Email: debatecards.charlotte@gmail.com. Please add me to the email chain.

NDT/CEDA Experience: Debated at Weber State for Omar Guevara and Ryan Wash. Graduate Assistant at Kansas State for Alex McVey and James Taylor (JT).

Other Experience: Assistant coach for Manhattan High, Layton, and Lincoln Southeast doing LD and speech. Instructor for Harbinger Debate, Shanghai doing PF.

Current Position: 2L at University of Nebraska-Lincoln law school. Clerkship for the Lancaster County Public Defender.

Judging Thesis: I understand my role to be evaluating the PERSUASIVENESS of the arguments debaters make, in whatever format they choose to present it. Factors which make an argument more persuasive to me include: concessions, examples, correct application of key terms from your scholarship, credibility of source authors, internal consistency of the argument, explanatory power, and how the argument fits into other strategic choices the debater has made. This role may shift if I am given a clear and persuasive argument to do so.

Disability Accommodations: All reasonable requests for accommodation for any disability will be granted, or the team will lose. Debaters do not need evidence to prove that they have a disability. I am seeking to reward alternative speaking styles which are not based on the traditional norm of spreading and technical jargon, although mastery of that style is also very impressive. Please see this article for more discussion of disability access in policy debate: https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1281&context=speaker-gavel

Advice for Debaters:

I will only write a ballot for tacky or frivolous arguments if I have no other choice. I want to write ballots which engage with a question of actual SUBSTANCE. Disagreements about rules or procedures CAN have substance and are NOT discouraged, but you must use your judgment to decide whether the argument you are making is worth the air you spend saying it. No category of argument is exempt from this rule.

I think the negative has a burden to ENGAGE WITH THE AFFIRMATIVE in some way. There should be a moment where I am able to see how the strategies interact and where the disagreements are. If the negative approach is never contextualized to some actual dispute occurring in the round, I will be sympathetic to a lot of standard affirmative arguments.

I prefer DEPTH over breadth in almost all cases. In my thesis above I list the kinds of things which constitute depth.

Fairness and education are not real impacts until they are explained. Fairness is only an impact in relation to a particular kind of debate, the value of competition, etc. Education is only an impact in relation to a particular role for debaters, the value of certain literature bases, etc. If you do not ELABORATE ON PROCEDURAL IMPACTS/TURNS THEREOF then don't be surprised if they aren't enough.

Don’t use words you don’t understand. I CANNOT BE RAZZLE-DAZZLED into voting for incoherent nonsense. High theory is cool and good when you are cool and good. I love kritik debating because of the radicalism, not the obscurantism. If you have depth, like the thesis above describes, this will not be a problem for you.

In high school debates, I WILL NOT evaluate an argument which is overly hostile toward another competitor’s identity or presence at the tournament, and I WILL consider dropping the team. Almost everything is permitted, but there are certain lines you cannot cross. In college y’all are mostly adults so go off, but I will probably need some clarification about my role in resolving that dispute, because my default assumption is that I don’t have jurisdiction over the value of a person’s life/presence/identity. I will always have a low bar to defeat hate, because HATE IS NOT PERSUASIVE.

jacobberryyy@gmail.com for emails please don't make fun of the 3 y's it is too late to change it now

I debated at Washburn Rural for four years and graduated in '19. My senior year I mostly went for T or a DA with a CP if I needed it. If I went for a K it was probably security or neolib. And I went for impact turns more than I should have.

I haven't read a bunch on this year's topic. I won't understand your acronyms and jargon so please explain. I also haven't listened to a fast debate round in a while so please slow down, especially with this new format.

Just smart arguments and make fun of bad ones. I think the most persuasive speakers have fun and are relaxed. I also like when people don't just read off their computer.

I debated under Timothy Ellis and with Jimin Park my senior year. They both know infinitely more about debate than I do but but most of my ideas about debate probably came from them. I'm still an old man.

Please include me on the email chain; shane.billig@gmail.com

I'm a fairly adaptable judge; 10+ years of debate experience as a competitor/coach. I default to policymaker framework and I am very familiar with CP/DA theory and am generally okay with any generic arguments, but I'd prefer to have the links analyzed to be as specific as possible. In general analysis and comparison of cards and warrants is the best way to convince me that your evidence is superior, and I find that many 2AC/2NC rely too much on reading more blocks rather than providing unique in round analysis.

I have and will vote on kritiks, and there are many times I think the K is the smartest choice in the round, however the more specific your kritiks get, the less familiar I am with the authors and literature. There are some key exceptions and generally any form of IR kritik or kritik of the general "structure" of society I will understand (Fem IR/Cap/Militarism for example). You must explain the kritik, the role of the ballot, and specifically explain the link and how the alternative functions. Explain the kritik in your own words, don't just read a block at me.

On topicality I default to reasonability, but this doesn't mean that I won't vote on topicality, especially if you give me reasons why I should prefer competing interpretations. In slow/quick rounds I am generally able to get citations on my flow, but in fast rounds you won't be able to extend just by author/year. Talk about the card, its tag, and its role in the round (this is just good extension advice in general). With all arguments if I don't understand your point, it doesn't make it onto my flow because you weren't clear, it got flowed onto the wrong sheet, etc then you didn't say it and I won't evaluate it. This happens most often on theory/T/K where I don't understand the violation or alternative or some other aspect of the argument--and the easiest solution to this problem is again to slow down for a second and use your own words to explain the argument.

If the round is going to have more than 5+ minutes of T/Theory I think everyone is better off if you go at 90% of your speed on those arguments. I am not as fast as you think I am, and while it's rare that I'm sped out of rounds, it does happen, and when it does 90% of the time it's me missing theory analysis because you're blazing through a pre-written block like its a politics card. I am more than happy to answer any questions you may have, and I do my best to adapt my judging style to the round I am in. One thing that I feel many teams do is over-adapt, and it often hurts them. Debate the way you want to debate, and I will evaluate it however you tell me to. I'd much rather judge really good debates over K literature I'm not familiar with prior to the round than bad or bland CP/DA debate.

Short Version:
-yes email chain: nyu.bs.debate@gmail.com

-if you would like to contact me about something else, the best way to reach me is: bootj093@newschool.edu - please do not use this email for chains I would like to avoid cluttering it every weekend which is why I have a separate one for them

-debated in high school @ Mill Valley (local policy circuit in Kansas) and college @ NYU (CEDA-NDT) for 7 years total - mostly policy arguments in high school, mix of high theory and policy in college

-head LD/policy debate coach at Bronx Science and assistant policy coach at The New School, former assistant for Blue Valley West, Mill Valley, and Mamaroneck

-spin > evidence quality, unless the evidence is completely inconsistent with the spin

-tech > truth as long as the tech has a claim, warrant, and impact

-great for impact turns

-t-framework impacts ranked: topic education > skills > clash/arg refinement > scenario planning > fun > literally any other reason why debate is good > fairness

-I updated the t-fw part of my paradigm recently (under policy, 12/4/23) - if you are anticipating having a framework debate in front of me on either side, I would appreciate it if you skimmed it at least

-don't like to judge kick but if you give me reasons to I might

-personally think condo has gone way too far in recent years and more people should go for it, but I don't presume one way or the other for theory questions

-all kinds of theory, including topicality, framework, and/or "role of the ballot" arguments are about ideal models of debate

-most of the rounds I judge are clash debates, but I've been in policy v policy and k v k both as a debater and judge so I'm down for anything

-for high school policy 23-24: I actually used to work for the Social Security Administration (only for about 7-8 months) and I have two immediate family members who currently work there - so I have a decent amount of prior knowledge about how the agency works internally, processes benefits, the technology it uses, etc. - but not necessarily policy proposals for social security reform

Long Version:

Overview: Debate is for the debaters so do your thing and I'll do my best to provide a fair decision despite any preferences or experiences that I have. I have had the opportunity to judge and participate in debates of several different formats, circuits, and styles in my short career. What I've found is that all forms of debate are valuable in some way, though often for different reasons, whether it be policy, critical, performance, LD, PF, local circuit, national circuit, public debates, etc. Feel free to adapt arguments, but please don't change your style of debate for me. I want to see what you are prepared for, practiced in, and passionate about. Please have fun! Debating is fun for you I hope!

Speaking and Presentation: I don't care about how you look, how you're dressed, how fast or in what manner you speak, where you sit, whether you stand, etc. Do whatever makes you feel comfortable and will help you be the best debater you can be. My one preference for positioning is that you face me during speeches. It makes it easier to hear and also I like to look up a lot while flowing on my laptop. For some panel situations, this can be harder, just try your best and don't worry about it too much.

Speed - I do not like to follow along in the speech doc while you are giving your speech. I like to read cards in prep time, when they are referenced in cx, and while making my decision. I will use it as a backup during a speech if I have to. This is a particular problem in LD, that has been exacerbated by two years of online debate. I expect to be able to hear every word in your speech, yes including the text of cards. I expect to be able to flow tags, analytics, theory interps, or anything else that is not the interior text of a card. This means you can go faster in the text of a card, this does mean you should be unclear while reading the text of a card. This also means you should go slower for things that are not that. This is because even if I can hear and understand something you are saying, that does not necessarily mean that my fingers can move fast enough to get it onto my flow. When you are reading analytics or theory args, you are generally making warranted arguments much faster than if you were reading a card. Therefore, you need to slow down so I can get those warrants on my flow.

Clarity - I'm bad at yelling clear. I try to do it when things are particularly egregious but honestly, I feel bad about throwing a debater off their game in the middle of a speech. I think you can clear or slow your opponent if you are comfortable with it - but not excessively to avoid interruption please - max 2-3 times a speech. If you are unclear with tags or analytics in an earlier speech, I will try to let you know immediately after the speech is over. If you do it in a rebuttal, you are 100% at fault because I know you can do it clearly, but are choosing not to. Focus on efficiency, not speed.

Logistical Stuff: I would like the round to run as on-time as possible. Docs should be ready to be sent when you end prep time. Orders/roadmaps should be given quickly and not changed several times. Marking docs can happen outside of prep time, but it should entail only marking where cards were cut. I would prefer that, at the varsity level, CX or prep time is taken to ask if something was not read or which arguments were read. I think it’s your responsibility to listen to your opponent’s speech to determine what was said and what wasn’t. I don’t take prep or speech time for tech issues - the clock can stop if necessary. Use the bathroom, fill up your water bottle as needed - tournaments generally give plenty of time for a round and so long as the debaters are not taking excessive time to do other things like send docs, I find that these sorts of things aren’t what truly makes the round run behind.

Email chain or speech drop is fine for docs, which should be shared before a speech. I really prefer Word documents if possible, but don't stress about changing your format if you can't figure it out. Unless there is an accommodation request, not officially or anything just an ask before the round, I don't think analytics need to be sent. Advocacy texts, theory interps, and shells should be sent. Cards are sent for the purposes of ethics and examining more closely the research of your opponent. Too many of you have stopped listening to your opponents entirely and I think the rising norm of sending every single word you plan on saying is a big part of it. It also makes you worse debaters because in the instances where your opponent decides to look up from their laptop and make a spontaneous argument, many of you just miss it entirely.

Stop stealing prep time. When prep time is called by either side, you should not be talking to your partner, typing excessively on your computer, or writing things down. My opinion on “flex prep,” or asking questions during prep time, is that you can ask for clarifications, but your opponent doesn’t have to answer more typical cx questions if they don’t want to (it is also time that they are entitled to use to focus on prep), and I don’t consider the answers in prep to have the same weight as in cx. Prep time is not a speech, and I dislike it when a second ultra-pointed cx begins in prep time because you think it makes your opponent look worse. It doesn’t - it makes you look worse.

Speaker Points: I try to adjust based on the strength of the tournament pool/division, but my accuracy can vary depending on how many rounds in the tournament I've already judged.

29.5+ You are one of the top three speakers in the tournament and should be in finals.

29.1-29.4 You are a great speaker who should be in late elims of the tournament.

28.7-29 You are a good speaker who should probably break.

28.4-28.6 You're doing well, but need some more improvement to be prepared for elims.

28-28.3 You need significant improvement before I think you can debate effectively in elims.

<28 You have done something incredibly offensive or committed an ethics violation, which I will detail in written comments and speak with you about in oral feedback.

The three things that affect speaker points the most are speaking clearly/efficiently, cross-x, and making effective choices in the final rebuttals.

If you win the debate without reading from a laptop in the 2NR/2AR your floor for speaks is a 29.

For Policy:

T-Framework: The fw debates I like the most are about the advantages and disadvantages of having debates over a fiated policy implementation of the topic. I would prefer if your interpretation/violation was phrased in terms of what the affirmative should do/have done - I think this trend of crafting an interpretation around negative burdens is silly - i.e. "negatives should not be burdened with the rejoinder of untopical affirmatives." I'm not usually a big fan of neg interpretations that only limit out certain parts of the topic - strategically, they usually seem to just link back to neg offense about limits and predictability absent a more critical strategy. I think of framework through an offense/defense paradigm and in terms of models of debate. My opinion is that you all spend dozens or hundreds of hours doing research, redos, practice, and debates - you should be prepared to defend that the research you do, the debates you have, and how you have those debates are good.

1. Topic-specific arguments are best - i.e. is it a good or bad thing that we are having rounds talking about fiscal redistribution, nuclear weapons, resource extraction, or military presence? How can that prepare people to take what they learn in debate outside of the activity? Why is topic-specific education valuable or harmful in a world of disinformation, an uninformed American public, escalating global crises, climate change, etc.? Don't be silly and read an extinction impact or anything though.

2. Arguments about debate in general are also great - I'm down for a "debate about debate" - the reason that I as a coach and judge invest tons of time into this activity is because I think it is pedagogically valuable - but what that value should look like, what is best to take from it, is in my opinion the crux of framework debates. Should debate be a competitive space or not? What are the implications of imagining a world where government policy gets passed? What should fiat look like or should it be used at all?

