don't get an "X impact outweighs Y impact because..." you leave it up to me to pick the impact I like more.Quality > quantity especially in online formats. Don't think sending me a speech doc is a reason to stop enunciating. You should essentially write the ballot for me.

Speed: Speed is fine, but keep in mind that if you have a bad mic or a bad connection, I won't pick up on all of your words if you go too fast. I can't flow if you cut out every other word. Pay attention to what I’m doing (I don't need eye contact for the entire speech, but if I don't have a pen in my hand, you're probably losing me).

Affs: I don't have much experience with K affs, but I don't have anything against them. I've always run policy affs

Disads/CPs: Love them. Down for anything (e.g. topical CPs) and it goes both ways. If you want to read a weird cp I'll listen to a weird turn.

T: I liked running T when I competed, its only karma if I have to listen to them when I'm the judge

K's: tbh I've never won a round while running a K, I hope you are better at running them than I am. Honestly, I feel like either the perm solves or the alt fails most of the time.

Theory: Fun stuff, just don't run it if you don't know how to, I've seen too many teams that don't know how to run A-spec, but try and fall flat. It was a free win in highschool, but now its a painful round to judge. Also, don't just spread blocks of theory to overload your speech, if the aff can carry condo bad through the 2ar it will probably hurt your odds

Cross: I don't flow cross so realistically this doesn't matter much, but here are a few preferences: Don't give big flowery answers to stall time. Its obvious when you do it and I will doc you on speaker points for it. Giving a confident no is way better than a long drawn out shaky maybe. If you are uncomfortable with your answer, I will probably feel the same way.

*Ask if you want to know anything else*

IMPORTANT: I will auto vote you down if I see rude, disrespectful, or discriminatory behavior.

Vishesh Patel (Pronounced Vish - Aysh) *updated as of March 21

email: vipatel67@gmail.com

Debate experience: I debated Policy for 4 years at Pembroke Hill and graduated in May of 2017. I'm currently a student at Washington University in St. Louis doubling in Computer Science and Healthcare Management and plan on attending WashU's masters in CS program for the 2021-2022 academic school year.

I'm a Flow judge, I will be flowing your round. I'll briefly outline what I want to see from Aff/Neg.

For both teams: Feel free to talk fast but don't start spreading, I was never really a fan of the concept. Also, I'll vote on whatever you choose to make voting issues and I'll also consider impact calculus. Make sure to cover the flow as best as you can! Make sure to roadmap before speeches and be organized for yourselves, for your opponents, and for me as well.

Aff: I want to see you extend your advantages and case across the flow whenever you can and make sure to do impact calculus because I'll be weighing the impacts of the Aff vs. Neg scenarios in my decision.

Neg: I know this topic is a bit harder to run generic offcase on, but I want to see as healthy a mix as possible of offcase v case specific arguments in your constructives. I've seen Neg teams pretty much only run case, and they end up losing because the Aff 9/10 times will be prepared for those attacks and win on impact calc. Don't run any weirdly overly complex K's (you can still run K's of course just), but otherwise feel free to run anything you feel would strategically make sense, just debate it well.

Overall, I'll vote on the arguments left standing at the end of the debate and will let the debaters guide me through what's important in the round. Make sure everything is structured properly and also to extend/point out drops for me.

Last thing - be proud of yourself for participating in this activity. You may not realize it now, but you have built up lots of communication, argumentation, and presentation skills that a lot of people do not have. It's going to help you out so much in interviews and life in general, I promise. The second thing, be proud of yourself for doing this during a pandemic. It's definitely weird and different, and you should be proud of yourself for adjusting and being able to compete like this. If you're a debater I'm going to judge in a round, I'm looking forward to seeing your round and regardless of the outcome, you rock and I wish you the best going forward.

I have no speech and debate experience. I am looking for good speaking and presentation.

Mubariz Tahirkheli (Pronounced Moo-bar-is Tar-Kelly)

Please add me to the email chain: mtahirkheli20@gmail.com

Experience and Overview: I was a 4 year Policy Debater and Original Orator at The Pembroke Hill School in Kansas City, Missouri. I graduated from Pembroke Hill in 2020, and I am now attending Washington University in St. Louis, though I am not participating in any college level speech or debate program as of now. My debate experience was in a lay-centered circuit, but I occasionally had slow flow and fast flow rounds when it came down to it. I qualified to NSDA nationals in Policy my senior year, but my school opted out due to the online format. I have now judged Varsity Policy, Novice LD, PFD, and Policy. Most of my preferences on argumentation on here are about Policy, so if I am judging you in another event, make sure to ask me any questions!

