Our activity should first and foremost be an educational experience for everyone involved. Because we are practicing an academic exercise in a competitive space, sportsmanship is imperative. I tell my students to model the type of debate they would like to compete against; if the way they engage in the activity makes their opponents want to quit our activity...they are doing it wrong. Debate should be for everyone - a healthy debate circuit, like a healthy democracy, thrives off high engagement/participation. I invite you to engage with this narrative; if you love this activity, you should want to share it with as many as possible.

Debaters are sometimes shocked when they come into a round asking me for my paradigm; I will often defer my paradigm to be determined first by the preferences of their opponents. I bring this up because I would rather all participants be comfortable setting norms with one another prior to engaging with what my preferences are as an adjudicator--it makes for a more balanced debate rather than one team having an advantage because they are better at adapting to a specific paradigm of any specific judge. A fast way to lose my ballot is to treat people (judges, opponents, and spectators) within the debate space with disregard because your goals of winning don't require their preferences to be met. I'm not a lay judge, but the debate should primarily be accessible by everyone in the space in order for it to be maximally educational. If I'm on a panel, I pay attention to the paradigms of my fellow judges (and the experience level of your opponents)...so it's always safe to assume I'll vote you down for debate for exploitive, patronizing, and exclusionary behaviors and language. *Extend this line of thought to the literature you're reading and the narratives you're sharing; the people in your impact scenarios matter, they are not a chess piece in your "game of words".

Rather than seeing the debate space as "competitive" (yes, I acknowledge a judge determines a winning side--or best reasoned/articulated/defended side), I choose to see the debate space as "collaborative". Debate asks us to engage in perspective taking; the purpose of switch-side debate is so students gain perspective based on research and critical thought. Ideally, we (judges, spectators, coaches, and participants) should enter into the debate space with good faith; with the goal of everyone ending the round having learned something new, considered a different point of view, and enjoyed the experience (and with the sentiment that it was worth it/we'd do it again if we could).

I reward teams who bring topical research into the space. Fewer substantive arguments with thorough analysis of the literature will always be preferred over trying to win because your opponent doesn't have time to respond to an argument (because you chose to run many under-developed arguments). I understand and enjoy theory, kritik, performance, and fw/value debate when they are done well. I don't think it is productive or required to advocate a position you don't believe in; you may not get to choose your side, but you do get to choose your arguments. 99% of the time I'm going to vote for legitimate advocacy over an overly technocratic strategy developed specifically for the round. Internal consistency is important to me - especially when there are in-round impacts being weighed.

I generally view the debate space as both a lab/playground for testing ideas and *also* as a space for engaging in deliberative democracy - because of this, I discourage deterministically framed arguments that disempower or remove agency from others sharing the space. There's a difference between framing an argument as non-unique and framing it as *inevitable*; if your opponents do this, you'll probably be able to win the impact by making space for an alternate narrative in the round (and I may likely be willing to vote on the in-round impact of preferring your alternate narrative). For example, the inability to eliminate corruption or suffering isn't a reason to reject a plan or framework that minimizes it (this is also true for narratives of peace as the absence of violence, narratives of environmental stewardship, and so on). You'll do well to not dismiss your opponent's impacts in a way that perpetuates a narrative that excludes an alternate narrative that might be better for us to engage with. I enjoy when debaters challenge narratives that often go unquestioned as a means to empower.

I'm going to flow, you should too--it's annoying when you argue against evidence your opponent doesn't read - don't think of reading/skimming through your opponent's files as a substitute for listening/flowing (conversely, don't give your opponents large quantities of evidence you don't plan on reading).

Aside from the rules of the activity, I ask that you're open to earnestly engaging with arguments as your opponents present them; not everyone is taught how to debate the same way, and part of what makes our activity beautiful is the potential it has to evolve and change to become *more* inclusive. I generally believe all constructive speeches are fair game for new lines of argumentation (though topicality probably needs to be run directly subsequent to the interp violation), and rebuttals require debaters to both consolidate and prioritize - I believe *how* we choose to consolidate and *what* we prioritize in rebuttals to be revelatory and this will be where you may get yourself into trouble with internal consistency.

Treat the activity and everyone in the round with respect--that'll get you far.

Introduction:

I have coached high school speech and debate since Fall 2011 at Ladue Horton Watkins High School in Saint Louis, Missouri. Our program has Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Policy Debate, and Public Forum Debate. I have judged all three types of debate at local invitationals, invitationals throughout the state, the MSHSAA State Tournament, NCFL Grand National Tournament, and NSDA National Tournament. I did not compete in high school or college. I coach and judge on a primarily lay circuit. I have also judged Extemporaneous Debate and Congressional Debate.

Overview:

I view judging as an integral part of coaching. Quality debate rounds in front of knowledgeable judges is key to growth for competitors and judging rounds is a valuable learning opportunity for coaches. My personal coaching judging philosophy is rooted in fun, education, and personal growth. My goal is for each round to be fun and educational for all participants while providing personal growth opportunities for each competitor during and after the round. My commitment to you is that I will provide a ballot giving feedback to each debater that addresses speaking and argumentation and I will give a clear RFD.

Ethics:

Being an ethical competitor is the most important thing you can do in the round. An unethical competitor will NOT win my ballot, regardless of the arguments in the round. Older and more experienced competitors have an educational obligation to younger and less experienced competitors. I expect all evidence in the round to be used in a way that reflects the intent of the author. Dishonest highlighting, summarizing, and/or paraphrasing is an immediate loss. The text and general meaning of evidence must be accurately represented in a round. I do not like calling for evidence but will if I need it in order to resolve an issue in the round. If you are rude in any way, you will lose speaker rankings/points and, depending on the nature of the misconduct, possibly the round. I expect a professional, mature, and kind round. Do not yell at each other and all debaters should refrain from any attacks on their opponents – keep responses based on the arguments and evidence in the round. As my students will tell you, I do not tolerate any use of profanity in an educational space.

I would like to note that harassment, bullying, and discriminatory behaviors of any type will not be tolerated. Should I see those behaviors in or out of round, I will address them. If it is in a round, it will be reflected on the ballot and the team or individual engaging in such behaviors can expect a loss. I will also address this behavior with your coach. I believe that speech and debate should be a safe space for every person and it is the communal responsibility of all of us to guarantee that.

This is also a moment to note that your behavior in and out of round is seen and heard at tournaments. I would encourage all competitors to behave in an ethical manner at all times. Unethical behavior outside of round does affect how people in the community view you – whether this is right or wrong, it is something for all competitors to consider. Think about what you want your reputation in the debate community to be and act accordingly. You are representing your team, our speech and debate community, and this activity at all times. Please hold yourself to the highest standard possible at tournaments. I strongly believe in growth and second chances so if you make a mistake, please take time to reflect, apologize, and then change your actions moving forward.

Communication:

Debate is, first and foremost, a communication activity; therefore, communication should be your most important consideration in the round. I expect debaters to speak at a conversational rate or a bit faster – I do not appreciate nor do I follow spreading. If you are speaking faster than you are able to clearly communicate, then you need to slow down. I will not interrupt you during a round but will stop flowing if I cannot flow or understand what you are saying. Reading piles of evidence without having analysis is not good communication. I do not believe students need a card for every single idea presented in a round – I expect students to think and bring their own ideas into the round. You should thoroughly understand all arguments you make in a round. Speaking and the ability to knowledgeably communicate arguments in the round are key to winning my ballot.

General Information:

I will keep track of time for speeches and prep time. Competitors are welcome and encouraged to keep their own time during the round; however, my time will be the official time. It is understandable that partners will need to communicate with each other during the round; however, the volume should be low enough that you do not interrupt the speaker. Your prep time ends when you remove the flash drive from your computer and hand it to your opponent. You should not waste time between speeches. Please keep in mind that a tournament has many moving parts and rounds being completed efficiently is key to keeping tournaments running on schedule. To that end, when your prep time is over, please be ready to speak within a few seconds of getting to the front of the room – organizing speeches, etc. should be taken care of before ending prep time.

I do not flow authors for evidence – when you say “extend our Smith card”, I have no idea what you mean. YOU need to extend the ARGUMENT – I should not be asked to extend evidence. I do pay attention to the dates of evidence and will prioritize more recent evidence in most cases; however, there are some exceptions to this general rule. I pay attention to the credentials of authors and the sources being used in a round.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate:

I appreciate a values-based debate rooted in philosophy. The values/framework debate is incredibly important in the round. I am willing to listen to more progressive arguments, provided the value/framework debate is present. Dictionary.com is not a strong source for definitions in L-D – I would prefer legal or philosophical definitions. I believe L-D is arguing what ought to be, not what is. Roadmaps are not necessary and will not be given off-time – if you start to give a roadmap, then I will start your time.

Policy Debate:

I generally expect the affirmative team to present a topical plan. However, I am willing to listen to critical and performance affirmative plans provided the team can give a solid explanation as to why I should vote for them in the context of that debate round. If you are running a critical argument, then I expect you to be “all in” – meaning you don’t get to run a critical argument on one flow and then ignore it on other flows. If you are making a critical argument, then you need to be a fierce and passionate advocate for that stance throughout the round and bring the critical arguments into the rest of the round. I am also willing to listen to critical and performance arguments on the negative side of the flow. I expect debaters to tell me the role of the ballot in the round. I do not love counter plans or topicality arguments. If you are running topicality arguments, then I would expect that you cannot address on-case arguments…if you have a ton of prepared arguments for their case, then do not run topicality. Extra topicality and effects topicality can be very interesting arguments. Regardless of the arguments you run, please have a strong understanding of those arguments and be able to explain them without reading cards. Organized and structured speeches are key to a successful round – I expect a roadmap before each speech (except the 1AC) and clear signposting within each speech. I do not enjoy open-cross and will not permit it if I am the only judge in the room. On a panel, I will defer to the majority opinion; however, please know that I have very real concerns about a team that lacks trust or confidence to the point that the partner must intervene in cross-ex. I will default to policymaker but am willing to judge using a framework you give me provided the argument is clear in the round.

Public Forum Debate:

Public Forum Debate is about current(ish) events so I expect arguments to take place in the context of the current world order. I do not want to see a 45-minute debate about evidence – arguments should focus on the big picture ideas in the round. I expect there to be balance in crossfire, which requires a give and take on the part of all competitors. I do not want Public Forum to be Policy Debate, so the ability to give a line-by-line argument is less important to me than being able to effectively summarize key ideas in the round and weigh the two sides. Roadmaps are not necessary and will not be given off-time – if you start to give a roadmap, then I will start your time.

About Me

Hiya! My name is Stevi Kay. I am a Kickapoo Speech & Debate alumni and an aspiring debate coach. During my time in debate, I competed in nearly every event SWMO debate offers. My personal favorite events were LD, POI, OO, and INFO.

Judging Debate

Please have a copy of your cases available to me.

Despite my debate history, I am not your 'traditional' flow judge. I avoid spending a lot of my time on the flow because a) a good debater should be able to convince even a non-flowing judge of the superiority of their arguments and b) because I want to let your public speaking skills shine.

Speed - Please do not sacrifice your skills to read faster. I do not care how many cards you read, I care how well you explain and argue the ones you do. If you read too fast, I will ask you to slow down.

Volume - Speak up! I am here to hear you and your arguments.

Value - I love to weigh values as much as the next guy, but do not make it the entire debate.

Topicality - Unless the case is obviously untopical, I'd rather not listen to a T debate.