I can be convinced that debate should die given better debating from that side. But honestly, this is not my personal belief - the decline of policy debate in terms of participation at the college and high school level makes me very sad actually. I can also be convinced that debate is God's gift to earth and is absolutely perfect, even though I also believe that there are many problems with the activity. There is also a huge sliding scale between these two options.

3. Major defensive arguments and turns are good - technical stuff about framework like ssd, tvas, relative solvency of counter-interps, turns case and turns the disad arguments, uniqueness claims about the current trends of debate, claims about the history of debate, does it shape subjectivity or not - are all things that I think are worth talking about and can be used to make "try or die" or presumption arguments - though they should not be the focal point of your offense. I like when tvas are carded solvency advocates and/or full plan texts.

4. I do not like judging debates about procedural fairness:

A) They are usually very boring. On every topic, the same pre-written blocks, read at each other without any original thought over and over. I dislike other arguments for this reason too - ultra-generic kritiks and process cps - but even with those, they often get topic or aff-specific contextualizations in the block. This does not usually happen with fairness.

B) I often find fairness very unimportant on its own relative to the other key issues of framework - meaning I don't usually think it is offense. I find a lot of these debates to end up pretty tautological - "fairness is an impact because debate is a game and games should have rules or else they'd be unfair," etc. Many teams in front of me will win that fairness is necessary to preserve the game, but never take the next step of explaining to me why preserving the game is good. In that scenario, what "impact" am I really voting on? Even if the other team agrees that the game of debate is good (which a lot of k affs contest anyway), you still have to quantify or qualify how important that is for me to reasonably compare it to the aff's offense - saying "well we all must care about fairness because we're here, they make strategic arguments, etc." - is not sufficient to do that. I usually agree that competitive incentives mean people care about fairness somewhat. But how much and why is that important? I get an answer with nearly every other argument in debate, but hardly ever with fairness. I think a threshold for if something is an impact is that it's weighable.

C) Despite this, fairness can be impacted out into something tangible or I can be convinced that "tangibility" and consequences are not how I should make my decision. My hints are Nebel and Glówczewski.

5. Everyone needs to compare their impacts alongside other defensive claims in the debate and tell me why I should vote for them. Like traditional T, it's an offense/defense, disad/counterplan, model of debate thing for me. For some reason, impact comparison just seems to disappear from debaters' repertoire when debating framework, which is really frustrating for me.

Kritiks: Both sides of these debates often involve a lot of people reading overviews at each other, especially in high school, which can make it hard to evaluate at the end of the round. Have a clear link story and a reason why the alternative resolves those links. Absent an alt, have a framework as to why your impacts matter/why you still win the round. Impacts are negative effects of the status quo, the alternative resolves the status quo, and the links are reasons why the aff prevents the alternative from happening. Perms are a test of the strength of the link. Framework, ROB, and ROJ arguments operate on the same level to me and I think they are responsive to each other. My feelings on impacts here are similar to t-fw.

I still study some French high theory authors in grad school, but from a historical perspective. In my last couple years of college debate I read Baudrillard and DnG-style arguments a lot, some psychoanalysis as well - earlier than that my tastes were a little more questionable and I liked Foucault, Zizek, and Nietzsche a lot, though I more often went for policy arguments - I gave a lot of fw+extinction outweighs 2ARs. A lot of the debates I find most interesting include critical ir or critical security studies arguments. I have also coached many other kinds of kritiks, including all of the above sans Zizek as well as a lot of debaters going for arguments about anti-blackness or feminism. Set col stuff I don't know the theory as well tbh.

Affirmatives: I think all affs should have a clear impact story with a good solvency advocate explaining why the aff resolves the links to those impacts. I really enjoy affs that are creative and outside of what a lot of people are reading, but are still grounded in the resolution. If you can find a clever interpretation of the topic or policy idea that the community hasn't thought of yet, I'll probably bump your speaks a bit.

Disads: Love 'em. Impact framing is very important in debates without a neg advocacy. Turns cases/turns the da is usually much better than timeframe/probability/magnitude. Between two improbable extinction impacts, I default to using timeframe a lot of the time. A lot of disads (especially politics) have pretty bad ev/internal link chains, so try to wow me with 1 good card that you explain well in rebuttals rather than spitting out 10 bad ones. 0 risk of a disad is absolutely a thing, but hard to prove, like presumption.

Counterplans: They should have solvency advocates and a clear story for competition. Exploit generic link chains in affs. My favorites are advantage cps, specific pics, and recuttings of 1AC solvency ev. I like process cps when they are specific to the topic or have good solvency advocates. I will vote on other ones still, but theory and perm do the cp debates may be harder for you. I think some process cps are even very pedagogically valuable and can be highly persuasive with up-to-date, well-cut evidence - consult Japan on relevant topics for instance. But these arguments can potentially be turned by clash and depth over breadth. And neg flex in general can be a very strong argument in policy. I won't judge kick unless you tell me to in the 2NR, and preferably it should have some kind of justification.

Topicality: I default to competing interps and thinking of interps as models of debate. Be clear about what your interp includes and excludes and why that is a good thing. I view topicality like a disad most of the time, and vote for whoever's vision of the topic is best. I find arguments about limits and the effect that interpretations have on research to be the most convincing. I like topicality debates quite a bit.

Theory: Slow down, slow down, slow down. Like T, I think of theory through models of debate and default to competing interps- you should have an interpretation to make your life a little easier if you want to extend it - if you don't, I will assume the most extreme one (i.e. no pics, no condo, etc.). If you don't have a counter-interp in response to a theory argument, you are in a bad position. If your interpretation uses debate jargon like pics, "process" cps, and the like - you should tell me what you mean by those terms at least in rebuttal. Can pics be out of any word said, anything in the plan, anything defended in the solvency advocate or in cx, any concept advocated for, etc.? I think there is often too much confusion over what is meant to be a process cp. The interpretation I like best for "process" is "counterplans that result in the entirety of the plan." I like condo bad arguments, especially against super abusive 1ncs, but the neg gets a ton of time in the block to answer it, so it can be really hard to give a good enough 1ar on it without devoting a lot of time as well - so if you are going to go for it in the 2ar, you need to expand on it and cover block responses in the 1ar. Warrant out reject the argument vs. reject the team.

For LD:

Prefs Shortcut:

1 - LARP, High Theory Ks

2 - Other Ks, Topicality

3 - Phil, Theory that isn't condo or pics bad

4/5/strike - Trad, Tricks

My disclaimer is I try to keep an open mind for any debate - you should always use the arguments/style that you are most prepared with and practiced in. You all seem to really like these shortcuts, so I caved and made one - but these are not necessarily reflective of my like or dislike for any particular argument, instead more of my experience with different kinds, meaning some probably require more explanation for me to "get it." I love when I do though - I'm always happy to learn new things in debate!

Phil Debates: Something I am fairly unfamiliar with, but I've been learning more about over the past 6 months (02/23). I have read, voted for, and coached many things to the contrary, but if you want to know what I truly believe, I basically think most things collapse into some version of consequentialist utilitarianism. If you are to convince me that I should not be a consequentialist, then I need clear instructions for how I should evaluate offense. Utilitarianism I'm used to being a little more skeptical of from k debates, but other criticisms of util from say analytic philosophy I will probably be unfamiliar with.

Trad Debate: By far what I am least familiar with. I don't coach this style and never competed in anything like LD trad debate - I did traditional/lay policy debate a bit in high school - but that is based on something called "stock issues" which is a completely different set of standards than LD's value/value criterion. I struggle in these debates because for me, like "stock issues" do in policy, these terms seem to restrictively categorize arguments and actually do more to obscure their meaning than reveal it. In the trad debates I've seen (not many, to be fair), tons of time was dedicated to clarifying minutiae and defining words that either everyone ended up agreeing on or that didn't factor into the way that I would make my decision. I don't inherently dislike LD trad debate at all, it honestly just makes things more difficult for me to understand because of how I've been trained in policy debate for 11 years. I try my best, but I feel that I have to sort through trad "jargon" to really get at what you all think is important. I would prefer if you compared relative impacts directly rather than told me one is better than the other 100% of the time.

Plans/DAs/CPs: See the part in my policy paradigm. Plans/CP texts should be clearly written and are generally better when in the language of a specific solvency advocate. I think the NC should be a little more developed for DAs than in policy - policy can have some missing internal links because they get the block to make new arguments, but you do not get new args in the NR that are unresponsive to the 1AR - make sure you are making complete arguments that you can extend.

Kritiks: Some stuff in my policy paradigm is probably useful. Look there for K-affs vs. T-fw. I'm most familiar with so-called "high theory" but I have also debated against, judged, and coached many other kinds of kritiks. Like with DAs/CPs, stuff that would generally be later in the debate for policy should be included in the NC, like ROBs/fw args. Kritiks to me are usually consequentialist, they just care about different kinds of consequences - i.e. the consequences of discourse, research practices, and other impacts more proximate than extinction.

ROB/ROJs: In my mind, this is a kind of theory debate. The way I see this deployed in LD most of the time is as a combination of two arguments. First, what we would call in policy "framework" (not what you call fw in LD) - an argument about which "level" I should evaluate the debate on. "Pre-fiat" and "post-fiat" are the terms that you all like to use a lot, but it doesn't necessarily have to be confined to this. I could be convinced for instance that research practices should come before discourse or something else. The second part is generally an impact framing argument - not only that reps should come first, but that a certain kind of reps should be prioritized - i.e. ROB is to vote for whoever best centers a certain kind of knowledge. These are related, but also have separate warrants and implications for the round, so I consider them separately most of the time. I very often can in fact conclude that reps must come first, but that your opponent’s reps are better because of some impact framing argument that they are making elsewhere. Also, ROB and ROJ are indistinct from one another to me, and I don’t see the point in reading both of them in the same debate.

Topicality: You can see some thoughts in the policy sections as well if you're having that kind of T debate about a plan. I personally think some resolutions in LD justify plans and some don't. But I can be convinced that having plans or not having plans is good for debate, which is what is important for me in deciding these debates. The things I care about here are education and fairness, generally more education stuff than fairness. Topicality interpretations are models of the topic that affirmatives should follow to produce the best debates possible. I view T like a DA and vote for whichever model produces the best theoretical version of debate. I care about "pragmatics" - "semantics" matter to me only insofar as they have a pragmatic impact - i.e. topic/definitional precision is important because it means our research is closer to real-world scholarship on the topic. Jurisdiction is a vacuous non-starter. Nebel stuff is kind of interesting, but I generally find it easier just to make an argument about limits. Reasonability is something I almost never vote on - to be “reasonable” I think you have to either meet your opponent’s interp or have a better one.

RVIs: The vast majority of the time these are unnecessary when you all go for them. If you win your theory or topicality interp is better than your opponent's, then you will most likely win the debate, because the opposing team will not have enough offense on substance. I'm less inclined to believe topicality is an RVI. I think it’s an aff burden to prove they are topical and the neg getting to test that is generally a good thing. Other theory makes more sense as an RVI. Sometimes when a negative debater is going for both theory and substance in the NR, the RVI can be more justifiable to go for in the 2AR because of the unique time differences of LD. If they make the decision to fully commit to theory in the NR, however, the RVI is unnecessary - not that I'm ideologically opposed to it, it just doesn't get you anything extra for winning the debate - 5 seconds of "they dropped substance" is easier and the warrants for your c/i's standards are generally much better than the ones for the RVI.

Disclosure Theory: This is not a section that I would ever have to write for policy. I find it unfortunate that I have to write it for LD. Disclosure is good because it allows schools access to knowledge of what their opponents are reading, which in pre-disclosure days was restricted to larger programs that could afford to send scouts to rounds. It also leads to better debates where the participants are more well-prepared. What I would like to happen for disclosure in general is this:
1) previously read arguments on the topic are disclosed to at least the level of cites on the opencaselist wiki,
2) a good faith effort is made by the aff to disclose any arguments including the advocacy/plan, fw, and cards that they plan on reading in the AC that they've read before once the pairing comes out,
3) a good faith effort is made by the neg to disclose any previously read positions, tied to NC arguments on their wiki, that they've gone for in the NR on the current topic (and previous if asked) once they receive disclosure from the aff,
4) all the cites disclosed are accurate and not misrepresentations of what is read,
5) nobody reads disclosure theory!!

This is basically the situation in college policy, but it seems we still have a ways to go for LD. In a few rare instances I've encountered misdisclosure, even teams saying things like "well it doesn't matter that we didn't read the scenario we said we were going to read because they're a k team and it wasn't really going to change their argument anyways." More intentional things like this, or bad disclosure from debaters and programs that really should know better, I don't mind voting on. I really don't like however when disclosure is used to punish debaters for a lack of knowledge or because it is a norm they are not used to. You have to understand, my roots are as a lay debater who didn't know what the wiki was and didn't disclose for a single round in high school. For my first two years, I debated exclusively on paper and physically handed pages to my opponent while debating after reading them to share evidence. For a couple years after that, we "flashed" evidence to each other by tossing around a usb drive - tournaments didn't provide public wifi. I've been in way more non-lay debates since then and have spent much more time doing "progressive" debate than I ever did lay debate, but I'm very sympathetic still to these kinds of debaters.

Especially if a good-faith attempt is made, interps that are excluding debaters based on a few minutes of a violation, a round report from several tournaments ago, or other petty things make me sad to judge. My threshold for reasonability in these debates will be much lower. Having some empathy and clearly communicating with your opponent what you want from them is a much better strategy for achieving better disclosure practices in the community than reading theory as a punitive measure. If you want something for disclosure, ask for it, or you have no standing. Also, if you read a disclosure interp that you yourself do not meet, you have no standing. Open source theory and disclosure of new affs are more debatable than other kinds of disclosure arguments, and like with T and other theory I will vote for whichever interp I determine is better for debate.