TLDR:

Clarity is the most important part of debate for me. I will try my best to understand the argument you present, no matter its complexity, but if you aren't clear enough in your delivery or the explanation, it may as well not be an argument. I prefer policy to K debate, but do what you want. Again, I'm trying to be open minded to all arguments. There are specific arguments I might not be able to handle, but you'll need to read on to learn more.

General:

Speed: With the aid of the speech documents, I can handle flowing rounds up to speeds of 300-350 words per minute, but so long as you are clear. Honestly, if you really like, you can go faster if you are extremely clear, but I might tell you "clear" so slow down if I do. Clarity is the most important part of delivery to me. Please be respectful to your opponents on the matter of speed as well, don't spread if they are not up for it. As to what speed I prefer, rounds in which everyone is speaking at a pace of 240-300 is ideal. One note on speed I will reiterate later on: if you are reading high theory or critical positions, I would prefer you don't spread them (max 225-230 wpm). I really want to understand the position you read without making any limitations to what you can and cannot read, so that is one wish, above all, I hope you all can fulfill for me.

Signposting: If you don't signpost to the point where your speed drastically decreases and is extremely clear you're moving from one card or argument to the next, don't blame me for missing it on the flow.

Overviews and Extension: I don't think you need to say "Extend ____ in 20" at the top of the flow so long as at the top of the flow you give a good story and explanation of the page of flow. I think saying "Extend/Cross-apply ____ in 20," or some other form, is necessary when you're trying to answer a newly made argument with a card you already read.

If you are winning the flow absolutely, but you are being disrespectful, racist, discriminatory, etc, I won't vote for you (this includes to your own partner). I've seen and heard of too many people in my circuit giving up on debate because of the toxic environment, and I cannot endorse such a bad representation of the activity.

Arguments:

Topicality: T was one of my favorite arguments to run and write cases of in high school, but I only ever ran it when I knew it made absolute sense. If you run T, you should know how to run it. Topicality for me is mostly about the interpretations and how they are a measure of good debate. So, mainly focus on developing your interpretations with strong analytics on standards and voters. One note worthy of mentioning is that you should run T not as to overwhelm your opponent, but to actually promote good debate and clash on whether the AFF is topical. I would hate to write an RFD in which I think the AFF is reasonably topical, but they lost the Topicality flow.

Framework: For me, framework is its own page of flow and in order to win it, you need to have in-depth analysis on your FW and the opponent's FW. Don't read a lot of cards on framework in the 1AC, two or three should be the max.

DAs: Specific links are the way to go unless you can make a generic link work with enough analysis (one CX concession won't usually work for me). I dislike DAs that have a link/IL/impact story that become really long. You really have to do a lot of work if you want to read a link/IL/impact story like this for me to vote on it.

CPs: You have to really explain the severance perm should you decide to read one. I don't think you should read an intrinsicness perm with me as the judge as I have only heard of them and never debated one and don't know the theory arguments on them. I prefer if you have solvency advocates of the CP. I will choose to judge kick so long as the situation makes sense. Also, Delay CPs are bad and unfair, I ran them a few times in high school and felt horrible after winning a round with them. They just don't feel legitimate to me.

Performance AFFs: I don't think you should read a Performance AFF in front of me. I have no experience with them.

Ks and Critical AFFs: I have some experience with Ks, and you can run them with me as judge so long as you are clear and don't spread (max 225-250 wpm). The reason I want you to speak slower is so that I understand the arguments and so that a team doesn't have a disadvantage because they are less familiar with the K you are running. I have a particular interest for learning more critical arguments, and I'm sure your opponents do too, so please let this aspect of the round be as fully educational as possible. Please run specific links to Ks, or at least generate a sound link in CX. As for critical AFFs, I have really no experience with them, but feel free to run them so long as you explain ROB and voters as clearly as possible.

Miscellaneous:

Lots of clash on case is ideal

I judge the round usually on how the debaters want me to judge it. You tell me what the voters are. You tell me the role of the ballot.

This paradigm was made by my son who is a champ policy debater.

I debated in high school for 4 years and at the university of kansas for four 4 years. Nevertheless that was a while ago and things have changed.

I'm a policymaker, do not tell me not to be

I'm very traditional and think that it is the job of the neg to negate the resolution and the job of the aff to affirm the resolution. So do not read topical counterplans, do not read k affs

Speed is not a problem for me, spread as fast as you want,

if you want to read a k treat me vey flay or lay, they did not have these when i debated

Ill listen to framework, but will most likely default to nuke war or any big stick impact over any structural violence impact