K - Unless you know it like the back of your hand, do not run a Kritik.

Abuse - Please do not call something abusive unless it really is abuse.

Attitude - If you have a bad/smug attitude, I will dock you and I absolutely will make a note on your ballot.

Judging Speech

In speeches, I love comedy and cleverness.

In OO, INFO, IX, and DX I will judge on : speech structure, flow, and overall presentation.

In POI, DI, HI, and DUO I will judge on : blocking, flow, emotion, and impact. Particularly in DI and Dramatic POI, the impact is very important. I want to feel your character.

Can't Wait

I can't wait to judge you today! Speech and Debate really is my first love. I am not here to judge you, not really. Speech & Debate is about education, my role as your judge is to help you learn how to improve your public speaking skills by offering feedback. If you ever have questions for me, you are welcome to reach out to me.

Good Luck,

Stevi Kay

I have been involved in competitive debate since the last 90s. I was a competitor in policy debate in the early 2000s and have been a coach since 2008. I actively coach all formats of debate as well as speech and interp. I value communication and clear, logical, persuasive argumentation above all else. If your spoken presentation isn't enough to make your arguments clear, I will not be able to consider them. I am open to any form of argument so long as it is well explained, consistent with your strategy, and persuasively presented (warranted). At the end of the day, this is a communicative activity that asks you to employ logic and persuasion - that is what I hope to see. If we are diving deep into those concepts, I think everyone will have fun and learn that is why I hope we are all here. 

Updated: November 2023

Former 4 year debater at Olathe South High School (Graduated 2020; US-Sino Relations, Education, Immigration, Arms Sales)'

Current Asst. Coach @ Olathe South

4 years of policy and 3 years of LD

tylerboutte4@gmail.com

TLDR: You do you, I'm just here to evaluate your perspective of the topic. I have my own preferences but ultimately if you provide a warranted model of debate I'll vote for you. Feel free to add me to the email chain and ask any questions for clarification.

Judge Philosophy: Policymaker. Debate rounds are won with offense vs. defense. Do with that what you will.

*Online Debate*: I participated in the online format at Nationals and didnt have any issues other than the other team having bad internet. If you're gonna go fast make sure, your doc says everything you say just in case someone's internet decides to cut out.

Tech>Truth

Speed: Go as fast as you want just slow down for tags, authors, and theory. Speed rounds are fun. If you can do it well, please do.

Topicality: Over time I've come to care about this type of debate less and less. I find the threshold for me to vote neg on T to be pretty high, but if that's what you're gonna go for do it. Please do not just read a T block and precede to reread that block throughtout every speech for the entire round. Keys to this debate are explaining to me why the aff's model of debate as a whole is bad, not just this round specifically. Aff arguments about reasonabililty are pretty persuasive for me especially when the rebutalls come down to what is "fair." Recently teams have been opting to debate t on the surface level. That's 1) really boring and painful for everyone involved and 2) not helping win rounds. Good work on the standards and voters level of this flow looks like debating about the impacts of the aff's relationship to the resolution.

DA: Obviously the more specific your link, the more likely I am to weigh the DA but generic links work too if you make them. I feel that lately debaters have been treating these types of debates as separate piece from the case flow. Both teams should articulate how/why the DA interacts with the case. This includes impact calc which is severely under utilized. I'm most likely to vote on this flow if its connected to the aff case instead of being a floating argument for me to evaluate. Aff teams should also be looking to turn disads into advantages for the case instead of only playing defense.

(2023: I'm not a huge fan of most DA's on this topic. Generic links and impact scenarios are not very persuasive unless you do the work to make it make sense. The more specific/realistic the better.)

FW/K: I have the most experience with critiques of security, set-col, militarism, and afropess but I'm willing to listen to anything and have probably read/looked into other popular critiques. These debates I find to be the most fun as a debater/judge but that also means they're the most frustrating. To me it seems that too many debaters are scared of actually debating the critiques they're running and instead default to framework debates. While I have no problem with these debates either, they tend to get incredibly sloppy and thus difficult to evaluate. In terms of how I evaluate the K itself, in levels of importance I think Link>impact>alt. Quite honestly, I dont care about the alt as much as I do how the critique itself impacts the aff. If you want to go for the alt, GREAT, but I'd prefer if you spend most if not all of the 2NR/2AR on powerful rhetoric about how me voting for you is going to reshape the world. Good k teams are giving great analytical arguments about the k's relationship to the aff instead of reading tons of cards of obscure theory.

Counterplans/Case: This may be the most underutilized aspect of debate now. Cases should be built with offense and defense embedded as part of the aff strategy. The neg should actually interact with the aff case and produce turns or deficits to the aff impacts. All CPs are fine, Ill let the debaters sort out what is and isnt fair. I do find that my threshold for condo is extremely high, I believe that debate is ultimately a game and the neg has every right to take advantage in this game and run as many off-case positions as they want. That doesnt mean I wont vote on condo though, the aff just needs to have an argument explaining why this model of the game is bad for debate as a whole.

Aight this’ll probably change throughout the course of my like judging career but yeah, here we go for now.

edit for grapevine: pls don't go at ur top speed, school is already scrambling my brain and its the first tournament of the year. 70-90% is good but above that I'm def gonna miss arguments

ADD ME TO THE CHAIN: sbraithwaite@guilford.edu

***If you're addressing me call me X. I will doc your speaks by 0.5 if you call me anything else but judge or X***

I’m X, aka Newark Science SB (she/they), i’ve done LD debate since I was a freshman and policy debate a couple of times since I was a junior. I qualled twice to the TOC (2019 & 2020) and took two tourneys my junior year, Byram Hills and Ridge, and got to bid rounds of policy tournaments with 3 different partners. I almost exclusively read identity-based arguments from the time I was a sophomore until my senior year. My literature base consists of Alexis P. Gumbs, Saidiya Hartman, Nadia Brown, Lisa Young, etc. This should tell you a little bit about my stance towards Ks

A few paradigm issues (aka TLDR):

1. Ks/K affs/Performance/Non-T>K Theory>T>Theory>Policy>Tricks

2. YOUR 2NR/2AR SHOULD BE WRITING MY BALLOT FOR ME- The best way to get high speaks/my ballot is for my RFD to sound damn near like those 2 speeches. closing the debate is reallllly important, especially in close rounds. I won't do the work for you.

Things I default to-

1. Truth > Tech: Techy arguments make it so that important conversations about race, sex, positionality, etc. get drown out by things that don’t matter like a debater dropping subpoint A8 of impact 35. By truth I mean, big picture debate, not claims that are literally true. Ex: The aff says that black women should sacrifice themselves to save the entire world. The neg should engage with this idea, it’s clearly a bad one. The way tech is used against K debaters is unable to hold them accountable for the ways in which they add to a violent debate space. That brings me to my second point.

2. Debate is not a game. Debate has material impacts for those who engage in it, especially POC. Please be mindful that debate is sometimes some debater’s only option when it comes to funding college or having a platform to speak freely. Also it’s just not unreasonable to consider how it can be a game for some and not for others. You have a high threshold to prove to me why it is (hint: maybe find better, more strategic T shells, friend)

3. Word PICs against K affs are not a good look whatsoever. Unless they do something OVERTLY wrong, like saying the N-word without being black, etc. don’t read it infront of me. It’s violent and abstracts from infinite violence against the group of people they’re talking about. So you’re telling me changing the ‘e’ to an ‘x’ in women will change discourse about black women in gender studies? Yeah aight. Anyways, it’s a form of infinite policing and promotes a bad model of debate. But if you feel like there’s a legit reason to read a PIC go for it! I exclusively read PIKs in the latter half of my senior year.

4. Util framing is kinda ridiculous and anti-black. Not saying I won’t evaluate it, but if your opponent warrants why it is, given that the claim is literally just true, you’re gonna be held at a higher threshold to prove why it’s not. Just saying.

Now the fun stuff:

Ks/Ks affs/Performance: This is what I LIVE for. But only if you know what you’re talking about. If you’re just doing just to do it or for my ballot and execute it poorly, I won’t hack for you. K debate takes work, dedication and reading. If you think that you can override all three layers, read some K off the Wake backfiles and get my ballot, it’s gon be a sad day for you.

Theory/Tricks: Friv theory belongs with tricks, don’t like it, it’s violent, will not even flow it. Disclosure theory is fine EXCEPT when you are debating a black person or you are one. 1. Niggas don’t have to disclose to you 2. Disclose to niggas. Besides that, theory can be really creative and fun and actually substantive/responsive.

T: Traumatizing, mentally exhausting and often times whiney. Fairness isn’t a voter, read it and I will not flow it as an impact. T is often used against black debaters to get out of hard convos. Also like if we being REAL right now, I think theres probably like one or two completely untopical affs per year. Y’all like to run T against K affs to silence their relation to the topic because it’s “too hard to engage with”. Boo-Hoo for you. Ask your coach how to engage. It’s what they’re paid for.

***EDIT AS OF 1/1/2021: I do like a good T debate but please please please don’t read from some K aff block. make it nuanced. make it relevant. make it meaningful.

Policy: This is lowkey an unknown for me if i’m being honest. Never debated in a policy way, it’s towards the bottom because I don’t trust myself to judge policy, but if you do, hey, go off.

*Speaker points for me aren’t based off of aesthetics of debate norms, but big picture debate. Meaning if I vote you up on T USFG or something like it, it’ll be a low point win.

revisions pending

For email chains: amoschen96@gmail.com

Debate Related Experience/short bio:

Debated 2011-15 Policy debate @ Parkway West High School MO

Debated 2015-19 NPDA Parliamentary debate @ University of Missouri-Columbia

Asst. coach 2019-21 for Parkway West High School, mostly specializing in policy and LD

Pronouns: he/him

------

TL;DR Generally, I view debate as a game being played between two competing teams of debaters. The purpose of the game is to win through deploying arguments and proving that one's arguments are better than the competing claims put forth in the round. What form/structure that takes is fundamentally up to the debaters.

I've judged/debated pretty much every style/argument set for policy so as long as you're not being abusive, I'd prefer if you debate using the method/format you're most comfortable with and execute it well rather than risk sacrificing your own speaking efficacy by contorting your style to fit what you think I'm most receptive to.

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

Policy Notes:

***Overall I evaluate on an offense/defense basis. To win my ballot, you need to prove your side has stable offense, and that it outweighs any offense presented by the other side. Most of the time this is accomplished by proving the world created by one team is better than the one created by the other. How you garner offense can be varied--it could be done through policy impacts on the flow, impacts from theory arguments, in-round impacts, impacts affecting the debate space, etc. If you want me to evaluate on a different paradigm (stock issues, facts, etc.) just tell me, and I'll do it if you present a compelling enough case. I'm pretty generous with speaker points as long as you seem to be making a good faith effort to engage in the round; I generally will only give low scores for hostility to the other competitors/judges and microaggressions/bigoted behavior.

Thoughts on Specific Arguments:

Performance/Critical Affs: Philosophically, I feel the debate space should be open to as many people as possible and should be accessible to all folks from all different backgrounds and experience. Same goes for debate arguments/style--I debated a whole range of styles in high school/college, and I'm always going to err on the side of greater inclusivity. I feel affs critiquing the resolution/plan text-less affs drive innovation, so I'll listen to those too. I'm open to theory/critical arguments attacking the methodology of the advocacy; I'm less open to the "you're not the rez ergo you're bad" args, I'll still try to evaluate them, but don't expect my ballot just because you read a generic T-USFG or T-Resolved block.