Other Theory: I really liked theory when I did policy debate, but that theory is also different from a lot of LD theory. What that means is I mainly know cp theory - condo, pics, process cps, perm competition (i.e. textual vs. functional, perm do the cp), severance/intrinsicness, and other things of that nature. You can see some of my thoughts on these arguments in the policy section. I've also had some experience with spec arguments. Like T, I view theory similarly to a da debate. Interpretations are models of debate that I endorse which describe ideally what all other debates should look like. I almost always view things through competing interps. Like with T, in order to win reasonability I think you need to have a pretty solid I/meet argument. Not having a counter-interp the speech after the interp is introduced is a major mistake that can cost you the round. I decide theory debates by determining which interp produces a model of debate that is "best." I default to primarily caring about education - i.e. depth vs. breadth, argument quality, research quality, etc. but I can be convinced that fairness is a controlling factor for some of these things or should come first. I find myself pretty unconvinced by arguments that I should care about things like NSDA rules, jurisdiction, some quirk of the tournament invitation language, etc.

Tricks: I think I've officially judged one "tricks" round now, and I've been trying to learn as much as I can while coaching my squad. I enjoyed it, though I can't say I understood everything that was happening. I engaged in some amount of trickery in policy debate - paradoxes, wipeout, process cps, kicking out of the aff, obscure theory args, etc. However, what was always key to winning these kinds of debates was having invested time in research, blocks, a2s - the same as I would for any other argument. I need to be able to understand what your reason is for obtaining my ballot. If you want to spread out arguments in the NC, that's fine and expected, but I still expect you to collapse in the NR and explain in depth why I should vote for you. I won't evaluate new arguments in the NR that are not directly responsive to the 1AR. The reason one-line voting issues in the NC don't generally work with me in the back is that they do not have enough warrants to make a convincing NR speech.

I am the debate coach at Blue Valley North HS. I was an NDT/CEDA debater at Wichita State University (2012) and a graduate assistant at the University of Kansas. I have taught camp at Michigan or Kansas every year since I graduated. I typically judge 50-80 policy rounds per year, plus some pf/ld/speech.

email: brianbox4 @ gmail dot com - do not stop prep until you hit send on the email.

I really, really enjoy judging good debates. I really, really dislike judging debates that take two hours, lack clash and mostly involve unclearly reading a document into the screen. I care far more about your ability to speak clearly and refute arguments than the type of arguments you read. Good debate good, bad debate bad. I will vote for any argument you win.

Ultimately, the debate is not about me, and I will do my best to evaluate whichever strategy you pursue, but I am very bored by negative strategies that do not demonstrate an undesirable effect of the affirmative. There is a time and a place for most strategies, and I firmly believe there is no one right way to debate, but I wish more of the debates I judged were about core topic arguments and less about non-competitive counterplans (obviously debatable), generic critiques of fiat, poorly supported politics disads, ridiculous impact turns, etc.

I have found that 99% of high school debates are such clear technical victories that my argument specific thoughts aren't terribly relevant. As such, I want to emphasize a few points that are important for debating in front of me.

Points of emphasis - adhere to each of these and your speaker points will be no lower than a 29.

1. Clarity. Many of the debates I judge mumble and slur the text of evidence, and the transitions between arguments are difficult to follow. If I cannot understand you, I will say "clear" once. If I have to say it a second time, I will reduce your speaker points by a full point. If I have to say it a third time, I will stop flowing your speech.

2. Refutation. If you use your flow to identify the argument you are answering, read evidence with purpose and speak clearly while you do it, the floor for your speaker points will be a 29. If you start the timer and read straight down without saying which argument you are answering or how to apply your evidence, the ceiling for your speaker points will be a 27. Scouring the flow to fit the pieces together IS judge intervention.

3. Highlighting. I will completely ignore evidence that is highlighted nonsensically. The threshold is obviously subjective, so if you are of the school of thought that you should intentionally highlight your evidence poorly to force the judge to read the unhighlighted text on their own, I am not a good judge for you.

4. Flowing. If you aren't flowing the debate, I won't flow your speech.

5. Meaning of the plan. If asked to clarify the meaning of the plan in CX, you need to answer. The way you choose to answer is up to you, but If your plan is the resolution + one word, be prepared explain what it does. If you do not, I will A. automatically assume the negative CP competes or DA links (based on the part of the plan in question) and B. The burden for what the negative has to do to win a vagueness procedural or solvency argument becomes exceedingly low.

6. Prompting. Each speaker should give one constructive and one rebuttal. You are permitted to prompt your partner once per speech. Additional interruptions will result in a full speaker point deduction and the arguments being ignored.

7. CX. Each partner must ask questions in one CX and answer questions in one CX. You are permitted to ask or answer one question in a CX to which you are not assigned. Additional instances will result in a full speaker point deduction and the questions/answers being ignored.

Other things to know

Evidence matters a lot. I read lots of evidence and it heavily factors into my decision. Cross-ex is important and the best ones focus on the evidence. Author qualifications, histories, intentions, purpose, funding, etc. matter. The application of meaningful author indicts/epistemic arguments about evidence mean more to me than many judges. I find myself more than willing to ignore poorly supported arguments.

I cannot emphasize enough how important clarity is. I can't believe how often I see judges transcribing the speech document. If you have dramatic tone changes between tag and card, where you can barely be heard when reading the text of evidence, you will get lower points from me. If I can't understand the argument, it doesn't count. There is no difference between being incoherent and clipping. Reading directly into the screen at top speed - no matter how clear you are - is nearly impossible for me to understand.

Go for theory? I will never be the judge who views all sides of any theory debate to be equal, but am far more likely than I once was to vote for an argument about the scope of negative fiat. I am more likely to be convinced by a qualitative interpretation than a quantitative one. Affirmatives should be extending theory arguments that say a type of counterplan or category of fiat is bad more often. Conditionality is good. Judge kick is my default.

The link matters the most.The first thing I look at is the link. When in conflict, it is more important to contest the link than the impact.

CX is huge. This is where you separate debaters who have researched their argument and can intentionally execute a strategy from debaters who have practiced reading unclearly as fast as possible. I don't flow CX, but I am very attentive and you should treat me like a lay judge because these moments will be impactful.

Paradigm Last Updated – Summer 2023

Coach @ Shawnee Mission South and the University of Kansas.

Put me on the email chain :) azjabutler@gmail.com

TLDR:

Judge instruction, above all else, is super important for me – I think this looks differently depending on your style of debate. Generally, I think clear instruction in the rebuttals about where you want me to focus my attention and how you want me to filter offense is a must. For policy teams I think this is more about link and impact framing, and for more critical teams I think this is about considering the judge’s relationships to your theory/performance and being specific about their role in the debate.

For every "flow-check" question, or CX question that starts with a variation of "did you read..." I will doc you .5 speaker points. FLOW DAMNIT.

General:

I am flexible and can judge just about anything. I debated more critically, but read what you're most comfortable with. I will approach every judging opportunity with an open mind and provide feedback that makes sense to you given your strategy.

I care about evidence quality to the extent that I believe in ethically cut evidence, but I think evidence can come in many forms. I won’t read evidence after a debate unless there is an egregious discrepancy over it, or I've been instructed to do so. I think debaters should be able to explain their evidence well enough that I shouldn’t have to read it, so if I'm reading evidence then you haven't done your job to know the literature and will probably receive more judge intervention from me. That being said, I understand that in policy debate reading evidence has become a large part of judging etc, because I'm not ever cutting politics updates be CLEAR and EXPLICIT about why I am reading ev/ what I should be looking for.

Please know I am more than comfortable“clearing” you. Disclosure is good and should be reciprocated. Clipping/cutting cards out of context is academic malpractice and will result in an automatic loss.

___________________________________________________________________

Truth over Tech -OR- Tech over Truth

For the most part, I am tech over truth, but if both teams are ahead on technical portions of the debate, I will probably use truth to break the tie.

Framework

I think debates about debate are valuable and provide a space for confrontation over a number of debate's disparities/conflicts. A strong defense of your model and a set of specific net-benefits is important. Sure, debate is a game, education is almost always a tiebreaker. Fairness is a fake impact -- go for it I guess but I find it rare nowadays that people actually go for it. I think impact-turning framework is always a viable option. I think both sides should also clearly understand their relationship to the ballot and what the debate is supposed to resolve. At the end of the debate, I should be able to explain the model I voted for and why I thought it was better for debate. Any self-deemed prior questions should be framed as such. All of that is to say there is nothing you can do in this debate that I haven't probably seen so do whatever you think will win you the debate.

Performance + K Affirmatives

Judge instruction and strong articulation of your relationship to the ballot is necessary. At the end of the debate, I shouldn't be left feeling that the performative aspects of the strategy were useless/disjointed from debate and your chosen literature base.

Kritiks

I filter a lot of what I have read through my own experience both in and out of academia. I think it’s important for debaters to also consider their identity/experience in the context of your/their argument. I would avoid relying too much on jargon because I think it’s important to make the conversations that Kritiks provide accessible. I have read/researched enough to say I can evaluate just about anything, but don't use that as an excuse to be vague or assume that I'll do the work for you. At the end of the debate, there should be a clear link to the AFF, and an explanation of how your alternative solves the links -- too many people try to kick the alt and I don't get it. Links to the AFF’s performance, subject formation, and scholarship are fair game. I don’t want to say I am 100% opposed to judging kicking alts for people, but I won’t be happy about it and doubt that it will work out for you. If you wanna kick it, then just do it yourself... but again I don't get it.

Any other questions, just ask -- at this point people should know what to expect from me and feel comfortable reaching out.

Goodluck and have fun!

email chain -- ramyachilappa19@gmail.com

I debated at Blue Valley North for four years, and am currently a sophomore at Dartmouth College.

Here are a few predispositions I have about debate –

1). Affirmatives should be topical – I generally believe that means they defend the implementation of hypothetical government action in the instance of the resolution. If this is not your vision of what it means to be topical, you must provide a counter interpretation of the topic with offensive justifications for why it should be preferred.

2). Arguments need to have warrants. I am hesitant to say tech over truth is absolutely true, even if applicable most of the time, because if you cannot explain why a dropped argument is true then there is no reason for me to believe it is.

3). Evidence is important – quality shapes the truth of your arguments, and quality is determined by author qualifications, the source, bias, date, etc., as much as it is by the content. A few good cards will always be infinitely more valuable than a ton of terrible ones.

4). Reading straight into your computer for 5-8 minutes at a time is not debating – you should be flowing, responding to the other teams arguments, doing evidence and argument comparison, and not just repeating the same thing 50 times as fast as possible (which almost always makes you impossible to understand).

A few things you should know –

-I’m not going to be the greatest at following you if you go top speed without stopping, especially on analytics and in the rebuttals – I need time to flow and process arguments.

-I am tired of terrible two card arguments in the 1NC that don’t say anything but then blow up into real arguments in the block. I obviously can’t force you not to do this, but keep in mind that I will be significantly more sympathetic to new affirmative answers if the 1NC was a piece of trash that the 2AC (rightfully) dismissed.

-Judge kick is a logical extension of conditionality – there’s no reason I wouldn’t default to it unless explicitly told otherwise.

Please be kind – debate is an educational activity that is infinitely more valuable if we are all engaged and having fun.

Danniel Christensen

dannielchristensen1@gmail.com

Currently an assistant coach @ Lansing High School

1.5 years College Debate @ K-State

4 years HS debate @ Shawnee Mission West

Policy Debate:

Tech over truth

I have no knowledge of the current topic

Tl;dr: I will evaluate everything in the round. At the end of the day, this is a debate, so do what you are good at and have fun.

Affs: Anything. I read planless affirmatives all the time, but at the same time, I also read topical affirmatives.

Impact turns: They are fun.

Topicality: I vote on T. Even if it doesn't make sense. I do not like RVI's, but I will vote on them if they are conceded.

Disadvantages: Impact framing is important. Give me some way to weigh the impact of the DA in relation to the aff.

Counterplans: Default condo, CP's are great, cheating CP's aren't cheating until it has been proven that they are cheating. I will vote on theory but make sure you slow down on your theory shells so that I can catch all of your arguments. Debaters have a fun habit of just spreading everything, and that can make it difficult to catch blippy arguments that are often embedded in theory arguments.

Kritiks: FW is a way to win my ballot. Explain the alt in a way that resolves a link (usually isn't an instantaneous action). You don't have to go for the alt, just make sure you explain how the link/impact alone should win the debate. The role of the Ballot is a great way to explain how I evaluate the round. I know most K lit, but buzzwords don't explain anything to me.

I flow every speech straight down, so the presence of an overview is meaningless to me.

Notes for LD:

I have done both the classic value-criterion style and the new policy style. Either is fine with me. Just make sure it all flows and give me a lens to evaluate the round. Why am I voting for you (offense)? Why am I not voting for the other debater (defense)?

To win an LD debate you can employ any of these strategies:

1. My value is better than yours

2. My criterion can lead to your value, but your criterion cannot obtain my value

3. your criterion cannot solve your value, but mine can solve my value

4. Offense/Defense (policy style that has grown in LD)

Speaks:

30: Fantastic -- one of the best rounds I've seen

29: Some things to work on -- but overall you did pretty good (above average)

27-28: This is average -- some mistakes, but you recovered

26: You executed something wrong

Updated for the Legalization Topic 9/11/14

I do want on the e-mail chain: mmcoleman10@gmail.com

Debate Experience: Wichita State graduate 2009. We read a middle of the road straight up affirmative and won more debates on arguments like imperialsim good than should have been possible. However, on the negative roughly half of my 2NRs were a K (with the other half being some combination of T, politics/case etc.) so I believe firmly in argumentative flexibility and am comfortable voting for or against almost all arguments.

Judging Experience: 5-8 tournaments each year since graduating.

Most importantly: I do not work with a team currently so I have not done any topic research, my only involvement is judging a handful of tournaments each year. It would be in your best interest to not assume I have the intricacies of your PIC or T argument down and take some time explaining the basis of your arguments. If the first time I figure out what your CP does or what your violation is on T is after you give me the text after the debate, my motivation to vote for you is going to be pretty low. I am currently a practicing attorney so I may have some insight on the topic from that perspective, but I'll try to minimize what impact that has on my decisions outside of possibly some suggestions after the debate on how to make it more accurately reflect how the legal process works.