Kritiks: Overall, I really enjoy judging critical debates, but only if they actually make an effort to create a link to *this* particular aff in *this* particular round rather than just throwing a generic cap/security/militarism K as part of a strat/time suck. If the K is obviously generic to the aff, I'm much more likely to give leeway to the aff's no link/perm arguments. Case specific links are obviously my preference, but links based on representations/rhetoric are fine if explained fully. I'll even evaluate "links of omission" or "you didn't talk about this ergo you link," arguments as long as it's explained fully how they operate specifically in the context of *this* aff in *this* round. I feel most K debates are resolved in the alt/alt solvency vs perm debate so I never really take K impacts into account when evaluating them. The exception is pre-fiat impacts--if a pre-fiat impact comes out, I'll always evaluate it before plan-related/post fiat arguments unless I'm given a substantial reason to discount it. Same applies for Role of the Ballot arguments. Relative to other judges, I weigh framework and offense generated from framework (for aff and neg) more heavily, so make sure you comprehensively cover it.

In terms of critical lit familiarity I mostly ran cap and race-related arguments, so I'm most familiar with that, as well as political theory-based K's/authors like Agamben/Foucault, anything to do with securitization etc. Somewhat familiar with gender/queerness based args (but not as much as I'd like) and colonialism-based K's. Don't really know a lot about the high theory crowd like Bataille/Baudrillard/Lacan/Deleuze/Heidegger (do people even read Heidegger anymore??)

SPEED/SPREADING: Speaking completely personally, my opinion on speed in debate is that it's a good thing when done right, and harmful when conducted improperly. Being able to deploy massive amounts of arguments in a round incentivizes conducting more research, rewards faster thinking and decision making, and requires more memory retention. In addition, having a larger amount of developed arguments on the flow adds an entirely different layer of strategy to the round in terms of which arguments you dedicate time to. However, spreading historically in debate has often been used as a tool of exclusion (i.e., go super fast because we know the other team can't keep up and will drop args). Plus the argument can be made that it makes rounds inaccessible to people with auditory/learning disorders. Functionally, that means speed if you want, but only if the other judges/competitors in the round are comfortable with it.

Especially considering the technical limitations of the online format, I think a good rule of thumb is to take whatever your typical max speed is and decrease it by 20% to account for faulty audio equipment, internet lag and other potential technical issues.

Theory: I'm open to most theory arguments (e.g., this argument is bad bc x reason) with the exception of specificity-based args like A-spec, e-spec, f-spec, etc. Generally, I need instances of in round abuse to vote on theory alone.

Topicality: I really appreciate well-thought out T-debates. Most high schoolers doing this activity have the goal of eventually being lawyers/legislators and in those fields, the technical definitions of individual words and how they're used matters a lot. Thus, I'm totally fine getting down into the weeds of whether this aff is fitting this interp of the rez based on the definition of this word and etc. However, I need detailed standards and voters to vote on T alone. RVIs are a silly argument and I don't listen to them.

CPs: I'm open to CPs, I'm open to multiple CPs, I'm open to conditional CPs, and I'll take multiple perms as well. All things considered I default to multiple worlds good, but I'll listen to theory arguments against. Same goes for theory arguments against multiple/conditional CPs, PICs, process/agent/consult CPs, and theory arguments against multiple perms. Once again, most of the time I need in round abuse to vote on theory alone. I think advantage CP+DA+impact turn is a powerful strategy that gets underutilized by high schoolers.

DAs: I hate generic DAs. If you're able to articulate a specific link and internal link chain that's specific to the aff case, I'm more open to it, but if it's just a general "doing the rez causes this bad impact" link, I'll give way more leeway to the aff in terms of link defense. Go for as large or small of an impact as you want--as long as you establish a compelling internal link chain, I'll evaluate it in the general offense/defense clash. Most DAs are weakest on the internal link level, so if the aff defends against/turns it enough, I'll vote aff on the DA even if there isn't much terminal impact defense. I don't care about uniqueness that much unless it's an argument like "this scenario is literally already happening, thus no effect on round." Comparative risk analysis is very important to me, so make sure you're consistently comparing/contrasting your DA scenario to the story the aff is telling and vice versa.

----

4 years HS debate

Missouri State '24

Assistant Coach- Springfield Catholic

Pronouns- She/They

Email Chain-

danicolvin2@gmail.com

I will be flowing, even if it doesn't seem like it.

Aff

I prefer for the affirmative to have a dependable topical plan of action. Be ready to tell me why the affirmative matters and have the proper evidence to back that up. Please don't wait till the 2AC to explain the plans actions.

Topicality

Not a fan of unnecessary topicality debates. Although if the affirmative is not topical you should prove it. That being said, please bring it up in a constructive and follow through with it. If you throw it in during a rebuttal I won't vote for it

Neg

I'm really okay with any strategy. Just give me evidence, I won't vote on arguments without solid evidence to back it up.

Pet Peeves

Be kind. There is a difference between debating and arguing, so please be respectful and make this educational. Being rude will not win you the round and I will take off speaker points.

Please give roadmaps, so I can flow your speech correctly.

Don't try and talk over each other during cross.

I don't care about speed- I don't love spreading, but if both teams are comfortable with it I'm good. Just make sure that you're at a pace that everyone can understand.

Don't go over time, there is no 15 second grace.

Bottom Line

I will leave comments on your ballots, I want to help you get better at debate. Don't read to much into what I say.

At the end of the day, debate is meant to be fun and educational. The more you put into it the more you'll get out of it.

PHILOSOPHY: Debate is a valuable educational exercise and should be conducted with mutual respect and regard for the shared goal of learning.

I don't like unnecessarily aggressive or combative arguments. Communicate clearly, stay calm and present with respect.

I am a flow judge, hence I will not consider my personal opinions in the outcome. It is up to you to create a stronger argument than the opposition. The breadth, depth and clarity of your position, along with your logical application of relevant evidence, will tip the balance in your favor.

I value argument over speaking ability, however, if I can't understand you, I can't award points to you. So speak clearly, please. No spreading.

Good logic wins over circuitous, tangential evidence. Make sure your arguments are meaningful.

If you're having tech issues, let me know ASAP. Grace will be given.

POLICY:

I am not opposed to kritiks or theory, however, my preference is for arguments that have practical relevance to the world of policy making.

Don't bring up new arguments in your rebuttals. New evidence is fine, but if you open a brand new point in your rebuttal, it will be ignored.

I prefer direct impacts over terminal impacts.

Try to stay away from nitpicky topicality claims. If you can demonstrate that the opposing team is not following the resolution, okay. But avoid extraneous minutia, and try not to go off the rails.

PUBLIC FORUM:

Since PuF is more of a straightforward pro-con debate style, maybe stay away from counterplans and circuitous arguments.

The goal of PuF is toward an easily comprehensible pro-con argument that is accessible to the general public, hence, speaks are more crucial here. Absolutely no spreading.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS:

I love LD, it's my favorite. Be respectful, be direct, be logic-driven to fortify your claims.

No abusive arguments. No spreading.

Be clear about your values and criteria, apply meaningful evidence, and have fun.

he/him

I care more about the arguments you make more than about how you present them. That's not to say I don't care about presentation, but you will never lose due to poor presentation of your argument, unless I literally cannot understand the point you're trying to make. Also, I am not a big fan of spreading, so please spread responsibly (meaning, please try to enunciate your words and also please include me in the email chain).

As for the arguments, I will buy almost any argument you make, but I operate from a basis of knowledge. Meaning, I am not tabula rosa. The round is not a vacuum, and your claims must be rational and supported by evidence. If you wanna do time cube stuff or claim the sky is purple, I am not the judge to do that in front of. That being said, I don't mind Aff K's nor performative Affs. Also, if you use a K revolving around a marginalized community (i.e. anti-Blackness, queer theory, colonialism) and you are not part of said marginalized community, you will lose the round. For ROTB arguments, as long as your case is justified, I'll listen. Topicality is a priori (unless you successfully argue otherwise in a framework/ROTB/theory type argument), so if you lose T you lose the debate (but don't shove T into the 2NR, that's dumb and won't gain you any points in my book). I like framework debates and often think they can be quite interesting, so go for it if you think you can win on it. I'll accept any framework, including framework that changes the ROTB or the debate. I think all CP's are acceptable (again, unless you successfully argue otherwise in a framework/ROTB/theory type argument). Also, I don't flow cross-ex, so if something happens that supports your case, you need to bring it up.

Finally, debate is not a game where points are won. It is a discussion where different viewpoints have to be weighed. I consider the quantity and quality of arguments, so if you have a ton of arguments, but none of them are good arguments, I'm most likely going to vote for your opponent.

Pet peeves:

- Arrogance (if you make faces at your opponent or talk down to them in CX, that's not going to earn you any speaker points)

- End of world link chains (again, I'm not a tab judge so if you want to run the end of the world as your ultimate impact, make sure your link chain is very good and well-explained)

Give the performance you think is the best.  That’s all I ask for! 

(This is my PF paradigm. For other debates, a lot of this is applicable, but I will always vote on quality analysis and speaking. Just be persuasive, and you're good.)

About Me

Hi, I’m John! I debated all 4 yrs of high school (class of 2020 baby), starting in policy and then senior year switching to PF. With that in mind, I switched to PF for a reason; please don’t give me PTSD. I qualified for NSDA Nationals in US Extemp junior year and was a National Semifinalist in USX senior year, so speaks and quality analysis are my highest priorities when judging your round. I’ll go into much more detail later in the paradigm, though.

My Judging Process

I use a Microsoft Excel document that evaluates each speaker based on speaking, analysis, and CX. Speaking and analysis both make up 40% of the score individually, and CX makes up 20% of the score. This isn’t the only thing I use when making my decision, but it is how I give out speaker rankings and does have a large impact on my evaluation of persuasion, from a (relatively) objective standpoint. Above all, I vote on persuasion. Sometimes it lines up with the flow, sometimes the excel doc, sometimes both, and sometimes neither. It really depends on the round, but if you are persuasive to the best of your ability, that is all I ask of you.

What I look for in each portion of the debate Constructive

Really, all I look for here is that you speak well and have pristine analysis. You (hopefully) spent a while writing this case and perfecting it, so I am expecting that it has no lapses in logic and everything is fully warranted/impacted out.

Rebuttal

This speech needs to be focused on attacking your opponent’s case, but I’m cool with 2nd rebuttal frontlining if they want to. If not, I won’t count it as a drop just yet. If you do frontline, just make sure it is not the focus of your speech.

Summary

This speech needs to be primarily frontlining, but at the same time, it is called the “summary” for a reason, so this speech should begin to tie everything together. If that means collapsing, that’s fine. BUT, know that if you do collapse, it could hurt you depending on your opponent’s response.

Final Focus

This speech needs to be all weighing through whatever method you prefer. Voters are fine, line-by-line works (as long as you tell me why arguments are important), really whatever, as long as you substantiate each impact and tell me why it’s important.

CX

Keep clarification questions to an absolute minimum. If you lead your opponent into a trap, you gain major respect and will gain points on CX. However, if they see the trap coming and can escape it/turn it against you, the same will happen for them. Don’t yell, but at the same time, don’t seem disinterested. Confidence is key to persuasion, but don’t be overbearing/condescending. Your speaks will go down.

My thoughts on debating styles/analysis Speed

Absolutely do not spread. You will lose points in the speaker section of my analysis. Speaking quickly is fine, but be aware that I will not flow it if I can’t understand it or if it’s too fast. Ultimately, efficiency shows ultimate debate maturity. Persuasion should be the main goal of your speaking, not getting everything in. If you persuade me, you’ve done your job. If you spit a bunch of evidence at me, I will wipe it off and ignore it. This all boils down to one simple rule: if you’re concerned that you’re too fast, slow down.

Progressive Arg’s (K’s, theory, CPs)

K’s – It REALLY has to be convincing. I have no clue how to “properly” evaluate a Kritik, so beware of my inexperience. If you are not 100% convincing (which is virtually impossible with this style of debate), you are wasting my time, your time, and your opponent’s time.

Theory – Theory is fine ONLY if you tell me why it’s important and don’t let it take over the debate. If theory takes over the debate, you lose BIG on analysis.

CP’s – Don’t run CP’s. If you run one, I will ignore it and lower your analysis score. Instead, if you can prove that something will happen in the SQ (without voting pro), you’re good. I actually like those arguments.

Ad hominem attacks

My rule of thumb is “don’t be a jerk.” Any ___-ism / offensive comments will hurt you significantly. If you are kind, you’re golden.

Flow vs. Lay

I prefer lay debate because I believe debate is about persuasion, not necessarily the nitty-gritty. However, a lot of times, if you are persuasive, that entails you win on the flow. So, I will be keeping a “flow,” but keep in mind I won’t vote based on it alone. I will, however, vote more on flow later in a tournament (elim rounds) because the persuasion really should be there at that point in the tournament.

Tech vs. Truth

I always prioritize truth. Just because you might put 20 responses on their case doesn’t mean they are quality or persuasive at all. However, if they are, you basically win on truth, so ur good.

Clarity of arguments

This might be the most important thing in the debate. If you are not clear, consistent, and refined, you will lose on both speaks and analysis. Use summary and final focus to drive in each detail of your arguments. If you are confusing there, you may as well concede the debate.

Evidence ethics

Indicts are fine, but if there is an indict, I will ask for pertinent evidence flashed/emailed/whatever to me after the round. If I find that you falsified evidence, not only will you lose that argument, but I will consider dropping you entirely and reporting you to tournament directors.

Pacing

PLEASE, don’t wait until the last minute to respond to an argument. Frontlining in summary is perfectly fine, but after that, ur done for. More specifically, onto pacing within your speeches: SIGNPOST. If you don’t, I have no idea what you’re talking about, and you lose big on clarity. Also, grace periods do not exist. If you go over time, not only will anything you say not get on the flow, but it will eat into your prep time as well. During cross, if the question is asked before 3:00 on the clock, you can answer it, but the answer better be concise.

Language

Please be professional. Jokes are fine as long as they make sense and actually make me laugh. But don’t let the round get too casual. Saying “judge” in any of your speeches immediately removes 0.1 points from the evaluation. The debate is about persuasion, not about a winner or a loser. Please don’t use big words unnecessarily. It’s pretentious. Swearing will deduct 1 point from the evaluation. Keep it clean.

Prep time

I score prep too. Using less prep gives you big points. You can work on your feet and don’t need to rely on extra time. ALSO, the team that spoke second will get fewer points on this since they get ~10 minutes of extra prep time during their partner’s speeches/cross.

Framework

If your logic makes sense, I might vote on it. If not, you’re wasting my time. I’m not very big on the debaters dictating the ballot (obviously, since I’m the one judging), but if it's legit, then it's legit.

Key Takeaways

Analysis and clarity are the biggest things I will vote on. A debate is about persuasion, especially public forum. Also, if you can pronounce my last name correctly, you get a bonus speaking point for reading my paradigm (it is pronounced like George-ee-AHH-dis).

I am a lay judge and will not listen to spreading in debate events.

During IEs such as Prose/Poetry drama and entertainment is important. Speak with personality and gusto. Make me believe in what you are saying.

In extemp be clear and show me that you understand the topic

For OO teach me something new or show me a new side of something familiar.

For all events be respectful to your competitors and have fun!

Preferred pronouns are he/him

Email address: dustinharris1357@gmail.com

I have been a debate coach for 11 years. In policy, I prefer traditional stock issue and policy-maker arguments.

Traditional style LD, be respectful in the round. If you speak clearly and are not harassing to your opponent, you will be successful.

I like intelligible speech and stock issues. I'll vote for anything that's persuasive and supported with evidence, though.

I am new to judging debate, so please be slow.

Policy: No theory arguments, and try to keep it more traditional. You can run cp's, but no kritiks and complicated arguments. Also don't run any extinction impacts.

Puf: go slow, and don't be rude in cx.

LD: Just go slow and don't stumble over your words.

Hello! My name is Evan Kirksey and I have been actively involved in forensics for 9 years now, with high school, collegiate, and now coaching experience. I am also a recent Speech Communication and Theatre Education graduate, and am now a coach at The University of Central Missouri, so I am well versed in debate jargon. I can keep up with most arguments easily. However, I appreciate rounds that aren't entirely focused on jargon and tech. I like well developed arguments, clash, and rationale. If you just speed and spread through the round without actually explaining your arguments, you likely won't win my ballot. Be clear and concise about where you are on the flow, your responses, etc. Persuasion needs to play a role in your performance as a debater, or I will not be compelled to vote for you.

POLICY:

Experience/Background

Former high school policy debater at Central High School in Springfield, Missouri (graduated in May 2019). Attended camp at MSDI (Missouri State Debate Institute) in 2016.

Topics I've debated: domestic surveillance, China, education, immigration.

Achievements: Second in State (2019), top 40 in Nation at NSDA Nationals (2019)

Preferences

Overview: Think of me as a flay (flow-lay) judge. I'll vote on DAs, CPs, Ks if explained well, solvency deficits, T, and even inherency if it's made big enough of an issue.

DAs/Case: This is where I'd prefer most of the debate takes place. I like link stories that make sense and can be clearly explained. I think a lot of value can come from the more traditional style of policy (case attacks and stock issues), but I'd like it if most of the clash was centered on impact calc and world comparisons: tell me why your impacts are more important than your opponents.

CPs: Totally willing to vote on it if you can prove there's a net benefit.

T: Very much willing to vote on it. Neg needs to do a good job of explaining what the interpretation, violation, standards, and voters are if they want to win on this (not voting on throwaway T in the 2NR), but generally I slightly learn toward reasonability. Neg needs to prove they lost something or something is wrong with the aff interpretation

Ks: I have the least experience here. I've cut a Freire K that I used a few times, but VERY RARELY encountered them. Don't assume I have prior knowledge about any specific K, but I will vote on the K, a perm, a solvency deficit on the alt, significant offense on the K, a de-link, etc. I'd definitely prefer it if you didn't run one unless you can do it EXTREMELY well.

Speed: Around 240wpm is where I'd like a max to be, and even a bit lower if I'm judging online.

Miscellaneous: Structure and order in speeches are greatly appreciated: I'll ask for an order before your speech and all I want to hear is "Solvency, Advantage 1, the DA, then the CP." Don't make arguments at this time. Also, I won't do any work for you, if, for example, one team contradicts themselves, it's the other team's burden to point it out and explain why it's bad/an issue. This applies to drops: if both teams drop something, I'm not going to vote on it with no further explanation.

MOST IMPORTANTLY: Don't be mean, hateful, misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic, transphobic, etc. I will end the round immediately if I think this is an issue. Otherwise, try to learn something from the debate and enjoy yourself.

If you have any more questions, ask me before the round begins.

NFL POLICY DEBATE

JUDGE PHILOSOPHY CARD

Name - Jamie Littlepage

School - Blue Springs High School

In order to assist the debaters whom you will judge in adapting to the particular audience that you provide as a judge, please indicate your policy debate judging experience and preferences.

1. Your experience with policy debate (check those that apply):

A. Coach of a team (meh, assistant-ish)

F. Occasionally judge policy debate (This is most accurate)

2. I have judged 6 years of policy debate. I have judged 0-10 varsity rounds this season.

3. Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate:

(cough cough, lay judge)

Circle your attitudes concerning these policy debate practices:

4. RATE OF DELIVERY

Slow and deliberate 1 2 3 4 5 6 {7} 8 9 Very rapid

5. QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS

A few well developed 1 2 3 {4} 5 6 7 8 9 The more arguments arguments the better

6. COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES

Communication skills 1 2 3 4 {5} 6 7 8 9 Resolving substantive most important issues most important

7. TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:

Often 1 2 3 4 {5} 6 7 8 9 Rarely

8. COUNTERPLANS

Acceptable 1 {2} 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

9. GENERIC DISADVANTAGES

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 {6} 7 8 9 Unacceptable

10.CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 {5} 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

11. DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 {5} 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

12. CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 {5} 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

In approximately 100 words or less, please add any brief comments that you feel are appropriate. You might want to include information bout practices that you encourage or discourage in a round.

-Signposting

Recaps are your friend.

Avoid the unpleasantness or temptation of condescension.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NFL LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE JUDGE PARADIGM CARD

Name: Jamie Littlepage

School: Blue Springs High School

In order to assist the debaters you will be judging, please answer all of the questions accurately and thoroughly.

1. Your experience with LD debate (check all that apply):

J. Community Judge

L. I have judged LD debate for 6 years.

How many LD rounds have you judged this season?

1. Fewer than twenty

2. Please indicate your attitudes towards typical LD practices: (circle one)

A. What is your preferred rate of delivery?

Slow, conversational style--- {Typical conversational speed} ---Rapid conversational speed

Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision?

No

Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed?

No

B. How important is the criterion in making your decision?

1. It is the primary means by which I make my decision.

{2. It is a major factor in my evaluation. }

3. It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.

4. It rarely informs my decision.

Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case?

{Yes}

C. Rebuttals and Crystallization (check one of the answers for each question)

1. Final rebuttals should include

a) voting issues or

b) line-by-line analysis, or

c) {both}

2. Voting issues should be given

a) as the student moves down the flow,

b) at the end of the final speech, or

c) {either is acceptable.}

3. Voting issues are

a) {absolutely necessary} or

b) not necessary.

4. The use of jargon or technical language ("extend,". "cross-apply," "turn," etc.) during rebuttals is:

a) {acceptable or}

b) unacceptable, or

c) should be kept to a minimum.

D. How do you decide the winner of the round? (check the best answer)

1. I decide who is the better speaker regardless of whether they won specific arguments.

2. I decide who is the winner of the most arguments in the round.

3. {I decide who is the winner of the key arguments in the round}

4. I decide who is the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.

E. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round?

Not necessary---------------------Sometimes necessary------------------Always necessary

1 2 3 4 5 6 { 7 }

F. Please describe your personal note-taking during the round.

1. I do not take notes.

2. I only outline the important arguments of each debater's case.

3. {I write down the key arguments throughout the round.

4. I keep detailed notes throughout the round. }

5. I keep a rigorous flow.

In approximately 100 words or less, please add any brief comments that you feel are appropriate. You might want to include information about practices that you encourage or discourage in a round.

-Signposting

Recaps are your friend.

Avoid the unpleasantness or temptation of condescension.

Policy: I debated in High School policy for four years as my preferred format of debate. I'm not particularly enthusiastic about Kritiks or terminal impact DA's since I prioritize an educational and realistic debate. Counter plans are fine as long as they can solve an issue better than the affirmative can, but they must be untopical. It's very easy to get emotional in a round so don't get toxic to either your teammates or opponents.