Ways to kill your speaker points/irritate me

1. Cheating - I mean this substantively not argumentatively. This can include stealing prep time, clipping cards, lying about disclosure etc. If people are jumping cards or waiting to get the flash drive and you are furiously typing away on your computer it's pretty obvious you are stealing prep and I will call you out on it.

2. Being unecessarily uptight/angry about everything. There's no need to treat every round like it's the finals of the NDT, try having some fun once in awhile I promise your points from me and others will go up as a result. I take debate seriously and enjoying being a part of debate, but you can be very competitive and still generally pleasant to be around at the same time. I have no problem if people want to make fun of an argument, but it's one thing to attack the quality of an argument and another entirely to attack the person reading those arguments.

3. Not letting the other person talk in cross-x. It irritates me greatly when one person answers and asks every single question on one team.

4. A lack of line-by-line debate. If your only reference to the previous speeches is some vague reference to "the link debate" you are going to be irritated with my decision. I'm only willing to put in the same amount of work that you are. This is not to say that I can't be persuaded to have a more holistic view of the debate, but if I can't tell what arguments you are answering I am certainly going to be sympathetic if the other team can't either. Also people over use the phrase "dropped/conceded" to the point that I'm not sure they mean anything anymore, I'm paying attention to the debate if something is conceded then certainly call the other team out, if they spent 2 minutes answering it skip the part of your block that says "they've conceded: . It just makes me feel that you aren't putting the same work that I am in paying attention to what is occurring in the debate.

5. If your speech/cx answers sound like a biblography. Having evidence and citations is important, but if all you can do is list a laundry list of citations without any explanation or application and then expect me to wade through it all in the end, well we're probably not going to get along. I do not tend to read many cards after a debate if any. I pretty quickly figure out where the important arguments (debaters that identify and highlight important arguments themselves and resolve those debates for me are going to be very far ahead) and then I will turn to arguments and evidentiary issues that are contested.

Ways to impress me

1. Having strategic vision among the different arguments in the debate. Nothing is better than having a debater realize that an answer on one sheet of paper is a double turn with a team's answer on another and be able to capitalize on it, bold moves like that are often rewarded with good points and wins if done correctly.

2. Using your cross-x well. Few people use this time well, but for me it's some of the most valuable speech time and it can make a big difference in the outcome of debates if used effectively.

3. Having a working knowledge of history. It's amazing to me how many arguments are just patently untrue that could be disproven with even a basic understanding of history, I think those are good arguments and often more powerful than the 10 word overhighlighted uniqueness card you were going to read instead.

Topicality

I enjoy a well crafted and strategic T argument. My biggest problem with these debates is the over emphasis on the limits/reasonability debate occuring in the abstract, usually at the expense of spending enough time talking about the particulars of the aff/neg interps their support in the literature, and how the particular interp interacts with the limits/reasonability debate. T cards rival politics uniqueness cards as the worst ones read in debate, and more time should be spent by both teams in pointing this out.

I think this topic provides an interesting opportunity for discussion with the absence of the federal government in the topic as far as what the Aff can and should be allowed to defend. I'm curious how both Affs and Negs will choose to adapt to this change.

Topicality - K Affs

I think you have to have a defense of the resolution, the manner in which that is done is up to the particular debate. Unfortunately I've been forced to vote on T = genocide more times than I'd like to admit, but Neg's refuse to answer it, no matter how terrible of an argument it is (and they don't get much worse). Critical Affs are likely to do the best in front of me the stronger their tie is to the resolution. The argument there is "no topical version of our aff" has always seemed to me to be a reason to vote Neg, not Aff. Stop making that argument, doing so is just an indication you haven't read or don't care what I put in here and it will be reflected in your points.

I don't ususally get more than one or two opportunities per year to judge debates centered around issues of race/sex/identity but try to be as open as I can to these types of debates when they do occur. I still would prefer these arguments have at least some tie to the resolution as I think this particular topic does allow for good discussion of a lot of these issues. I have generally found myself voting Aff in these types of debates, as the Negative either usually ignores the substance of the Aff argument or fails to explain adequately why both procedurally and substantively the way the Aff has chosen to approach the topic is bad. Debates about alternate ways in which these issues might be approached in terms of what Negatives should get to say against them compared to what the Aff should be forced to defend seem most relevant to me, and one that I find interesting to think about and will try hard to make an informed decision about.

Counterplans/Disads

I like this style of debate a lot. However, one thing I don't like is that I find myself increasingly voting on made up CPs that for some unknown reason link slightly less to politics, simply because Aff teams refuse to challenge this claim. To sum up, don't be afraid to make smart analytical arguments against all arguments in the debate it can only help you. I am among those that do believe in no risk either of an aff advantage or neg disad, but offense is always nice to have.

Affs also seem to give up too easily on theory arguments against certain process CPs (condition/consult etc.) and on the issue of the limits of conditionality (it does exist somewhere, but I can be persuaded that the number of neg CPs allowed can be high/low depending on the debate). In general though I do tend to lean neg on most theory issues and if you want to win those arguments in front of me 1) slow down and be comprehnsible 2) talk about how the particulars of the neg strategy affected you. For example conditionality might be good, but if it is a conditional international agent cp mixed with 2 or 3 other conditional arguments a more coherent discussion about how the strategy of the 1nc in general unduly harmed the Aff might be more effective than 3 or 4 separate theory arguments.

K's

I judge these debates a lot, particularly the clash of civilization debates (the result of judging exclusively in D3). Negative teams would do well to make their argument as particularized to the Aff as possible and explain their impact, and by impact I mean more than a vague use of the word "ethics" or "ontology" in terms of the Aff and how it would implicate the aff advantages. If you give a 2NC on a K and haven't discussed the Aff specifically you have put yourself in a bad position in the debate, apply your arguments to the Aff, or I'm going to be very hesitant to want to vote for you.

Additionally while I vote for it pretty often exploring the critical literature that isn't "the Cap K" would be pleasantly appreciated. I can only judge Gabe's old cap backfiles so many times before I get bored with it, and I'd say 3/4 of the debates I judge it seems to pop up. Be creative. Affs would be smart not to concede big picture issues like "no truth claims to the aff" or "ontology first." I vote for the K a lot and a large percentage of those debates are because people concede big picture issues. Also keep in mind that if you like impact turning the K I may be the judge for you.

NDT debater @ University of Wyoming – 2013-2018. 2x NDT qualifier.

yes email chain - spencerculver1@gmail.com

Short:
Make strong arguments, compare them with other arguments and assess their relative importance in the debate.

Debate how you’d like.

Make complete arguments.

Links are highly important to me, but good impact calculus wins debates.

Top level considerations:

- The winner of a debate is usually the team who has the strongest arguments (duh…). I am more interested in listening to a debate with strongly supported arguments and specific clash than any particular type/category of content in a debate (i.e. I prefer hearing a good debate over hearing one particular style or approach to debate).

- Identifying the important questions / winning the key arguments in a debate is under-done imo. Erring on the side of winning one, two, or three arguments and explaining why those win you the debate is far better than trying to win most of the arguments without explaining how they interact or weighing their importance. Good debaters make choices.

- Not a fan of the offense/defense paradigm. Willing to vote on ‘no risk of a link, impact, etc.’

- “The affirmative has the Burden of Proof to overcome presumption. The team advancing an individual argument has the burden of proof to advance a complete argument. If the significance of that distinction is unclear to you, ask and I can happily explain.” stolen from Travis Cram

- Keys to good speaks: organization/line-by-line proficiency, demonstrating deep knowledge on something relevant to the debate, excelling at cross-ex, humor.

Specific thoughts:

T / Framework: I like T debates. I think that there are ways to affirm the topic that don’t necessitate a traditional plan being read. I’d prefer an affirmative that has content connected with the topic, the more specific the better. I have no presuppositions against either. I spent more time going for T against critical affirmatives than defending critical affirmatives than T, but I think I’m pretty close to the middle on the issue. I tend to prefer clear interpretations with an outlined idea of how debates on the topic would go over vague ‘reasonable’ ones.

DAs: I like ‘em. Link and internal link specificity matters most to me. Warrant and evidence comparison is next in the line of importance. Impact calc wins debates though.

CPs: Having these things is best: a clear-solvency advocate and a world that doesn’t result in the entire aff. Competition is important. Specificity here is important. If it’s a highly nuanced CP, take some time in the 2NC overview to give me some bearings and explain the context.

Critiques: Link and internal link specificity matters to me here, too. Example-driven argument and comparison are very valuable. If the subject matter of the debate is complex, do what you can to make the content more concrete and clear for me.

Case debates: underloved, in my opinion. I like really in-depth case debates. It makes winning on the neg far easier.

Other notes: I have a lot of facial expressions. Paying attention to that could be advantageous. Being courteous is valuable. I don't like prep stealing.

Debated 4 years at Dowling HS in Des Moines, Iowa (09-12, Energy, Poverty, Military, Space)
Debated at KU (13-15, Energy, War Powers, Legalization)
Previously Coached: Ast. Coach Shawnee Mission Northwest, Lansing High School.
Currently Coaching: Ast. Coach Washburn Rural High School

UPDATE 10/1: CX is closed and lasts three minutes after constructive. I won't listen to questions or answers outside of those three minutes or made by people that aren't designated for that CX. I think it's a bummer that a lot of CXs get taken over by one person on each team. It doesn't give me the opportunity to evaluate debaters or for debaters to grow in areas where they might struggle. I'm going to start using my rounds to curb that.

Top Level
Do whatever you need to win rounds. I have arguments that I like / don't like, but I'd rather see you do whatever you do best, than do what I like badly. Have fun. I love this activity, and I hope that everyone in it does as well. Don't be unnecessarily rude, I get that some rudeness happens, but you don't want me to not like you. Last top level note. If you lose my ballot, it's your fault as a debater for not convincing me that you won. Both teams walk into the room with an equal chance to win, and if you disagree with my decision, it's because you didn't do enough to take the debate out of my hands.

Carrot and Stick
Carrot - every correctly identified dropped argument will be rewarded with .1 speaks (max .5 boost)
Stick - every incorrectly identified dropped argument will be punished with -.2 speaks (no max, do not do this)

General
DAs - please. Impact calc/ turns case stuff great, and I've seen plenty of debates (read *bad debates) where that analysis is dropped by the 1ar. Make sure to answer these args if you're aff.

Impact turns - love these debates. I'll even go so far as to reward these debates with an extra .2 speaker points. By impact turns I mean heg bag to answer heg good, not wipeout. Wipeout will not be rewarded. It will make me sad.

CPs - I ran a lot of the CPs that get a bad rep like consult. I see these as strategically beneficial. I also see them as unfair. The aff will not beat a consult/ condition CP without a perm and/or theory. That's not to say that by extending those the aff autowins, but it's likely the only way to win. I lean neg on most questions of CP competition and legitimacy, but that doesn't mean you can't win things like aff doesn't need to be immediate and unconditional, or that something like international actors are illegit.

Theory - Almost always a reason to reject the arg, not the team. Obviously conditionality is the exception to that rule.

T - Default competing interps. Will vote on potential abuse. Topical version of the aff is good and case lists are must haves. "X" o.w. T args are silly to me.

Ks - dropping k tricks will lose you the debate. I'm fine with Ks, do what you want to. Make sure that what you're running is relevant for that round. If you only run security every round, if you hit a structural violence aff, your security K will not compel me. Make sure to challenge the alternative on the aff. Make sure to have a defense of your epistemology/ontology/reps or that these things aren't important, losing this will usually result in you losing the round.

K affs - a fiat'd aff with critical advantages is obviously fine. A plan text you don't defend: less fine, but still viable. Forget the topic affs are a hard sell in front of me. It can happen, but odds are you're going to want someone else higher up on your sheet. I believe debate is good, not perfect, but getting better. I don't think the debate round is the best place to resolve the issues in the community.

Speaker points.
I don't really have a set system. Obviously the carrot and stick above apply. It's mostly based on how well you did technically, with modifications for style and presentation. If you do something that upsets me (you're unnecessarily rude, offensive, do something shady), your points will reflect that.

Tim Ellis
Head Coach - Washburn Rural High School, Topeka, KS
Updated July 23
Email chain - ellistim@usd437.net, fiscalrizztribution@googlegroups.com

Introduction: Hello, debaters and fellow educators. I am Tim Ellis, and I am honored to be here as a judge at this high school policy debate tournament. My background includes [briefly mention your educational and professional background relevant to the debate topic or communication skills]. My role as a judge is to evaluate your arguments, critical thinking, and communication abilities, while maintaining a fair and unbiased approach to the debate.

Debate Philosophy: I believe in fostering an environment where students can express their ideas passionately, engage in respectful discourse, and develop their critical thinking skills. I encourage debaters to focus on clear and logical arguments, evidence-based analysis, and effective communication. Substance will always take precedence over style, but effective delivery can enhance your message.

Argumentation: I value well-structured arguments that are supported by credible evidence. When presenting your case, it's important to clearly define your position, provide relevant evidence, and logically connect your arguments. The use of real-world examples and expert opinions can significantly bolster your points. Remember, the quality of your evidence matters more than the quantity.

Clash and Refutation: Debates thrive on clash – the direct engagement with your opponents' arguments. I expect debaters to engage with opposing viewpoints by directly addressing their arguments, demonstrating the weaknesses in their logic, and offering counterarguments supported by evidence. Effective refutation requires a deep understanding of your opponents' case, so take the time to dissect their position and refute it cogently.

Communication: Clear communication is key to conveying your ideas persuasively. Speak confidently, enunciate your words, and maintain a steady pace. Avoid jargon or excessive use of technical terms that might alienate those unfamiliar with the topic. Remember, effective communication isn't just about what you say, but how you say it – engaging with your audience is crucial.