PuF: Due to the time constraints of the debate, I tend to give the win to better speakers that can present their evidence and arguments cohesively. I am a flow-heavy judge so make sure you address all of your opponents' points and build your case simultaneously.

LD: The use of evidence and philosophy should be balanced in an LD case so the speaker can provide a holistic evaluation of a debate topic to the judge. I prefer speaks rather than a ton of evidence and will generally give the win to the person that meets that criteria. I don't tolerate the presence of a plan or suggested plan in this debate format since it's inappropriate in this context, and will automatically give the win to the opposite person.

I have done Speech and Debate all four years. I have done LD,CX, Congress, DI, HI, POI, extemporaneous speaking and, Impromptu. I have experience will all types of cases and debate styles. In general, I leave the Ballot up to the debaters I will vote on what you tell me to vote on if you explain why.

Please include me on all email chains. Meyerjus@gmail.com

PF:

I like to see a combination of evidence and analytics. That helps show that you really know what you're talking about and will get you more speaker points in the round. I will vote off of what you (the debaters) tell me I need to vote on. I will not vote on any arguments run just to win I.E. "racism/sexism good"

Remember that Crossfire is binding! I like seeing impact calc it helps me see why I should vote for your arguments.

LD:

This has been my main focus in debate for the past 4 years. I am good with speed as long as you are clear. I am familiar with most K's if it is something that is less used in debate make sure you explain it. Impact Calc is a must for me. My ballot will normally go to impacts, but I am willing to vote on anything if I am told why it matters.

CX:

I am fine with most things in the round as per the other events tell me what to vote on and why it's important. Im fine with speed but send me the case.

K's: I have run a lot of K's during my debate career so I am fine with them I will vote of them if you win them. Make sure you are well versed in what the K says especially the alt. DO NOT runs K's that you don't understand just to win.

CP & DA:

Run them but only if you are certain that you know what they say. I will vote on them too if you win

Theory:

I have seen too many people read theory just to win don't be that person. I will not vote on frivolous theory so do not run it. If there has been a real in round violation read theory but don't read that "time skew is inherent in debate meaning you must vote for me" I will not vote for that. Unless I am told otherwise RVI's will be a voting issue. again be careful if you read theory because if you are reading it just to try to win on a technicality I will not vote on it. Topicality I am okay with as long as they were actually untopical tell me exactly how and where they violated T. Condo theory I will vote on if you win it.

Especially for online debate, slow down a little, particularly from the 2NC on.

Please include Ryanpmorgan1@gmail.com and interlakescouting@googlegroups.com for the email chain. Please use subject lines that make clear what round it is.

I wrote a veritable novel below. I think its mostly useless. I'm largely fine with whatever you want to do.

Top level:

• I am older (36) and this definitely influences how I judge debates.
• Yes, I did policy debate in high school and college. I was mediocre at it.
• Normal nat circuit norms apply to me. Speed is fine, offense/defense calc reigns, some condo is probably good but infinite condo is probably bad, etc.
• I have a harder time keeping up with very dense/confusing debates than a lot of judges. Simplifying things with me is always your best bet.

Areas where I diverge from some nat circuit judges:

• I am more likely to call "nonsense" on your bewildering process CP or Franken K. If the arg doesn't make any sense, you should just tell me that.
• Aff vagueness (and in effect, conditionality) is out of control in modern debate. I will vote on procedural arguments to rectify this trend.
• Bad process CPs are bad and shouldn't be a substitute for cutting cards or developing a real strategy. Obviously, I'll vote on them, but the 2AR that marries perm + theory into a comprehensive model for debate is usually a winner.
• I'm less likely to "rep" out teams or schools. I don't keep track of bid leaders and what not. Related: I forget about most rounds 20 minutes after I turn in my ballot.

Stats:

• Overall Aff win rate: 48.7%
• Elim aff win rate: 42.3%
• I have sat 6 times in 53 elims

Core controversies - I'm pretty open so take these with a grain of salt.

• Unlimited condo | -----X-------- | 2-worlds, maybe
• Affs should be T | ---X----------- | T isn't a voter
• Judge kick | ----X--------- | No judge kick
• "Meme" arguments | --------X- | You better be amazing at "meme" debate
• Research = better speaks | --X--------- | Tech = better speaks
• Speed | -------X---- | Slow down a little
• Inherency is case D | -X--------- | Inherency is a DA thumper

My Knowledge:

• I went for politics DA a lot. Its the only debate thing I'm a genuine expert in, at least in debate terms.
• I do not "get" the topic (inequality) yet. I did not go to camp. Debate like this is Mich finals at your own peril.
• I have some familiarity with the following K lit - cap, Foucault/Agamben, Lacan/psychoanalysis, security, nuclear rhetoric, nihilism, non-violence, and gendered language.
• I'm basically clueless RE: set col / Afropess / Baudrillard / Bataille. I have voted on all of them, though, in the past..

K affs

I prefer topical affs, and I like plan-focused debates. I'm neg-leaning on T-framework in the sense that I think reality leans neg if you actually play out the rationale behind most K affs that are being run in modern debate. But I vote aff about 50% of the time in those debates, so if that's your thing, go for it.

T/cap K/ ballot PIK and the like are boring to me, though. I think that unless the K aff is pure intellectual cowardice, and refuses to take a stand on anything debatable, there are usually better approaches for the neg to take.

I'm a great judge for impact turning K affs - e.g., cap good, state reform good.

Word PIKs are a good way to turn the aff's rejection of T/theory against them.

Or, you could simply, you know, engage the aff's lit base and cut some solvency turns / make a strong presumption argument that engages with the aff's method.

Some other advice:

• "Bad things are bad" is not a very interesting argument. You should have a solvency mechanism.
• Affs should have a "debate key" warrant. That warrant can involve changing the nature of debate, but you should have some reason you are presenting your argument in the context of a debate round.
• I think fairness matters, but its obviously possible to win that other things matter more depending on the circumstances.
• Traditional approaches to T-FW is best with me - very complicated 5th-level args on T are less persuasive to me than a simple and unabashed defense of topicality + switch-side debate = fairness + education. "We can't debate you, and that makes this activity pointless" is usually a win condition for the neg, in my book. St. Marks teams always do a really good job on this in front of me, so idk, emulate them I guess, or steal their blocks.

Topicality against policy affs

I have not read enough into this topic's literature to have a strong opinion on the core controversies.

I think I tend to lean into bigger topics than most modern judges do. That a topic might have dozens of viable affs is not a sign of a bad topic, so long as it incents good scholarship and the neg has ways to win debates if they put in the work.

Speaker points

When deciding speaks, I tend to reward research over technical prowess.

If you are clobbering the other team, slow down and make the debate accessible to them. Running up the score will run down your speaks.

I frequently check my speaker points post-tournament to make sure I'm not an outlier. I am not, as near as I can tell. I probably have a smaller range than average. It takes a LOT to get a 29.3 or above from me, but it also takes a lot for me to go below 28.2 or so.

Ethical violations

I am pretty hands off and usually not paying close enough attention to catch clipping unless it is blatant.

Prep stealing largely comes out of your speaks, unless the other team makes an appeal.

TL;DR

• Update for Stanford: If I am judging you while the super bowl is live, I will add .1 points to your rank (to a maximum of .3, but please make as many references as you please) for each update on the game that you sneak into your speech.
• My name is Nico Neal (he/him), you may refer to me in whatever way you're most comfortable with, but as a general hierarchy of preferences: Nico >> judge > esteemed councilman >>>>>> Mr. [anything]. Again, no pressure to do anything you're not comfortable with. I'm just a fly on the wall.
• Email chain, duh: enjen.cxcoach@gmail.com
• Don't ask for high speaks, you shan't receive.
• FR Topic - I have done some research and am familiar with many core controversies over topicality and substance, but my understanding is by no means exhaustive. It's best to overexplain your theories of economics rather than assuming I know why you're right.
• Intervention is inevitable, write my ballot for me so I don't have to do work for you. I write the quickest path to a win for either team. I won't jump through hoops to give you the win.
• My aim is absolutely not to tell you how to debate;long paradigms from college kids are usually dumb, I just have a lot of opinions. Very few are immutable in the presence of a good debater. Good debate is good debate. Persuasion is key.
• DA + case 2NR is a classic. CPs should compete functionally and have a well articulated net-benefit. I have some knowledge of Ks, don't read your high theory tomfoolery in front of me unless can explain it very, very well. T should have a good interp debate and a pretty good impact debate. Clash and fairness can be impacts or internal links. I'm probably not best for planless affirmatives but I'm willing to hear them and vote for them if I feel you've done the better debating.
• Questions about my paradigm or decision? Email me and I'm happy to provide more info.

GENERAL

• 'Background: I debated on a local high school policy circuit and taught myself progressive styles of policy. I now debate for the Missouri State University debate team and compete in NDT/CEDA policy.

• Judging Philosophy: Debate is an educational exercise that is most effective as a forum for discussing new ideas (particularly policies), and it functions best when the debaters have full authority to determine the rules of the round, excluding those which have been predetermined by the tournament. No judge is truly tabula rasa, otherwise we wouldn't need paradigms; that being said, I like to believe I'm unbiased as possible in my decisions.

• I will take a flow and determine the winner of the round based on the flow blah blah blah, you've seen this on every judge's sheet. Pref me if you can out-tech your opponents and minimize the amount of intervention I need to do. I'll vote for any (warranted) argument; dropped procedurals are voters in almost every case, a dropped disad/turn is not an instant win. You need to spend significant time explaining why that argument deserves my ballot and, most importantly, why it outweighs their offense. A 2NR that says "they dropped pandemics good, vote neg!" and moves onto some other page is... less than persuasive.

• Arguments > speaking ability, but clarity > speed. I only flow what I understand. Your ability to persuade me is dependent on your ability to speak clearly and in an organized manner. I will scroll through speech docs while you speak, but I should never feel like I need to.

• Unnecessary aggression = bad speaks. I don't think the ballot should be a source of punishment, but speaker ranks can be.

• I've debated lay and tech and I see value in both. If you're at a prominent circuit tournament, this shouldn't apply to you. If I am judging on a panel with a lay judge, you will make sure the debate is accessible to everyone or you will not get my ballot. Real world accessibility outweighs every impact (see: Louisville project) and if you aren't able to accommodate that, you probably don't deserve to win the round anyways.

• Tech issues: they happen but I know BS when I see it. Keep it to a minimum.

• Speed: it's a tool for accessing depth of information, not one for exclusion. Good spreading with good content is good. Bad spreading with bad content is bad. I can comprehend all speeds I've witnessed as long as its clear. Please slow down to about 75% your normal speed online, it's almost always less clear.
• Accommodations: in most cases, if one team requests speed-related accommodations 30 minutes prior to the round via an email I am attached to, I'll expect both teams to honor it. Beware of requesting accommodations only to neglect them yourself. If either side intentionally violates a pre-round agreement of this nature, my ballot will often be very easy. There's obviously some leeway here; just be reasonable and don't manipulate speed to gain an unfair advantage. Again, accessibility is the golden rule: if any judge on the panel asks you not to spread, don't spread. I'll be very reluctant to vote for you if you're careless enough to exclude judges from the round.