Etiquette and Sportsmanship: Respect for your opponents, your partner, and the judge is non-negotiable. Keep your focus on the arguments and ideas, rather than personal attacks. Maintain a professional demeanor throughout the debate, and remember that good sportsmanship is an integral part of the debate community.

Time Management: Time management is essential. Respect the allocated time limits for your speeches, cross-examinations, and rebuttals. Effective time allocation allows for a balanced and comprehensive discussion of the issues at hand.

Final Thoughts: Debating is a valuable skill that extends beyond the walls of this tournament. Regardless of the outcome, embrace the learning experience. Constructive feedback is intended to help you grow as debaters and thinkers. I am here to provide a fair assessment of your performance, and my decisions will be based on the quality of your arguments, your ability to engage in meaningful clash, and your overall communication skills.

I am looking forward to witnessing your insightful arguments and thoughtful engagement. Let's engage in a spirited and enlightening debate that enriches all of us. Best of luck to each team, and may the discourse be both rigorous and rewarding.

I debated for 4 years at Kapaun Mt. Carmel High School and 2 years for K-State.

Email: benlengle@gmail.com

For LD thoughts look to the bottom of the paradigm.

Speed is fine, but clarity is more important. If I say "clear" and you don't become more clear I will put my pen down and stop flowing until you do so.

In the era of online debate I ask that you go 70-75% of your max speed.

Clipping is cheating. If a warranted ethics challenge is made, it will be an auto-loss. If not argument is made I will scratch any evidence that was clipped in a speech.

TLDR

Most of my argumentative style deals with the kritik. Policy is great but much like with the k, explain stuff and don't assume I know anything.

Theory

Don't waste your time reading theory arguments that intuitively don't make sense, you aren't prepared to go for, and/or are just a time suck. If you read conditionality you should explain what particular abuse they lead to or what they force you to choose between that results in strat skew. Bad theory arguments can only hurt your speaks. I need pen time or I won't flow your argument. I default to judge kick but making the argument as early as the block makes sleeping at night easier. "New affs bad" prolly isn't a voter.

DAs

They're great. Evidence comparison is important.

CPs

Your CP needs an internal or external net benefit that outweighs a solvency deficit if you want me to vote on it. "Solving the aff better" is not an offensive net benefit. People seem to make competition a very complicated issue. I don't think that textual competition matters that much. "Positional" competition does matter to me. I don't think there is such thing as a "cheating" CP as long as it has a solvency advocate and the affirmative gets to make solvency deficits.

Case

Case debates are good, woefully lacking right now, and can make other arguments easier to go for. I also think that people need to debate the case for K affs in most cases. Even if it's as basic as saying "ontology wrong" or "psychoanalysis bad", say something to mitigate their ability to weigh case against your off case arguments. If there is literally nothing you can say on case without being problematic, point that out on your framework page. I love analytics on case.

T

Your T argument needs to make sense in my mind if you want me to pull the trigger on it. If you see me looking confused in the back, make sure you explain your violation. I default to competing interps unless told otherwise. Aff teams need to explain what they mean by reasonability and how it implicates the rest of the neg's offense.

Ks vs Policy Affs

Don't assume I know the complex theory behind your criticism. I am most familiar with queer theory and settler colonial critiques, but do not assume that I am an expert on either. Your K needs uniqueness, or more specifically how the aff makes things worse than the direction the squo is going or the alt will go. I think the aff, in most instances, gets to weigh the aff. What that means (fiated implementation, research practices, etc.) is up to the debaters.

Additionally, since I primarily read the critique, I will hold debaters to a higher standard in terms of explaining alternative solvency and link stories. Don't think that just because your judge was a K debater that you can get away with just reading the K and winning.

T vs Non-traditional Affs

"The clash of ideas is the sound of freedom" -a fortune cookie

I tend to believe that fairness is not a terminal impact. I have a hard time quantifying it in relation to affirmative turns and disads to framework. You would need some concrete, aggregate data that showed people quitting or however you explain why it matters and exclude any variables that don't deal with critical affirmatives. Clash and iterative education are much easier to win in front of me.

If you are not reading a plan text that says "USfg should" I generally think you are wasting your time trying to meet the neg's interps. You are much better off just impact turning their standards and telling me "maybe our interp is flawed but theirs sucks so much more". Not to say that you can't read redefine "USfg", "restrict", etc. but if you do you need to be ready to debate DAs and mechanism CPs. I do think a counter interp is necessary to win these debates, but I can be convinced otherwise.

I think a lot of policy teams tend to look at a k aff, see it doesn't say "USfg should" and determine framework is the only answer. I implore you to go to the other side of the library and find some good critique of their theory. That could be the cap k or any number of criticisms that impact turn the aff (queer optimism against queer pessimism), but just relying on FW only plays into the hands of these k aff 2As.

While my track record in college is only reading non-traditional affs, don't assume that I won't vote on framework. While I had my reasons for reading a critical affirmative, I probably think that policy affs have some educational value so just be real and tell me why you think your legal education/fairness arguments matter.

Method vs Method

The only question I think teams care about for rev v rev debates concerning judges is whether the aff get's a perm. While I can be persuaded by the argument "no plan = no perm", I generally think that permutations are logical in method debates. That being said if the aff is shifting their advocacy every speech, the argument "no perms in method debates" makes a whole lot more sense.

Here are some miscellaneous tips:

I'm displeased by the way cards are read these days. If you have fortune cookie highlighting and 3 word tags, expect lower speaks. Your tags should make a strong claim with a hint of the warrants in the card, which should be highlighted to include sentences that make sense. When highlighting is like, "heg...key...stop...isis...get...nuc", it shows how little you've invested into your evidence quality.

I generally prefer tech over truth when it comes to competing claims, but my ballot will never say I vote aff/neg because any form of bigotry is good.

Reading structural pessimism arguments (Edelman, Wilderson, etc.) when you not of the structural group your evidence talks about (queer, black, etc.) against someone of that subject position is risky in front of me and kind of uncomfortable. The threshold for commodification or paternalism arguments is really low in these debates.

If you disagree with my decision feel free to ask away after the round. Just be aware that if it isn't on my flow, I don't evaluate it. If I can't explain your arguments back to you/the other team, that's usually your fault and not mine.

LD Paradigm

Value/Criterion Debate- I prefer a simpler debate here and am not a fan of vacuous v/c's. In my experience judging these rounds, they tend to devolve into debates of semantics where people are saying the same things in different ways, or people are making assertions concerning the opponent's v/c without any logic or evidentiary proof. The v/c debate, much like the case debate needs to be warranted, impacted out, and comparative to your opponent's. Refrain from clear hyperbole (e.x. "They justify the Holocaust/slavery").

Case- Aside from problematic arguments (racism, homophobia, sexism good, etc.), I am fine with you reading whatever you please. Do comparative impact work across the AC and NC flows and connect your arguments with the v/c debate and you'll be fine.

My email is glanzman94@gmail.com ------please include me in the email chain if present. I do prefer speechdrop though.

Experience/Accolades:

NFA-LD National Champion (2016)

NPDA/NPTE Top 8 (2016)

CEDA Double Octo-Finalist (2014)

Coach in High School Policy for 6 years

Coach for NFA-LD for 2 years

***Updated for NFA 2022***

We are back in person!! I have attended two tournaments nationally to get back into the swing of in-person debate and I believe the differences I have seen warrants me making changes to my paradigm. For some students this may be your first in person experience debating (whether that be high school or college) and I need to make it clear that certain debate practices and models do not translate well to in-person debate and causes me headaches when evaluating a winner. So I will attempt to pinpoint things I find make it difficult to judge while also providing a view for how I engage with debates.

1. Run strategies you understand and are comfortable with---do not let your peers or coaches tell you otherwise. I’ve found it incredibly disheartening that every year I go into judging and students run K’s or soft left stuff in front of me because they believe that’s all I can evaluate. It’s not true. Yes I can provide better feedback with K’s compared to a politics DA but I also evaluate every debate through offense/defense and how to frame it. So please stop running things you can’t explain beyond the surface level just because you think I like it.

2. Debate is about clash, and clash is much more than just saying “they said x argument”. Seriously I’ve judged too many debates this year where teams are just missing the point of clash and it’s annoying. Remember, comparison is necessary. Comparison happens when you provide actual warrants for your argument and then contextualize it to the debate (which means your opponent’s arguments). This means tagline extensions are not enough. This means being more predictive rather than descriptive in context to arguments clashing. Things like how your alternative solves the impacts of the aff. Or how regional conflict supercharges famine. Or how winning the epistemology framing means that you internal link turn their warming scenario or whatever. Point is---compare and contrast! Don’t just do normal impact calc that’s self-referential. Ask yourself constantly “how does this happen”/”why does this matter” and make sure you answer it.

3. Overprepping is a real thing, and reading blocks as fast as you can isn’t debate. Like for real if you go into debates just reading pre-written analytics and cards only there is no reason for *you* to be present in the debate. If at the end of your speech you ask yourself “if somebody else read my document, would the debate change in any meaningful way?” and you conclude no; you have done yourself a disservice. I get it---prep is great. But overprepping or losing yourself in fast responses creates worse debate across the board. Mainly because clash isn’t very organic. Or in most cases you ignore important arguments on the flow because it didn’t make it into your blocks. Just please…generate analytics specific to this debate. Allocate time to prove you have generated thought into how you want to approach this debate.

4. Just because you read a piece of evidence does not mean I will extrapolate its warrants and apply it to the debate unless absolutely necessary. Debate is a competition between you and your opponents. I try not to interject as much as I possibly can and leave it up to what said in a debate to filter a decision. Even if your evidence has a round winning warrant---if you don’t explain and extend it, I won’t consider it. In really close rounds that reference pieces of evidence, this changes because I naturally have to look into it. But it’s not good enough to say “extend my Zizek evidence. Cold conceded” and move on then blow me up during the RFD saying “but Zizek said this line”. That’s cool, but you didn’t after the 1AC/1NC or whatever. This is why I prefer debaters who read *less* evidence after the 1AC/1NC and focus on just explaining and contextualizing what was in their original shells. Your shells should already contain 95 percent of what you need to win. Pre-emptions and all.

5. Stop assuming the way you view debate is the way I view debate. That’s the purpose of a paradigm right? You see what I’m weak at and how I evaluate arguments. I’ve noticed this year especially teams take certain endpoints for granted. Like why competitive equity/education matters. Or why stock issues are a voter. Or why economic collapse is bad. These re-address the point I made about by asking yourself “how did this happen/why does it matter?” I am flexible at how I should vote---y’all tell me how I should evaluate the round. But you gotta give me tangible reasons why your model is good and why not following it is bad. Don’t just assume.

6. I tend not to look at speakers when they are presenting, so if I do it probably means I am looking for you to explain further/contextualize. Pay attention to my body language. Especially coming off of two years judging online, I haven’t adapted too well to making my body language neutral. Either way, never was that kind of judge. I have certain ticks. Doesn’t mean that I hate what you’re saying necessarily---probably just means I’m looking for more or think you need to move on.

7. I err tech over truth, but capital T truth will be persuasive no matter what. That’s kind of the purpose of debate, yeah? Multiple sides to multiple arguments? Kinda hard to find objectivity behind all that subjectivity so it always benefits you to focus more on the internals of it. I will say though that the way that I flow and evaluate does tend to allow for more “embedded clash” than others. And what I mean by that is that certain debaters just have that gift for knowing what matters in a debate and what doesn’t. If the endpoint of an argument you make inherently clashes and out-warrants the endpoint of your opponent’s argument; it’s not necessary in certain cases to pinpoint it on the flow and flag it. Best piece of advice I’ve ever received---you’re never winning every argument. So focus on what would win you the ballot. Not just prove you’re better at arguing.

8. Presumption can be a round winner in front of me if packaged correctly. If you are winning credible defense and they just aren’t really touching on it by saying “that’s defense so who cares?” and they don’t actively explain their scenarios then yes presumption is p cool. I do expect affs and negs to adequately extend their advantages/shells even if they weren’t addressed. So just keep that in mind.

9. I am not very strong at counterplan debates, so be weary. Doesn’t mean I can’t evaluate the usual ones like agent CPs, etc. But process CPs tend to go over my head. Either way, 95 percent of the time CPs only matter because of the net benefit that is rarely internal but rather a DA that can stand on its own. You should naturally be winning the DA for the CP to matter. But that statement probably proves my conception of CP debate is bad. I love PICs though!

10. I love cheese. So anybody that brings me cheese, or cheese flavored snacks automatically gets a 29 worst case from me. Better snacks increase it. Or a drink to pair it with increase it.

So now to answer questions people like to ask:

1. Can I run a K aff? Yes. I would say that 3 out of my 4 years were me running K affs exclusively minus maybe 4 parli rounds and having to run a policy in front of NFA judges who I know can’t evaluate it well. Run it well and try to contextualize it to the neg as much as possible. Don’t get lost in blocks or generalities.

2. Do I have to have a plan? Nah. I’m not KU and saying “no plan no wins no speaks”. You don’t have to do anything in front of me to curry favor other than debate in a way strongest to you.

3. What about performance? Go for it. I did performance for 2 years of my career and had a lot of success with it. I naturally view every speech act as a performance so it’s not a thing for me to be weary about re-evaluating spaces/poetry/music/silence/narrative/whatever right? The debate is always yours in front of me. I’m just here to determine the ballot.

4. Will you vote on framework? Yes. So far voted more for it than against it. I think framework debaters tend to focus too much on prepped blocks though. Be more organic and really engage with the specifics of the 1AC/1NC instead of just generalizing it to “they say anti-blackness” or whatever. You should also be prioritizing the internal links of your framework shells. Things like clash, switch side, preparation, resolutional stasis, etc. only matter if you contextualize it to the specifics of the 1AC. Like it’s not just good enough to tell me why balanced clash is good. You have to not only justify why your model of debate is good, but preferable to the affs model.