POLICY

• Giving me one clear piece of offense to vote on and outlining a clear explanation of how the world works is the best path to my ballot. A 2AR/NR that can step away from debate jargon and eloquently explain a string of causal events while framing my ballot is the best place to be in at the end of the debate. A turns-case arg that has been extended throughout the debate can easily make the difference between a win or a loss, make sure your DA/AFF has this in your overview or frontline, respectively.
• FR Topic: I've done some research on this topic, coached some local teams, and I have a fundamental understanding of macroeconomics theory from college courses. If you're well research, it's likely you know more than me and should take care to make sure I understand why you're right. My understanding of topicality comes from a few thorough reads of the topic paper, anything more complex than that will need more explanation.
• Affirmatives: policy affs should be topical, inherent, and solvent for their impacts. Nuanced advantages with rigorous internal links to your impacts are very persuasive and very resistant to generic 1NC case answers. Aff innovation shouldn't just be a topicality arg; show me a cool aff I've never seen before and make good arguments in support of it and you will be rewarded.
• Disads: give me a clear link story and, ideally, have specific links to the aff. If the aff is new or questionably topical/significant, you'll have more leniency with generic links. Impact overviews should be at the top of the page, include a turns case arg, and set the 2NR up to easily explain why it outweighs on scope, certainty, and timeframe. Pick a specific impact frame for the 2NR and invest time into explaining why its best and why, under that frame, I should vote for you.
• Counterplans: you should compete in function and solve the aff with a clear net benefit, or to the extent your CP has a deficit, the NB should outweigh that. Cheating process CPs are real and good if they have a solvency advocate that is directly contextualized to the topic. "The states should host a constitutional convention and ratify a UBI as the 28th amendment to the Constitution" is contrived unless you have the best solvency cards ever and the aff will have a very easy time pointing this out. Perms are tests of competition, not advocacies, and 2-3 warranted 2AC perms are better than 8 blippy ones; I'll have a harder time voting for a perm if it doesn't become an argument until the 1AR.
• Kritiks: Explain your theory of power to me, have clear links, and ideally an alt that's more substantive that everyone holding hands and singing kumbaya. I like IR Ks a lot, pretty familiar with general theories of epistemology, less familiar with critical ontology lit, and I'm probably not your guy for pomo. Overviews are good insofar as they help me understand what your K is, they're bad when they're used a cudgel to avoid doing line by line.
• Condo: the status quo is a logical option, but its possible for the neg to read two advocacies that put the 2AC in an unfair position (e.g. 'First Strike Iran CP' + 'Never Strike Iran CP') which deserves some form of correction from by ballot in the form of rejecting an argument, giving the aff leniency with something, or whatever you convince me is a logical reaction. I will not vote for a condo 2AR unless it is flawless and the 2NR is severely lacking.
• Topicality: I think precision and predictability are usually a better starting point to approach the interp debate than grounds/limits args. If the neg's interp is very precise and predictable but potentially overlimiting, I'm likely to prefer it over a seemingly contrived aff counterinterp that has better arguments for limits and ground. Limits and ground claims matter and can determine the outcome of a T debate, but topicality is fundamentally an issue of what the topic is, not what it should be; precision and predictability are the foundation of interpretations of the topic, ground and limits claims are second level argumentation.
• Theory: most theory violations are debatable, but evenly debated, few rise to the level of persuading me to reject the team in violation. I'm better for vagueness than most judges if you capitalize on CX of the 1AC to prove they have no idea what their plan does, but it's better as a presumption arg than a fairness one. 1As who know their plan and solvency advocates shouldn't feel threatened by this. Not enough people read theory as a means of lesser ends than a voting issue (e.g. arguing that some evil CP genre justifies even eviler perms to level the playing field).
• Planless affirmatives: I'm not as bad for them as I once was, but I'm still not great. The only role of my ballot is to signal who did the better debating. If you do the better debating and I understand your impacts + how your affirmative functions under a model of competitive incentives (why SSD doesn't solve your offense is a biggie), I'm willing to vote for you. Absent an understanding of why my vote for you matters or what the role of the negative is under your model, I'll have a hard time justifying a ballot for you.

PUBLIC FORUM

I don't have an immense knowledge of PF, but I know enough that you're not gonna get anything shady past me. This means:

• Plans or CPs: this is dependent on the rules of circuit, obviously. Don't violate the rules, but those aside, just make

• Framework is cool but not required by any means. Good FW gives me a mechanism to weigh impacts - bad FW tells me what to do with a reason why.

• "PF should be X, not Y! Debate differently!" - this isn't persuasive to me. Each debate format isn't "supposed" to be anything. Forward a set of causal claims and prove that they're more important than those of your opponent and you'll win.

• The thing I dislike most about judging PF is the monotony round to round, I hate seeing the same args every round. Creative args that are well developed will keep me very invested.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS

I have never competed in LD, but I am well-versed with the traditional framework of an LD case and I enjoy the situational nature of evidence. I don't have many particular comments on the typical structure of a case since I don't have too many opinions on how the debate plays out. Just do what you do, and if controversy arises articulate your side of the issue well; debate it out and see who wins me over.

• I have nightmares about the rumors I've heard of LD theory shenanigans, but it also sounds awesome. Gimme a good theory debate and I'll be very invested, but make sure you don't assume I'm well versed in the norms of LD theory.

• I don't care if you use the typical framing of a value + value criterion or what have you. Whatever floats your boat or is the norm in your circuit is cool with me. If I ever seem confused by the formatting of your arguments, just try to contextualize it with something I'll be more familiar with.

• K-affs are probably most justified here since the focus is much more grounded in philosophical lit. I do still need to know

• Kritiks are cool here. whatever is said about Ks in policy goes here too.
• Do you guys get plans? I neither know nor care until someone reads the relevant rulebook to me.

I am a varsity policy debater and have debated a couple times in public forum. I've judged policy, puf, and LD before.

For policy, my decision is based off of evidence and arguments. If there is no evidence (or at least logic) behind an argument, I will most likely drop it. I am a clean slate so if you have evidence for a claim/argument, I will uphold that as true until the other team proves otherwise. This means that if your opponents drop one of your arguments, that will weigh heavily in my decision. If both sides end up with only the pros/cons of the plan, I will weigh the impacts and will ultimately come down to my taste, so make sure and try to explain why one adv/disad is better/worse than another. I will accept literally any argument in novice (yes anything), but be careful with what you run. For example, if you decided to run a K in novice, I'd accept that but if the opponents attack you on it and you don't defend on why using a K is good, then I will have to side with your opponents on it. I myself am a formal debater, so it's going to be hard to convince me with K or theories. I will vote on CPs depending on how well you can run it.

For Puf, I will weigh all arguments. I will accept any argument and won't focus too much on evidence, but if the opponents point something out in your evidence that doesn't necessarily match what you say, then that will help sway my decision. Normally, I value equality>life>economy, but you can easily convince me with a framework on why one impact is better than another. Like policy debate, I'll be a clean slate so I will uphold an argument as true if it is uncontested.

Speaker points and the decision are two different things to me. Decision= best arguments and winner of debate while speakers= best presentation and confidence. I will also look at the evidence that both teams share and will be critiquing those as well. I allow a 15-30 second grace period after speeches for summarization, but if it's new evidence/arguments, I will drop them.

*The only rule I really have is have good sportsmanship. I'm fine with an aggressive style of debate, but if you have unsportsmanlike conduct to your opponents, partner, or judge, I will most likely drop your speech and give you 4th in speaker rankings. I may even choose my decision on sportsmanship. Remember to treat everyone with respect.*

For policy, Just don't run Ks. I'm fine with most policy stuff, but I will be inclined to vote against Ks if the AFF can present half-decent defense. K affs lose by default.

binx peterson

chs sophomore

they/them

general

i've been debating for three and a half years at this point so i'm decently experienced. i've done two years of lincoln douglas and a year and a half of public forum so i'm better with those. overall just try to speak clearly and make the debate a safe space for everyone

kritiks

i'm pretty open to kritiks so i'm not gonna penalize you for running one as long as you do it well. make sure you clearly outline your argument so your opponent(s) and i can understand.

counterplans

i'm also fine with counterplans just don't be abusive. absolutely outline why your side is better but if you try to say it's impossible to vote for the other side that leans toward abuse of the round. if your counterplan is a theory PLEASE make it clear and understandable because they can get pretty lofty.

speaks

most of all please be respectful in round. i understand getting loud or a bit defensive but don't cross the line. try to enunciate, if you spread in round i'll probably give you low speaks.

I am a stock issue and flow judge. I would like to see a clean, well-organized, and signposted debate where both teams use their ground well and have clear, well-written arguments and cases. I prefer a more traditional debate round, but the biggest thing for me is "can I understand what you are saying." I do not want to just read your flashed case off of my computer, I should be able to hear you quickly reading your case to me and flow the round from your verbal communication.

While I recognize the Kritiques have their time and place, to win my vote on them they have a very clear link and a well-articulated alternative.

my email for email chains: breannaprater99@gmail.com

BACKGROUND:

Please include the following emails in email chains: ccroberds@spsmail.org and khsemailchain@gmail.com - sometimes my spsmail account is really slow in receiving emails. I honestly prefer speechdrop, but email is ok if that's your norm or what your coach prefers. My least favorite option is the file share.

I am the debate coach at Kickapoo High School in Missouri. I have been involved in policy debate since 1994 as a student and/ or coach. The 2022-23 topic marks my 27th. I have coached in very critical circuits (one round with a plan read by any team in an entire year), very community judge oriented circuits (that don't allow CPs or Ks), TOC qualifying circuit, ELL circuits, and combinations of all circuits. If you have questions, please email ccroberds@spsmail.org

Update - 1/20 - a note about prepping your speech before you speak

My expectation is that you send out a doc BEFORE you speak that includes the evidence AND analytics that you intend to read in the speech if they are typed up. They should also be in the order that you are going to speak them. It is an accessibility issue. If you type them up in the round, that's one thing - but if they are your blocks (or your team blocks) they should be sent. This includes AT A MINIMUM the text of perms, the texts of counterplans, the text of interpretations of why you reject a team, etc. Also, if you choose to just randomly jump around in a document please know that it will dramatically impact your speaks. Nobody is as good at flowing in online debates as we are in person, having the doc and reading it in order helps improve the activity.

Important norms to keep tournaments running on time

Please show up to the room to establish email chains/ speechdrop, disclose the 1ac/ past 2nrs, do tech checks, etc. AS SOON AS POSSIBLE after pairings have been released (read at least 20 minutes prior assuming pairings come out 30 minutes prior to round). The 1ac should start when the pairing says unless there is a tournament related reason. Once you get to the room and do tech check, feel free to use the rest of the time to prep, etc. If it's an in person tournament, please show up when the pairings get released, set up an email chain or speechdrop, disclose the 1ac/ past 2nrs, and then go prep - just come back to the room before the round is supposed to start. If you can't get to the room for some reason, it is your responsibility to email me and the other team to let us know.

Please know that if you don't do this, it will negatively effect your speaker points by .5. Choosing to show up late makes tournaments run behind and gives unfair advantages to teams with multiple coaches (I have to be here to judge and coach my team - if you choose to be late, I assume it's because you're getting extra coaching which gives you an unfair advantage over teams whose coaches are judging).