5. Will you vote on T? Yes. It’s how I won NFA. And I actually think T can be read against policy affs. Even if there is some ground/offense baked into their relation to the topic (sorry Lincoln Garrett, your take was kinda silly lol). Point is, topic is important yeah? You can debate it isn’t important. And you can win that debate. But by default, I tend to believe the topic matters in some fashion. T debaters have a horrible tendency to focus on top level though compared to internals. This mirrors the framework arguments I painted above since T and Framework are essentially the same thing (yes they are, interpretations are models for how the community should engage a word/phrase. Framework just makes more meta arguments about the generalities of debate). Talk about specifics, not generalities. Be predictive about what they justify and how that worsens debate. And why that matters. Just please explain stuff…even if you win the interp and violation debate doesn’t mean it’s an automatic vote.

6. What about the K? Yeah run it if you actually know how to explain your arguments and use it strategically. Too many times I get students in front of me who get jazzed saying capitalism is bad and get caught up trying to correctly historicize China or Cuba because they know factoids compared to focusing on the strategy and overall purpose of the debate. K’s were my bread and butter and naturally I can provide the best feedback for it. But that is double-edged---it means I demand more from you in context to how you deploy and debate it. Also, very important note. Please explain your methodology instead of just saying cool leftist things. And I mean it. Your alternative evidence should be pointing out an actual method/praxis/starting point. Your alternative text should be written with meaning where every word is necessary. Too often students don’t really know what the alternative specifically means and just say things they’ve heard in other K rounds like “epistemic disobedience” or “guerilla tactics” or “flipping the script” without actually relating that back to the alternative evidence/text proper. Alternatives are varied and vast for a reason. Real differences between historical materialism and critical pedagogy on the *methodological* level. Point is---please explain your alt. Explain it correctly. Utilize it efficiently so that it solves the aff and your K proper.

7. How about impact turns? Yeah but obvi don’t read racism or patriarchy good. Not a fan of Malthus. De-dev is my jam. Wipeout is cool too.

8. Will you vote on theory? Yes, but just like the T and Framework stuff you need to explain the internals and impact theory out effectively. I don’t have any pre-disposition to any theory position that makes a certain side preferable to me than others. For instance on condo I honestly couldn’t care less because I think both sides have good reasons and am not a 50 year old coach who believes condo makes or breaks good debate. It’s up for debate!! Debate is up for debate!! And you win it by winning the debate!! What I will say is that I’d rather see 1-3 offcases with development out of the 1NC compared to 6-10 with little development. I enjoy more in depth debate but again I don’t intervene in this situation and it’s not gonna be persuasive for you to just say “hey you said you like depth!”.

Any other questions just ask. Happy debating!!

Put me on the e-mail chain - aegoodson@bluevalleyk12.org and annie.goodson@gmail.com

**I'll be honest, I'm writing my dissertation right now and have done less reading on this debate topic than any other year I've been coaching. Assume I'm unfamiliar with the specific literature you are reading.

Top Level:

I'm the head coach at Blue Valley West. I tend to value tech over truth in most instances, but I 100% believe it's your job to extend and explain warrants of args, and tell me what to do with those args within the context of the debate round. I expect plans to advocate for some sort of action, even if they don't present a formal policy action. I won't evaluate anything that happens outside of the debate round. This is an awesome activity that makes us better thinkers and people, and when we get caught up in the competition of it all and start being hateful to each other during the round (which I've 100% been guilty of myself) it bums me out and makes me not want to vote for you. Be mindful of who you are and how you affect the debate space for others--racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. will result in you losing the round and I won't feel bad about it.

Delivery:

Clarity is extremely important to me. Pause for a minute and read that last sentence again. Speed is only impressive if you are clear, and being incomprehensible is the same as clipping in my book. I'm generally fine with [clear] speed but need you to slow down on authors/tags. You need to speak slower in front of me than you do in front of a college kid. Slow down a few clicks in rebuttals, and slow down on analytics. The more technical your argument, the slower I need you to go. I won't evaluate anything that's not on the flow. Please signpost clearly and extend warrants, not just authors/dates. Good rebuttals need to explain to me how to fill out the ballot. I'm looking for strong overviews and arguments that tell a meaningful story. We often forget that debate, regardless of how fast we are speaking, is still a performative activity at its core. You need to tell a story in a compelling way--don't let speed get in the way of that. Going 9 off in the 1NC is almost always a bad call. I'd rather you just make a few good arguments then try to out-spread the other team with a lot of meh arguments. I think going a million-off in the 1NC is a bad trend in this activity and is often a bad-faith effort to not engage in a more substantive debate.

T:

I default to competing-interps-good, but I've voted on reasonability in the past. Give me a case list and topical versions of the aff. If I'm being honest I definitely prefer DA/CP or K debates to T debates, but do what you enjoy the most and I will take it seriously and evaluate it to the best of my ability.

Performance-based:

These are weird for me because I don't have as nuanced an understanding of these as some other judges in our community, but also I vote for them a lot? I'm not the best judge on these args because they're not my expertise--help me by explaining what your performance does, why it should happen in a debate round, and why it can't happen elsewhere, or is less effective/safe elsewhere. I have the most fun when I'm watching kids do what they do best in debates, so do you. Know that if the other team can give me examples of how you can access your performance/topic *just as meaningfully* through topical action within the round, I find that pretty compelling.

CPs:

These need to be specific and include solvency advocates, and they need to be competitive. I'll defer to just not evaluating a CP if I feel like it's not appropriately competitive with the aff plan, unless the aff completely drops it. I think delay and consult CPs are cheating generally, but the aff still needs to answer them.

K:

Assume I'm unfamiliar with the specific texts you're reading. You'll likely need to spend some more time explaining it to me than you would have to in front of another judge. One thing I like about this activity is that it gives kids a platform to discuss identity, and the K serves an important function there. Non-identity based theoretical arguments are typically harder for me to follow. K affs need to be prepared to articulate why the aff cannot/should not be topical--again, TVAs are really persuasive for me.

DAs:

Love these, even the generic ones. DAs need to tell a story--don't give me a weak link chain and make sure you're telling a cohesive story with the argument. I'll buy whatever impacts you want to throw out there.

Framework:

Make sure you're explaining specifically what the framework does to the debate round. If I vote on your framework, what does that gain us? What does your framework do for the debaters? What does it make you better at/understand more? Compare yours to your opponents' and explain why you win.

General Cranky Stuff:

1. A ton of you aren't flowing, or you're just flowing off the speech doc, which makes me really irritated and guts half the education of this activity. You should be listening. Your cross-x questions shouldn't be "Did you read XYZ?" It's equally frustrating when kids stand up to give a speech and just start mindlessly reading from blocks. Debate is more than just taking turns reading. I want to hear analysis and critical thinking throughout the round, and I want you to explain to me what you're reading (overviews, plz). I'll follow along in speech docs, and I'll read stuff again when you tell me take a closer look at it, but I'm not a computer with the magic debate algorithm--you need to explain to me what you're reading and tell me why it matters.

2. 1NCs, just label your off-case args in the doc. It wastes time and causes confusion down the line when you don't.

3. The point of speed is to get in more args/analysis in the time allotted. If you're stammering a ton and having to constantly re-start your sentences, then trying to go fast gains you nothing.....just......slow down.

4. You HAVE to slow down during rebuttals for me--other judges can follow analytics read at blistering speed. I am not one of those judges.

5. In my old age I have become extremely cranky about disclosure. Unless you're breaking new, you should disclose the aff and past 2NRs before the round.

**Clipping is cheating and if I catch you it's an auto-loss

**Trigger warnings are good and should happen whenever needed BEFORE the round starts. Don't run "death good" in front of me.

I use this scale for speaks:http://www.policydebate.net/points-scale.html

Anything else, just ask!

Mika Hartter (She/Her) mikadebate@gmail.com

Debate Experience---

2016-2020 at Eisenhower High School (KS). Local and Natcir.

2020-2022 at Missouri State University (MO). NDT-CEDA.

I debated the following topics: China engagement, Education, Immigration, Arms sales, Alliance commitments, and Antitrust.

Political Compass---

Team should adapt------------------------------X-Judge should adapt

Anti-consequentialism------------------------------X-Consequentialism

Reasonability------------------------------X-Competing interpretations

Disclosure----X---------------------------Non- or false- disclosure

Death good bad------------------------------X-Read what you can win

Important Stuff---

There's no such thing as tabula rasa, because all judges have certain biases; that being said, I try to remove my opinions from debates as much as possible. I will always judge the round in the way I'm told to by the debaters in the round.

I tend to evaluate debates from an offense-defense perspective. Every argument needs a claim, warrant, and impact. Incomplete arguments do not survive germane contest. I am willing to vote on zero risk, but this generally only happens due to missing internal links or expired uniqueness.

Please read whatever you find fun and interesting to read: really obscure k's, theory, death good, spark, first strike, etc. I would rather watch good debating on an argument I don't like than bad debating on an argument I do (that's not to say I don't like any of the above).

It will be harder to convince me to abandon consequentialist ethics than perhaps anything else. To me, consequentialism is as fundamental as "cogito, ergo sum." That being said, I'm no util hack. There are many kinds of consequentialism, deontology, and more nuanced frameworks. I like my moral frameworks as clear as I like my topicality interpretations—this applies whether your ethic is: as simple as "privilege probability," or as complex as "risk is probability times magnitude;" or as nuanced as "a is a variable of moral calculus but b is not, because c," as self-serving as "x is immoral and should come first because y," or as devious as "we are only responsible for intrinsic consequences." Both teams will be far happier with framework decisions when they invest the time to make complete arguments including impact comparison.

Addressing emails and disclosure last, please make the email chain subject line reasonable and distinguishable. Something like "[Tournament name] Round [n] - AFF [team code] NEG [team code]" (e.g., "CEDA Round 1 - AFF Liberty CR NEG Missouri State HW") would be fine. Try to have the 1AC sent no later than 5 minutes before the rounds posted start time, so we can actually start at that point. Lastly, I have a very strong preference for prompt and thorough disclosure. Debates are better when both teams are well-prepared. While I'm not going to excessively interfere for it—i.e., I won't vote on it if the 2NR doesn't go for and win it—my floor for winning "disclosure good" is far lower than my barrier to deontology is high. If your schtick is non- or false- disclosure, you should not pref me.

K---

Please don't read an overview so long I need a new page or even better just don't have an overview.

I'm ideologically apathetic about t usfg. Go for it if you must, but I'd prefer to see clash rather than an allusion to hypothetical clash. Speaking of which: stop saying "clash" in the 1NC without justifying why policy-focused debates are good. What kind of education does the aff prohibit and why is that education worth preserving in debate? Fairness is an impact, but a weak one absent explanation thereof. For the affirmative: I prefer smaller numbers of DA's which are explained in depth to a superfluous amount of indistinguishable ones. "I am sometimes frustrated by uniqueness arguments about kind used to elide obvious differences in scale ... that debate is unfair now ... does not mean that there is no impact to additional unfairness" - David Sposito.

I enjoy DAs and impact turns against planless affs, but I'd appreciate solidification of the link. A consistent and intuitive no link argument beats sloppy neg characterization. The best way to guarantee these links is probably by getting CX commitments, but even without such I'm willing to hear various justifications for the turn; though, if the aff is only defending "thinking in x way is good," you should probably go for topicality instead.

For k v. policy framework, I think the aff could generally benefit from more creativity and the neg from using the word "epistemology" less. I think both teams should try to structure their offense like they would on other theory/framework pages; e.g. frontload each da, each should have an impact and turns args, and you should probably have at least two (though that's more advice than a requirement). For the aff, make sure you're arguing for more than "weighing the aff," or I could end up doing that by favoring the neg's interpretation of what that means. Perhaps the debate should be "about the desirability of the plan" or something idk. For the neg, you probably hear this a lot, but please make sure I understand what debates look like under your framework. I'm a philosophy student, so I know what epistemology is and I don't need to hear it 15 times a speech. What I don't know is 1. what the resolution and fiat are and why they matter, 2. what the plan is and how it should be read, 3. the scope of my decision-making capability in terms of the influence it has on the world, debaters, the community, and debate as a whole, and 4. how I should evaluate impacts. Not every framework spin needs to have explicit answers to all of those questions, but without an answer to at least one I'll probably default to weighing the implementation of the plan via fiat.

Ask any questions necessary about specific literature, but I'm generally knowledgeable enough on common k's like cap, security, afropess, and setcol, as well as Agamben, Foucault, Baudrillard, Deleuze, and Nietzsche. In any case, you should not assume I nor your opponents instantly recognize highly academic terms or understand non-obvious examples. In general, I'm looking for the explanation of your thesis-level claims to include: claims about the world, exemplifying if not deductive proof of your claims, a connection between those examples and the 1AC/resolution, and an impact. If you must put those in an overview because of the sophistication of your particular K, fine, but keep it concise.

Theory---

Any and all theory can be a reason to reject the team. Any other take is cringe.

"We meet" is binary and flow winning if won. That said, I'm not one who believes an interpretation being arbitrary necessarily excludes it from consideration: two condo and twelve condo are meaningfully different in their effects and neither have any basis in the resolution.

In terms of my thoughts on specific theory arguments: PICs and process counterplans are generally valid, but delay, consult, and other plan-contingent counterplans are generally not. Condo is almost always good, but object and attitudinal fiat are almost always bad. I won't judge kick your CP unless you tell me I can and I expect to be told so before the 2NR. I think fiat and intrinsicness debates on politics are interesting and winnable.

Regarding the states counterplan, I have a strong negative reaction to uniform 50-state fiat, but I'm not going to reject it on face.

Topicality---

Topicality shells are a no risk argument for the negative. "We meet" is binary and flow winning if won. T debates are my favorite debates.

I'd really prefer to judge via competing interpretations; this is downstream of my feelings about consequentialism, but I also have no idea how to judge the "reasonability" of an interp, or how to compare different interpretations' "reasonableness."

I'd appreciate more impact comparison in these debates, particularly with precision and education. Regarding precision as an internal link to predictability, I feel it is far, far weaker than many suggest. Why should I sacrifice a good topic to some particular interpretation of a word chosen by the high school topic committee? "Interpretations that are the best for mutual debatability become predictable because they're good," - David Sposito. Precision for precision's sake is less than incoherent: debate rounds do not take place in a courtroom nor a legislative subcommittee, as such I only care about the precision of an interpretation insofar as it begets good outcomes. Education is far more complicated than "more ideas = better" or "deeper ideas = better." If you're going for an education impact, I expect you to analyze what kinds of education in debate are worth preserving (analytical skills, topic knowledge, advocacy skills, etc.) and what are the internal links to those are (pre-round research, third-level clash, etc.).

In general I prefer smaller topics with narrow, defined areas for innovation. A lot of resolution texts would not pass a Writing I standard for clarity, which will shape the way research is done about the topic. Thus, I want to hear more than "other words check" or "functional limits check" - a warrant would be nice.

Speaker Points---

Things that gain them: clarity, ethos, early argument development, "biting the bullet," and general niceness.

Things that lose them: unclarity, evading clash, long overviews, and being mean.

Pet peeves: calling me judge, perm walls, not being able to answer basic cx questions without your partner, and taking over your partners cx when they're doing fine.

Nikola Helixon

Assistant Coach @ BVSW

Chain: helixon.niko@gmail.com

"Using cross-ex as prep" is not a thing that exists. I will not let you do that.

I don't know as much about the economy as you do.

I am very close to just saying everyone needs to debate slow in front of me. Clarity and efficiency matter. I will not clear you. There are some debaters who can be both very fast and clear. You are probably not that debater.

• I won't vote for arguments about a persons worth, or some drama between high school students. I don't think high school students should be coached to attack the quality of another person for the sake of winning a debate round and find it odd that an adult would insert themselves into the lives of high school kids in that way.
• If you only read from your computers, don't look at your flows, have the debate scripted from the first speech, you will get bad speaks. We spend a lot of time getting to tournaments, prepping, sacrificing time doing other things we enjoy. If debate is just a block reading contest, we could save a lot more time not going to tournaments and just submitting speech documents.

Important

Probably fine for everything. Most used to Policy AFF v. K and K AFF v. FW debates.

• I dislike overuse of buzzwords, monologues, jargon. I don't do anything related to debate over the summer. I don't really do research on the topic during the year either.
• Overviews should not exist. Put your arguments on the flow.

I don't like to read evidence when making a decision. I will if I feel I need to. I don't want a card doc.

- Be clear: Slow down and be clear, debate is a communication and persuasion activity.

• Ending rebuttals: should frame my decision. Have a view of the overall round and tell me why you win.

Prep

- I've noticed a sharp increase in the amount of time between when prep ends and when you start speaking. There's very little reasons why this should take more than a minute, especially since you just have to click a button to send the document out.

- "Marked copy" does not mean "remove the cards you didn't read." You do not have to do that, and you should not ask your opponents to do that.

T vs. Planless AFFs

-Affirmatives should probably be related to the topic.

-Fairness is an intrinsic good only if debate is also good. If debate is good, usually nothing matters more than fairness. This is why I think affs that are about debate are the most strategic - otherwise it's hard to win that you get to weigh your impacts in front of me since very few non-debate critical affirmatives operate on the same plane as fairness.

Fairness still makes most sense to me as an impact to T-USFG. Most negative clash explanations end up either 1. trying to solve affirmative offense which, oftentimes, ends up being a very defensive strategy or 2. trying to solve some topic education offense which is often an uphill battle against impact turns. I think the most strategic way to go for clash is explaining it as good in and of itself, but usually that explanation ends up resembling fairness. I'm open to hearing most all impacts though.

• Subject formation is persuasive to me if it's about the activity as a whole. I don't think affs need to win subject formation to solve (I typically just vote aff if the aff is a good idea) but I do think they need to win subject formation to access a good amount of their offense. This makes switch side very persuasive to me.
• Thresholds are weird for me, I find myself being pretty hard on affirmative teams to win these debates but at the same time the amount of 2NRs I've heard that are almost purely defense makes me want to rip my hair out. If you explain your argument the best you'll win.

Ks on the Negative

• Links should be to something the AFF does. I don't think you need an alternative.

• Alternatives based in a pure intellectual nature probably just lose to the perm in a world where the affirmative wins framework. Intellectual/epistemology based alternatives should probably lead to something tangible that the perm can't solve.

Counterplans

• Competition - I'm a bit out of my depth when I hear teams trying to defend counterplans that only need to be textually competitive, so it's probably not a good idea to read these in front of me. If you do want to read them I need a great deal more explanation than you'd think, probably.

Feel free to ask if you have any other questions!

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mGleRitgQc)

Email: ahinecker1@gmail.com

There is no magic way to win a debate, nor a "correct," way of debating. Be persuasive and make arguments that you see as strategic and communicate them effectively. Debate in the end is a communication and research activity - show those elements in the debate and use them to frame and forecast how I will make my decision. Defend what you will defend, just make sure that it is articulated in a manner that can justify a ballot. I enjoy debates that show a lot of ingenuity and predictions in your arguments relative to your opponents. That being said, I love impact turn throw-downs and risky strategies. In the end, you should default to a strategy that you are comfortable with. The only specific I care about is counterplans - I have become increasing persuaded by theory arguments because I think counterplans are getting absolutely out of hand with what they can do. That's all, just remember, this activity is only what you make of it, and it is about more than just winning. 

I did policy debate for 4 years and LD (traditional V/C LD) for 2 years in central Kansas.

Policy Debate

I am not picky on argumentation, just make sure that it is cohesive and makes sense. I will adapt to whatever the participants bring to the debate room.

I tend to weigh stock issues very heavy, so affirmative must not only show that there is a problem now but that there is a legitimate block to the plan in the status quo.

Non-Negotiables

Do not create unsafe spaces in debate. If you have questions or concerns please bring them up when all parties are present before the debate begins.

Speed

Please be clear and signpost. I will let you know if your rate of speaking is too much for me. Slow down for line by line.

Adding me to the email-chain will also solve any continuity issues that may come up in round:

sara-kilpatrick@hotmail.com

Theory

Don't use it as a time suck. If you read it, make it make sense.

Kritiks

I am open minded to any literature but I did lean more towards Fem when I was a debater, so I am not incredibly well versed in other Ks (just make sure it makes sense)

Lincoln-Douglas

I have a preference for traditional value/criterion style of LD and will base my voting on that, but if you show me that the newer policy esk style is better then I am willing to operate under that paradigm.

I am cool with speed, just make sure that I have access to ev or that you at least slow for tags and the V/C level.

I am down with critiquing the resolution or the other teams positions (however I do not think that it should be structured like a K policy flow).

Let me know if y'all have any questions

Put me on the email chain brett.krambeer@gmail.com

four years in high school at Hutchinson High School (KS)

two years in college at The University of North Texas

Currently debating at Emporia Sate University (Stingers Down!)

Assistant coach for Lawrence High School (KS) for two years

Current assistant coach for Emporia High School (KS)

This happens more often than anyone wants to admit: If anyone in the room has made an offensive comment of a severe degree I will automatically vote against you. If an argument is not made in the debate about the comment, I will still vote against you if I subjectively decide it warrants that response. Your speaks will suffer regardless. I will only stop the debate if I am asked to by a debater, if I am I will.

Other than that, have fun and be nice to each other. You should do what you do, I'll adapt to you. I am comfortable with most everything. With that being said, I wish people did a better job of starting off slower, give me a sec to adjust to your voice by starting off at like 85% speed or so.. Especially if you're starting off with a theory or T argument.

An argument is a claim and a warrant. You need to win an argument AND a reason why that argument means I should vote for you. Don't just throw a bunch of cards at me, it makes me sad. I think the most important speeches are the rebuttals, write my ballot for me.. I like to be lazy, tell me what I'm voting on and why. I don't like reading evidence after a debate, I won't unless I have to or am told to.

I tend to be swayed by well-explained turns case arguments. Tell me how different flows and arguments interact with each other. I wish more people read impact turns.

Making choices is good.. I wont judge kick an alt or CP unless I am told to.

Specific arguments

Kritiks: I am most likely to vote for a K with a specific link and a well explained alternative (Do not assume I understand your alternative) and how it solves the aff/affs impacts. Furthermore, I think impact framing arguments are also very important and needs to be clearly extrapolated because I will use that to frame the rest of the debate.

Planless Aff’s: You do you, I have less experience with this style of affirmative. Yes, I will vote on impact turns to T.

Debated four years at Maize High School '20

Former assistant coach at Wichita East High School '20-'21

Duke 2024 (not debating)

Add me to the chain: jason.g.lin20@gmail.com

NCFL - PFD

There are 2 rules in PFD

-No Ks

-No Spreading

Overall

*I'm 2 years out from thinking about policy debate, so I will struggle some to keep up with national circuit speed. I will try my best. Decisions will also likely take longer. I can still watch lectures on 1.75x at least, #PortableSkills.

Tech > Truth, and evidence quality matters to me. I find a lot of cards are atrociously highlighted. That said, I don't wish to read through all your cards; Make arguments about them, so I don't need to default to ev.

Clarity > Speed - note, this is even more true for online debate. Speed = # of ideas effectively communicated to the judge.

Don't clip/steal prep. Let me emphasize again -- DON'T CLIP, actually physically mark cards when you say to mark cards. Stealing prep after a warning has great speaker point consequences.

Evidence comparison/argument resolution good. Shadow extension/no clash bad.

I would rather listen to a politics+CP debate than a kritik debate, but I would also rather listen to you debating your strongest argument than you adapting to my preferences. Ks must pass the make sense test

A well explained, logical, argument trumps an unexplained argument merely extended by its "card name"

Cross x is a speech-I figure it in as a substantial factor in speaker points

DA

- Disads are about story telling - If I can't explain the story of the DA back to you then I won't vote on it.

- I think link debates require the most skill, and I will focus on it heavily. Many internal links also are often sus but overlooked.

- Do turns case and comparative impact calc. Canned overviews without any change round-to-round are bad. Judge instruction is good. Impact calc about risk is also pretty convincing since I'm often left with two existential impacts

CP

- Great, but like most judges, I prefer case-specific over generic counterplans, but we can’t always get what we want.

- CP's like consult or conditions that compete off certainty aren't great, but the aff can't blow it completely off either

- Floating PICs/Word PICs are pretty iffy for the neg--reading it as a K should solve most of the education impact, but I have yet to see many of these debates

T/Theory

- Blocks are good but no substitute for the line-by-line.

- I find a bunch of T-interps are arbitrary. Precision/predictability should prolly outweigh a marginal limits impact. However, negs that coherently connect their interpretation, violation, and standards with tangible impacts will be rewarded

- Default condo good. Somewhat high threshold, but I do recognize how forcing the aff to double turn themselves can (debatably) be problematic

- Perf Con is better utilized as a solvency takeout rather than a theoretical issue

FW

- Impact calc matters a bunch here; offense is key.

- I read both fairness and education impacts, and I don't have a strong preference for either against K affs.

- K affs in the direction of the topic are better for me

- new-ish to these debates

K

- I most likely only have a surface level understanding of your Kritik. Even less for postmodernist theories. More common K's like Cap and Security make more sense to me.

- Impact turning is often underutilized. Extinction first/heg good can be persuasive if done right

- Go more in-depth with each aff argument rather than shotgunning a billion perms. That increases my burden on the negative to disprove your arguments

-paradigm is essentially arranged from most to least useful to you so if you're reading and start feeling like it's no longer helpful for prefs or pre-debate adaptation you could probably stop bc it'll only get worse lol

-please put stephenlowep@gmail.com on the chain

-I really like when debates start on time. If your 1ac is on the wiki I don't see any disadvantage to sending it out before start time so that you can start speaking at start time. You don't have to start reading the 1ac as soon as its sent. You could send it as soon as you get the pairing and then just start reading it at the start time. I get not sending if its a new aff.

-please send a doc with the ev you want me to read after the round

-I try hard not to intervene in any way(note abt this at the end)

-best t-usfg impact for me is fairness. It doesn't matter to me a bunch if debate is valuable for clash type reasons bc we are all here afterall. We are doing debate for some reason however varied those reasons may be.

-best aff way to beat a fairness impact in front of me would involve winning some kind of subjectivity change. If aff can win a solvency claim for any kind of impact like racism or war then the aff will probably end up winning. I just think it's really hard to win that solvency claim given how important competition is to debate.

-I will provide clarification abt an argument if asked during your own speech or anyone’s prep time, e.g. I will answer “did you flow conditionality bad?”

-i encourage you to challenge my decisions if you disagree. I'd rather hash it out and have someone's opinion change than mutual disagreement. I don't take it personally and I won't judge any future debate based on what has happened in a previous one.

-if never mentioned judge kick is okay(and this means judge kick of individual planks if the neg says they can kick planks)

-i will reject the argument and not the team unless the aff explicitly argues their non-conditionality thing is a voting issue before the 2ar

-i lean towards competing interps over reasonability

-i lean limits over precision

-competition over theory

-perms aren't advocacies but perm do the counterplan does demonstrate that the aff could be implemented in such a way that there is no net benefit

-perm double bind seems to make a lot of sense absent the neg winning framework, but if the neg wins framework it seems they can win by convincingly criticizing the aff

-i suspect I care about impact uniqueness more than most

-i try not to be visually reactive. i don't want to effect the decisions you all make

-any questions at all ask over email. I believe you should have the opportunity to know enough about me to strike me if you'd like

-I think a lot of speaker points/my general disposition in debates is driven by how interested I am in what's happening. I'm more interested when both teams are reading a lot of cards and there's a high rate of arguments being made. Bold choices are also fun like impact turning in latter constructives, 2nc counterplans, etc. You shouldn't do these things just bc you have me and I like chaos but if it serves some strategic purpose go for it. Like I'm better for ev that's less highlighted, lighter explanation, and higher breadth strategies than most.