Cliff's Notes Version (things to do in the 10 minutes before the round):

- As long as we are online, please make sure you are adding intentional breaks between arguments. These can be verbal or non-verbal but they are necessary to make sure flowing is happening from the oral arguments instead of just from the speech doc. As an example, clearly say the word "next" or "and" after each card/ subpoint/ etc. or slow down for the tags to where there is a noticeable difference between the card or warrants and the next tag. This is one of those things that the technology just isn't as good as being face-to-face, but it may make debate better down the line.

- Disclose on the wiki pre-round unless you are breaking a new case. I can be persuaded, relatively easily, that this is a voting issue (this is not about small details in the case, but overall picture). Once a case is broken, please put it up as soon as possible. If you read it at last tournament and haven't found time to put it up, that's a problem. Also, at a minimum, the negative should be posting their main off case positions. Before the round, the aff and neg should both know what the opponent is reading as a case and what positions they have gone for at the end of debates on the negative. Having coached at a small and economically disprivileged school most of my life, the arguments against disclosure literally make no sense to me.

- I like politics a lot more than Ks - My perfect generic 2NR is politics and an agent CP. The best way to win a K in front of me is to argue that it turns case and makes case impossible to solve.
- I don't like cheap shots - I think plan flaws are a reason to ask questions in the CX or pre-round. Make debate better.
- K Framework - I prefer to do policy making. However, you need to answer the project if they run it.
- Cheating CPs - I don't like backfile check type CPs (veto cheato) or "I wrote this for fun" CPs (consult Harry Potter/ Jesus). I do like topic agent CPs (like have China do the plan, have the private sector do the plan).

- Link vs Uniqueness - Uniqueness determines the direction of the link - if it is not gonna pass now, there is no way the link can make it pass less.

- Cross-ex is always open unless another judge objects.
- Be Nice and FLOW!

High School Policy Specifics:

- I know that the last couple of topics don't have core stable offense for the neg. This definitely makes the neg more intuitively persuasive to me on questions of topicality and on the threshold that I need for the negative to win some kind of a link. I don't like CPs that aren't tied to topic specific literature. This includes, but is not limited to, contrived fiat tricks designed to garner net-benefits. This includes NGA, ConCon, etc. It doesn't mean I won't vote for it, it just means my threshold for aff theory, etc. is really low. If you are choosing between a CP that I have listed above and a disad with a less than ideal link (not no link, just less than ideal), it would be more persuasive to me to read the disad.

Here is a crystalized version of this stolen from Will Katz but it explains what I think about contrived CPs - "I am over contrived process cp's. If you don't have aff/topic specific evidence for your cp, I probably won't care if the aff's perm is intrinsic. If you don't have evidence about the plan, why does the aff's perm only have to be about the plan?"

I am a high school coach who tends to be at TOC tournaments about 3/4 of the time and local tournaments (with community judges) the other 1/4. However, I do cut a lot of cards, coach at camps, and think about the topic a lot which means that I have a pretty good grip on the topic. This means I may not know the intricacies of how your particular argument may functions in the high school environment you are competing in right now.

High School LD Specifics:

My default is that I don't need a value and value crit. in order to vote for you. However, I can be persuaded that it is needed. If the affirmative reads a particular interpretation of the topic (i.e. they read a plan) then, absent theory arguments about why that's bad, that becomes the focus of the debate. If the affirmative does not read a plan then the negative can still read disadvantages and PICs against the entirety of the topic. I don't terribly love NRs and 2ARs that end with a series of voting issues. Most of the time you are better off using that time to explain why the impacts to your case outweigh your opponent's case as opposed to describing them as voting issues. If you are going to make an argument in the NC that there is a different framework for the debate than what the affirmative explains in the AC, you need to make sure you fully develop that position. Framework functions very differently in LD compared to policy so make sure your blocks are written out for that reason.

I'm not a big fan of a big theory pre-empt at the end of the 1ac. I think the aff case is the time when you should be making most of your offensive arguments and most of the time theory is set up to be defensive. This is particularly silly to me when the aff has more time in rebuttals than the neg does anyway.

NFA LD Specifics:

I am relatively new to this format of debate but I like it a lot. I think debate should be viewed through a policy framework in this style of debate, but I can be persuaded out of this belief. However, if your main strategy is to say that the rules of NFA are problematic or that you shouldn't have to weigh the case and the DA, then I think you fighting an uphill battle.

Also, given the limited number of speeches, I tend to err on the side of starting aff framework as early as possible (probably the AC). This is mostly to protect the aff since if it's not brought up until the 2ac/ 1ar it is possible for the NR to straight turn it and leave the 2ar in an unwinnable position.

In Depth Stuff:

GENERAL-
I tend to prefer policy oriented discussions over kritikal debates but I will be happy to evaluate whatever you want to run. My favorite debates come down to a clash between specific arguments on the flow of the advantages and disadvantages. On theory you should number or slow down your tags so that I get the clash. I can flow your speed if it is clear, but if you want me to get the 19 reasons why conditionality is a bad practice you should slow down to a speed I can flow the blips. That said, I tend to prefer fast debate to slow debates that ultimately don't point to the resolution of the topic.
Read warrants in your evidence. Full sentences are how people speak. They have things like nouns, verbs, and prepositions. Please make sure that your evidence would make sense if you were reading it slowly.
If the round is close, I tend to read a decent amount of evidence after the round if there is a reason to do so. If you want me to call for a specific card please remind me in the 2nr/ 2ar.
Also please give reasons why your offense turns their offense besides "war causes x."

SPECIFICS-

Disclosure theory note:

I have a VERY low threshold on this argument. Having schools disclose their arguments pre-round is important if the activity is going to grow / sustain itself. Having coached almost exclusively at small, underfunded, new, or international schools, I can say that disclosure (specifically disclosure on the wiki if you are a paperless debater) is a game changer. It allows small schools to compete and makes the activity more inclusive. There are three specific ways that this influences how ballots will be given from me:

1) I will err negative on the impact level of "disclosure theory" arguments in the debate. If you're reading an aff that was broken at a previous tournament or on a previous day and is not on the wiki (assuming you have access to a laptop and the tournament provides wifi), you will likely lose if this theory is read. There are two ways for the aff to "we meet" this in the 2ac - either disclose on the wiki ahead of time or post the full copy of the 1ac in the wiki as a part of your speech. Obviously, some grace will be extended when wifi isn't available or due to other extenuating circumstances. However, arguments like "it's just too much work," "I don't like disclosure," etc. won't get you a ballot.

2) The neg still needs to engage in the rest of the debate. Read other off case positions and use their "no link" argument as a reason that disclosure is important. Read case cards and when they say they don't apply or they aren't specific enough, use that as a reason for me to see in round problems. This is not a "cheap shot" win. You are not going to "out-tech" your opponent on disclosure theory. To me, this is a question of truth. Along that line, I probably won't vote on this argument in novice, especially if the aff is reading something that a varsity debater also reads.

3) If you realize your opponent's aff is not on the wiki, you should make every possible attempt before the round to ask them about the aff, see if they will put it on the wiki, etc. I understand that, sometimes, one teammate puts all the cases for a squad on the wiki and they may have just put it under a different name. To me, that's a sufficient example of transparency (at least the first time it happens). If the aff says it's a new aff, that means (to me) that the plan text and/ or advantages are different enough that a previous strategy cut against the aff would be irrelevant. This would mean that if you completely change the agent of the plan text or have them do a different action it is new; adding a word like "substantially" or "enforcement through normal means" is not. Likewise, adding a new "econ collapse causes war" card is not different enough; changing from a Russia advantage to a China, kritikal, climate change, etc. type of advantage is. Even if it is new, if you are still reading some of the same solvency cards, I think it is better to disclose your previous versions of the aff at a minimum.

4) At tournaments that don't have wifi, this should be handled by the affirmative handing over a copy of their plan text before the round.

5) If you or your opponent honestly comes from a circuit that does not use the wiki (e.g. some UDLs, some local circuits, etc.), I will likely give some leeway. However, a great use of post-round time while I am making a decision is to talk to the opponent about how to upload on the wiki. If the argument is in the round due to a lack of disclosure and the teams make honest efforts to get things on the wiki while I'm finishing up my decision, I'm likely to bump speaks for all 4 speakers by .2 or .5 depending on how the tournament speaks go.

Topicality- I believe the affirmative should affirm the topic and the negative should negate the plan. It is fairly difficult to convince me that this is not the appropriate paradigm for the affirmative to operate under. The best way to think about topicality in front of me is to think about it as drawing lines or a fence. What does debate look like for a season when the negative wins the topicality argument vs. what does it look like when the affirmative wins. Affirmatives that push the bounds of the topic tend to be run more as the season progresses so the negative should be thinking through what the affirmative justifies if their interpretation because the standard for the community. This also means that there is no real need to prove real or potential *problems in the debate.

If the affirmative wants to win reasonability then they should be articulating how I determine what is reasonable. Is it that they meet at least one of the standards of the neg's T shell? Is it that there is a qualified source with an intent to define that thinks they are reasonable? Is it that there is a key part of the topic literature that won't get talked about for the season unless they are a topical affirmative?

If you want me to vote on Topicality the 2nr (or NR in LD) should be that. Spending less than the entire 2nr on a theoretical issue and expecting me to vote on it is absurd. I would only vote neg in that world if the affirmative is also badly handling it.

Counterplans- I love counterplans. I typically believe the negative should be able to have conditional, non-contradicting advocacies but I can be persuaded as to why this is bad. Typically this will need to be proven through some type of specific in round problem besides time skew. I think that the permutations should be more than "perm: do both, perm: do the plan, perm: do the CP."

Kritiks- I am not as deep on some of this literature as you are. You should take the time in CX or a block overview to explain the story of the K. Performance style debate is interesting to me but you will have to explain your framework from the beginning. I probably tend to be more easily swayed by the framework arguments about clash compared to exclusion. I will tend to default to preferring traditional types of debate.

Politics- I like good politics debates better than probably any other argument. I like interesting stories about specific senators, specific demographics for elections d/as, etc. With this being said, I would rather see a fully developed debate about the issue. I tend to evaluate this debate as a debate about uniqueness. Teams that do the work tend to get rewarded.

My perfect debate- Without a doubt the perfect round is a 2nr that goes for a pic (or advantage cp with case neg) and a politics d/a as a net benefit.

*Questions of "abuse" - This is a soapbox issue for me. In a world of significant actual abuse (domestic abuse, child abuse, elder abuse, bullying, etc.), the use of the word to describe something as trivial as reading a topical counterplan, going over cross-x time by 3 seconds, or even not disclosing seems incredibly problematic. There are alternative words like problematic, anti-educational, etc. that can adequately describe what you perceive to be the issue with the argument. Part of this frustration is also due to the number of times I have heard debaters frustrate community judges by saying they were abused when the other team read an argument they didn't like. Please don't use this phrase. You can help make debate better.

Paperless and speaker point stuff-
I used to debate in a world where most people had their evidence on paper and the one thing that I believe has been lost through that is that people tend to look more at the speech doc than listening to the debate. I love paperless debate, just make sure that you are focusing on the speech itself and not relying exclusively on the document that the other team has sent you. Flowing well will often result in improved speaker points.

If you are using an online format to share evidence (e.g. speechdrop or an email chain), please include me in the loop. If you are using a flashdrive, I don't need to see it.

I don't expect teams to have analytics on the speech document (but if you are asked by your opponent for equity or accessibility reasons to have them there, please do so). I do expect teams to have every card, in order, on the speech document. If you need to add an additional card (because you've been doing speed drills), that's fine - just do it at the end of the speech.

If you let me know that your wiki is up to date including this round (both aff and neg) and send me the link, I'll also bump speaker points by .2.

Masks stuff for in person (last updated 4/7/23)

COVID and other diseases are still real. If I'm feeling at all under the weather, I will wear a mask. I ask you to do the same. All other things being equal, you are free to debate with or without a mask. However, if you are asked to wear a mask by an opponent or judge who is also wearing a mask, and you choose not to, it is an auto-loss with the lowest speaker points that I am allowed to give. This is a safety issue.

Along those lines, with the experiences that many have gone through in the last year, please don't make arguments like "death good," "disease good," etc. While there may be cards on those things, they very violent for many people right now. Please help make debate a safe space for people who are coming out of a very difficult time.

- I judge in a circuit that debates slowly. I prefer quality of argumentation to quantity.

- My default is to evaluate the round as a policymaker, but I'll listen to arguments about why I should do otherwise. I'll vote on a procedural or critical argument if you give me some good and clear reasons for doing so.

- I did policy debate in high school, parliamentary debate in college, and studied philosophy in grad school.

Email for evidence sharing: I would like to be included in the email chain if you are picking to do it that way, if not that's cool too, also just for any other questions: derek30saiko@gmail.com

Overview:

I am currently a Senior at Central High School in Springfield, MO. I am a Varsity Policy Debater, I enjoy Policy more than the other debates, however, I think they are all very fun to judge. Below you will see a few things I will be watching for and reasons of why I will give you a certain rank or result.

Policy: In policy I will be flowing, I have really good background knowledge in the Water Resources topic so I will be flowing this. I would enjoy if you give me a roadmap before your speeches. I will be looking for good speaking, if you don't understand your own evidence I won't be able to either, so know what your talking about. Even if you say it with confidence it will be better than just skimming over it and not knowing what it is. Spreading in my opinion is not a good way to debate, because why debate if you aren't even able to be heard, I will not count this against you, however, if I can't hear the argument I will not include it in my flow.

PuF: I will be flowing in PuF, I do not have as much background knowledge in this topic so any acronyms or certain words that you didn't know before researching the case you should explain to me. If your arguments make sense I will be more likely to vote in favor of your team, even if the other team has "more evidence". I will be looking for good speaking, if you don't understand your own evidence I won't be able to either, so know what your talking about. Even if you say it with confidence it will be better than just skimming over it and not knowing what it is. Spreading in my opinion is not a good way to debate, because why debate if you aren't even able to be heard, I will not count this against you, however, if I can't hear the argument I will not include it in my flow.

LD: I will be flowing in LD, I do not have strong background knowledge in this topic, I do know some things but you should still explain stuff in your own words after you read it. If your arguments make sense I will be more likely to vote in favor of your team, even if the other team has "more evidence". I will be looking for good speaking, if you don't understand your own evidence I won't be able to either, so know what your talking about. Even if you say it with confidence it will be better than just skimming over it and not knowing what it is. Spreading in my opinion is not a good way to debate, because why debate if you aren't even able to be heard, I will not count this against you, however, if I can't hear the argument I will not include it in my flow.

Speaking Rating:

Speaks

I'll assign speaks based on this scale:

23 - 25: You need to practice your speaking, need to read through and understand your case better.

26: You need some practice in your speaking speaking practice, and start to explain your analytics instead of JUST reading them.

27: You did decent speaking and you did "ok" in explaining your case and analytics

28: You did pretty average, you should be a little clearer while explaining analytics

29: You did really great at speaking, great analytics, you really understand your cards and your case overall

30: You did fantastic at speaking and analyzing your evidence/case

If you ask for advice after the debate, or critiques I am always down to give you them.

I competed in Speech and Debate for all four years of high school in just about every event/debate and have coached for 6 years now (again, coaching all events/debates). In all debates, I'm looking for solid analysis, logic, and advancement of arguments. If your opponent responds to your argument, please do not refute their response by once more citing your original argument/evidence. Advance the discussion and provide additional analysis, evidence, etc. I also value good organization and sign posting as you speak. If you don't see me writing or if I'm making a funny face, you're probably speaking too fast, and I can't understand you. Debate is about communication. Remember that your number 1 priority should be to communicate effectively.

LD Specific Paradigm:

Lincoln Douglas is all about framework, framework, framework. I want a good clash that focuses on framework. Please do not nitpick the tiny differences in framework, but if your framework differs, you need to discuss why yours is preferred. If they're virtually the same, that's fine. Show me why you uphold the framework better. I want solid logic and analysis. I'm not writing down your evidence tags because, quite frankly, I don't care to have a discussion on sources. I want you to connect back to your framework and focus on the conceptual ethics. Please, do not give me an off the clock road map. We know you're going to talk about your opponent's case then rebuild your own or vice versa. There's not a lot of surprises here.

CX Specific Paradigm:

For policy, I want to hear good, well-developed arguments at a speed that I can actually follow. I'm looking for strong links, clear impacts, and solid analysis. I'm not impressed by how quickly you read other people's arguments. I'm looking for how you synthesize evidence into a compelling argument for the specific round. The winning side will have consistency in speeches and arguments throughout the round and spend time weighing arguments and explaining why their arguments are superior. I do not want to be on the email chain. I believe firmly that debate is an oral communication activity, and if I have to read to understand your argument, something has gone very wrong with your communication. Please make sure you're clearly sign posting verbally so that I know what you're addressing.

Please do not spread. I cannot follow. A great strategy for me is to read tags slowly and then speed up on evidence (as a former LDer, I prefer your argumentation over your evidence anyway). I don't know all the CX jargon and acronyms. Be kind and explain what you're talking about. Ex: "Our first off case is a Plan-Inclusive-Counterplan, or PIC." <--That would have been such a helpful line in the first couple rounds I judged. If I can access the round, I will engage fully. I'll nod when you have me, smile when I think you've said something really smart. If you start to lose me, you'll see me squint and lean forward. Eventually, you'll lose me completely if you don't correct, and you'll know that because I'll stop typing/looking at you.

PF Specific Paradigm:

Public Forum debate should be universally accessible. I'm looking for kitchen-table debates; I'm not looking for policy on double speed. You evidence should enhance your argument, but it shouldn't be your argument. I'm looking for good analysis and links to an overall claim that is reasonable and easily understood. I do not want a bunch of stats thrown at me or a book of expert opinions: I want to hear you synthesize the information and explain it to me. Public Forum debaters should refrain from overly-cumbersome jargon and consider their audience as more of a "town hall" style.

About Me:

I debated for 4 years at Central High School in Springfield, MO, competing at mostly local tournaments. I primarily competed in Public Forum, International Extemp and Original Oratory, and have a little bit of experience with Policy Debate (but only at a very basic level).

General Debate Preferences:

1. Speaking:

I will be flowing, and I do my best to try to write everything down BUT if you go too quickly, I may not be able to catch everything. Be mindful of your speed, and if you think that you're speaking too quickly, you probably are.

Signpost. I won't know where to flow things if you don't.

2. Argumentation:

Warrant everything!

Smart analytics combined with evidence are always going to be better than just evidence.

Weigh the impacts of the round! If your argument doesn't have an impact, I will not vote for it.

Interact with your opponents arguments with analytics and evidence; if I don't understand why a piece of evidence is a response to something, that's on you.

Making good comparative analysis is one of the most compelling things you can do in a debate round, so show me why your arguments are better than your opponents.

3. Progressive Arguments:

I have no experience with these arguments and I am generally uncomfortable voting on these arguments. To ensure that I can judge the round as effectively as possible, I won't evaluate theory, Ks, etc. unless there is an in-round violation that hurts or excludes somebody. At that point, I would prefer that it was not laid out in the format of progressive argumentation, but in paragraph form with a warrant and an explanation.

4. Speaker Ratings/Points:

I am not opposed to low point wins, speaking better does not always mean that you debated better.

If you spin 360 degrees every time you say "turn," I'll give you a 30.

5. Miscellaneous:

Have fun! I know it's stressful, but it'll make the experience better for everyone.

If you are offensive, you will lose on the lowest speaks possible.

If you are reading an argument that you think needs a trigger or content warning, use one.

Don't call me "judge."

If there is ANYTHING you think I should know before the round starts that is pertinent, or you want to talk about my decision, send me an email at askolnic@trinty.edu

In policy, I will judge primarily on the stock issues. These should be clear within the context of the debate. On topicality, I will specifically be looking at debatability and reasonability. However, if an argument is missed due to spreading, it will be considered a dropped argument.

In Public Forum, I judge heavily on impacts and argumentation, but will weigh uniqueness if it is brought up.

In LD, I am a proponent of the value debate.

I am a lay judge and have a difficult time following spreading. I appreciate when competitors speak clearly and at a normal speed. I have a knowledge of some debate terms, but appreciate when terms are quickly defined for clarity. Thank you and good luck!

Aubrey Webster

Parkview High School, Springfield, MO

Assistant Coach

I did not debate in High School but performed Storytelling for individual speech tournaments. This is my second year as the assistant speech and debate coach at Parkview High School in Springfield, Missouri.

Please provide me with the documents that you flash/email over. This makes my life easier in case there are tech issue or if I need to look things over again.

When judging, I look at the following details:

How well you were able to explain and provide evidence.

How well you were able to ask questions and answer questions during cross examination.

How well you were able to attack your opponent's case.

How well your speaking skills were during your speech.

I truly believe speech and debate provides so many life skills for students and it is an honor to be apart of this amazing activity!

I have judged debate a few times and have children who do debate, but have not done debate myself. I am a college professor.

Hi! My name is Meredith and I am a full-time college student pursuing my Master's degree in Accounting at the University of Arkansas. For my employment, I currently tutor in math and data analytics and will be beginning an auditing position this summer at a firm here in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Here's a quick run-down of how I judge:

1. I was a competitor in public forum debate for all four years of high school, but watched my friends compete in and have judged both LD and Policy so I am up to date on the format, timing, and decorum necessary for each debate.

2. I will be flowing all debate rounds diligently. I will notice if you drop something on the flow, and it will affect my decision-making.

3. Roadmaps are unnecessary outside of Policy debate, so don't give me one.

4. I'm cool with a 30-second grace period at the end of speeches to wrap up your final point. If you bring up something new outside of your allotted time, I just won't consider it.

5. Being hateful will automatically get you a loss.

6. I identify politically as a socialist. My politics should generally not dictate how well you prove a point, but it is something to keep in mind if you're trying to persuade me. :)

Hey CX Debaters,

Ladue '23

Email: notallenyou@gmail.com

On speed/intro:

I'm a HS student from a traditional debate circuit. I'm not a very experienced judge nor debater. I apologize, but if you go way too fast or I can't understand you, I won't flow your args. Generally, I can listen to args pretty fast. I prefer if you read the authors name and year slower just so I know what card you reference if you decide to bring it up later. Try to have a good mic. Don't yell.

On content:

I like a good policy debate. I also enjoy critical debates (if there's good lit behind it). I'd be willing to vote for T, but it would be hard to convince me unless there's a genuine reason for reading T. Again I come from a pretty lay/traditional circuit, so I don't encounter a lot of Ks in my rounds, but I am willing to vote for a K. IMPACT CALC MATTERS. I'm willing to adopt a offense/defense paradigm or a policymaker paradigm. DAs/CPs are fine and probably the easiest way for me to give a ballot over. If aff decides to be untopical on purpose, there needs to be an explanation.