---non-intervention note

What I'm trying to say here is I will try hard not to dismiss an argument because it clashes with my personal beliefs or because it's offensive or anything like that. I'm not going to vote against any kritik, any style of death good, or pretty much any argument at all just because it was read. I will intervene on some line by line issues if the debating forces me too. For example if there is a t debate where both sides are making internal link arguments about education but they don't directly clash then my hand is forced and I will have to intervene to decide which internal link is better. Similarly there are certain arguments that don't require responses not because they are ideologically bad but because they are logically incoherent however this is rare. I will not vote for an elections DA if the election has already happened and I won't vote on a DA to space elevators if it's been read against a CJR aff. This isn't because I'm offended or am truth over tech or something. This is because these DAs are simply not arguments that prove I should vote neg whereas most death good args or kritiks are. Like if every part of these DAs were true by virtue of concession the most they could prove is that space elevators cause extinction or that the aff would've shifted an election which can be true and all but I couldn't possibly explain to a team why it means they should lose.

---other note

Everything below has nothing to do with how I judge debate. I’ve had a lot of conversations with high school debaters and I think many could benefit from reading what’s below. It’s not THE TRUTH but it’s my thoughts and I think some people may be able to get something useful out of them. I don't think reading what's below will help you with prefs or anything though.

-I enjoyed most of my time debating. I stopped debating because I wasn’t enjoying it. There were still times when I did debate and I didn’t enjoy it. After all there’s more to life than a search for what brings the most enjoyment. People who climbed Mount Everest didn’t do it because it was fun. They did it because it was Everest. Still, debate is a lot less cool than Everest and that’s also worth remembering.

-I recently learned that me quitting was evidence that I lied about my commitment level to debate. Commitment levels can change overtime. It seems the best thing I could do for the team and myself was stop. This was informed by people I spoke to on and off the team that advised me this was true. I’ve been a lot happier since I’ve stopped and my former team has been incredibly successful. This seems like a win-win to me. I don’t think anyone should feel any obligation to stay in what is in all reality an extracurricular club that they don’t enjoy because at one point in their lives they enjoyed it and they told other people they enjoyed it.

-Any monetary rewards I received from competing in debate were far outweighed by the money I spent attending tournaments on food, transport, and registration costs. I never got scholarship money in high school or college or for attending camp but I do get paid to judge/coach debate. I didn’t do debate as a survival strategy. I did it because I thought it was fun and I liked being good at something. Maybe the benefit of the connections and skills I’ve acquired through debate made participation a financially good decision. It’s impossible to say.

-I don’t know all of the different factors that can make someone’s relationship to debate unhealthy. I don’t know what it means in any clear sense to have an unhealthy relationship to the activity. I do believe there are people that are in debate that have intense anxiety and depressive episodes related to their participation. I’m not subtweeting here. This is just a thing that happens in debate. This seems bad but I’m not a doctor and I’m not saying you should stop if this is the case for you but it’s worth thinking about what you get from debate.

-There are a lot of interesting people in debate. Not all of them want you to feel good or feel good themselves. Being a good debater doesn’t make someone an admirable person. I don’t think there’s a negative correlation either but debate is an activity that selects naturally disagreeable and competitive people. Debaters hang out with other debaters and often times will not have good friends outside of the activity. Good and bad debaters want to hangout with good debaters. Outside of debate people want to hangout with people who are fun to be around. Being good at something is not a sustainable strategy for building strong relationships with other people.

-I also don’t think being a good debater means you’re any smarter. There are a lot of smart people that do debate but I don’t think there’s any reason to idolize debaters who are competitively successful as being ultra intelligent. Being really good at debate will cause people to believe you’re really smart and it may cause you to believe you’re really smart but this isn’t the same thing as being really smart. The flip side of this is that if you aren’t good at debate, you shouldn’t stay up at night wondering if you’re good enough. You are good enough and you would’ve been even if you had never heard of debate in the first place.

-No one becomes famous from debate. There are some debaters with famous parents but that fame came from elsewhere. People in debate will know of other debaters. Almost no one outside debate will know of any debaters. Even less people care. There are also other non policy debate events like mock trial, model UN, parliamentary debate, and even LD. Policy debaters like to make fun of these events but its worth remembering that however little we know about these things, people outside of our activity know even less about policy debate. My point is that there are far better ways to chase clout than convincing college students and high school teachers to tell you that you won an argument with other high-schoolers.

-Debate is not a game about logic. It’s a game about convincing another person to vote for you. There are some people who are trying to treat it like there’s always a right and wrong decision but there’s not. Different people have different ways of coming to conclusions and there are infinite arguments to be had about who won a given debate. There are logical games that exist like chess where there cannot be arguments about who won. Debate is not one of these games.

-Debate is not the most useful thing you can do for college applications. It certainly helps but there are far better activities to leverage in a similar way to debate if getting into an elite college is your goal. Again, debate helps but I wouldn’t recommend committing to debate purely as a strategy for college applications especially given all of the aforementioned baggage.

-debate is not separate from the world. It is in the world. One thing abt the world is that people with more money have an advantage over people with less. There is a reason the same schools are consistently good at debate in both college and high school. There are other things in debate that probably matter that can’t be controlled by the people that are both helped and hurt by these factors: race, gender, sexuality, etc. Debate is not an escape from these imbalances. I think it should be. I don’t think these imbalances should exist in debate or the real world. I don’t think any decision anyone will ever make in any debate will change this.

-I don’t know if debate participation is decreasing or not. People tell me that it is. If debate can’t successfully make a case for its own existence and usefulness to high school students then I don’t really know what the point is. That doesn’t mean I like this trend. I would prefer if debate grew. I think debate is better when it is bigger and I like debate.

Max McCarty

I debated for a year in college at UTD for a Year, Coached at LFS for 3 years and now at Blue valley North. In HS I debated at BVSW and consitantly cleared at TOC tournaments my senior year.

Put me on the email chain maxwell[dot]mccarty[at]gmail[dot]com

Tech > Truth

• I have a lot less topic experience/knowledge than I have had on previous topics. I will definitely need more explaining of things than people who worked at or taught at camps over the summer. This will still be true throughout the season as I spend less time thinking about the topic than in previous years. Simply because I am less involved.
• Over the last couple years of judging I have noticed a trend of people flying through analytics at top speed off the speech doc, if you want me to flow them it is in your best interest to slow down here. If you are doing this and not realizing it my body language will definitely tell you I am not flowing.
• I will not evaluate arguments about an individual's character or behavior that occurred outside of the debate. Serious, good faith concerns should be brought to the tournament administration, not to the judge of a debate, if you have issue before the round, tournament, etc.
• not great/terrible for K v K debates, would rather be upfront for you. Doesn’t mean that I won't try my hardest for you all but it has never been in my realm of expertise, link/perm work is a must, with more explanation than you usually might do

T: As mentioned I have little to no experience with this topic, for T debates that means I need more explanation of what what they competing versions of the topic look like. I think the internal link and impact level of these debates often gets lost, and because of that I found reasonability to be more compelling than I used to in some debates.

Theory: I would certainly prefer to judge debates about the substance of the aff vs the neg, however theory debates are inevitable and here are some quick thoughts:

• I think more teams should go for it, but it should be unique to the debate. I find general arguments of copy and pasted blocks through each speech rather boring and repetitive, and will often conclude there is little offense to reject another team or argument on this. Ways you can fix this, make it unique to the debate ie: "it is not just that they read 4 condo, but the nature of all 4 "doing the whole aff", in tandem with how "CP competition works on this topic makes it uniquely bad..."
• I do generally find condo to be good, doesn’t mean I wont vote for it but it should have nuance to it vs passed down blocks.

FW:

I generally think affs should be about hypothetical government action on the topic. However that is my opinion and I will do my best to leave it at the door. I tend to vote 50/50 in these debates here are something that may be helpful for you.

• I generally find arguments about fairness compelling vs arguments about truth testing etc.

• I think clash in these debates are good. Teams need to apply their arguments to what has happened in round. This means you probably shouldn't be reading the same blocks every debate. If your aff this means a 1ar that is contextual to the block. If your neg this means actually answering the DAs the 2ac read etc.
• round vision and the ballot: I should know what voting aff or neg does. A lot of the time this is likely done via impact calc but can often be lost and makes it much harder. By the end of the 2ar I shouldn’t have to re read the 1ac to determine that or by the end of the 2nr I should have to re read the 1nc to determine that etc.

DAS:

They are great, Impact calc is great it should be done! Link arguments are only as specific or generic as you make them. If you read a generic one that is fine, but spin can make it more specific etc. Same is true with link and internal link defense.

CP:

I love them, they should probably compete with the aff. That can certainly be a debate to be had, but generally I find that in debates where teams are technically equal the truth of the argument typically shapes that tech.

Ks:

I think of Ks as a cp with a net benefit, the more specific it is to the aff the more likely I am to vote on it. I’m not well read in lit at all so explanation goes a long way. I think you should have a somewhat specific link to the aff. I do feel like at the end of the debate the aff should get to weigh the 1ac, in what context is up for debate but im very hard to convince otherwise. Link of omissions are nonstarters. My advice is go for what you are most comfortable with and I will do my best as a judge to leave my biases at the door and evaluate the debate.

Case debate:

This is is a lost art. I think more teams need to be willing to engage with the aff. This can be done on a substance level, impact turns, smart analytical arguments, theory, etc. I have no issue with the neg reading as many offcase args as you want, but if you are doing so at the expense of a well developed case debate than don’t be surprised if I conclude a high risk of the aff, when there is little engagement with it.

Other things/pet peeves

-I think there is a fine line between being an ass and being competitive. If done well your speaks will be rewarded but if done wrong you will not be happy with them rule of thumb don’t be an ass, be respectful and have fun.

-physically mark your cards. if you do not and another team asks for a marked copy I will make you take prep within my arbitrary judgement of what that is.

- you must physically read the rehighlighting of the other teams cards simply saying “I have inserted a rehighlighting here” is not an argument in any sense please read the card. The only exception to this is if it is a small part of a card and you have explained the argument it makes in your speech.

-Clipping will result with a loss with 0 speaks. I do follow along in speech docs so if I see you doing it I won’t hesitate. If you call someone out for it you must have audio evidence of it.

Ryan McFarland
Debated at KCKCC and Wichita State

Two years of coaching at Wichita State, 3 years at Hutchinson High School in Kansas, two years at Kapaun Mt. Carmel, now at Blue Valley Southwest.

email chain: remcfarland043@gmail.com, bvswdebatedocs@gmail.com

Stop reading; debate. Reading blocks is not debating. You will not get higher than a 28.3 from me if you cant look away from your computer and make an argument.

I've seen deeper debates in slow rounds than I've seen in "fast" rounds the last couple years. "Deep" does not mean quantity of arguments, but quality and explanation of arguments.

Talk about the affirmative. I've judged so many debates the last couple years where the affirmative is not considered after the 1AC. Impact defense doesn’t count. I don't remember the last time my decision included anything about impact defense that wasn't dropped.

I am not a fan of process counterplans. I’m not auto-vote against them, but I think they’ve produced a lazy style of debating. I don’t understand why we keep coming up with more convoluted ways to make non-competitive counterplans competitive instead of just admitting they aren’t competitive and moving on with our lives.

I'm not good for the K. I spent most of my time debating going for these arguments, have coached multiple teams to go for them, so I think I understand them well. I've been trying to decide if it's about the quality of the debating, or just the argument, but I think I just find these arguments less and less persuasive. Maybe its just the links made on this topic, but it's hard for me to believe that giving people money, or a job, doesn't materially make peoples lives better which outweighs whatever the impact to the link you're going for. I don't think I'm an auto-vote aff, but I haven't voted for a K on this topic yet.

If you decide to go for the K, I care about link contextualization much more than most judges. The more you talk about the aff, the better your chances of winning. I dislike the move to never extend an alternative, but I understand the strategic choice to go for framework + link you lose type strategies.

An affirmative winning capitalism, hegemony, revisionism true/good, etc. is a defense of the affirmatives research and negative teams will have a hard time convincing me otherwise.

I think K affirmatives, most times, don't make complete arguments. They often sacrifice solvency for framework preempts. I understand the decision, but I would probably feel better about voting for an affirmative that doesn't defend the topic if it did something.

Zero risk is real. Read things other than impact defense. Cross-ex is important for creating your strategy and should be utilized in speeches. Don’t be scared to go for theory.I will not vote on something that happened outside of a debate, or an argument that requires me to make a judgement about a high school kid's character.

Don't clip. Clarity issues that make it impossible to follow in the doc is considered clipping.

Heer Mehta

Blue Valley West '20

heermehta001@gmail.com

TLDR

- This is my third year judging, but am still a pretty new judge. I don't really keep up with the topic/lit, so keep that in mind. I am probably a better judge for policy debate. For kritik-oriented debates, I need a lot of explanation.

- tech over truth

- indicting authors and evidence is important and you will be rewarded for that

- an argument = claim, warrant, impact

- It's okay to be competitive, but don't be a jerk. You'll lose speaker points.

- I am fine with speed, but please be clear and make sure you slow down a little bit for important arguments because you want to emphasize those.

- As you get later into the debate, the fewer cards you read the better (unless you're the 1ar and you need to). I do not like seeing laptops in the 2ar/2nr. Line by line!!

- Impact calc is very important at the top. Judge instruction is very important to me. I don't want to do the work for you - tell me why I should vote for you. I am not a big fan of judge intervention, so if you want to emphasize an argument or indict the other team's cards, please do not expect me to do that for you.

- not a fan of 10 off in the 1nc

Case - I appreciate a good case debate. For the aff, I think a lot of debaters can forget to use their 1ac cards to answer things on different flows - use them.

Disads - read them.

Counterplans - I like advantage CPs, but I'm probably not a good judge for consult/PICs/process counterplans. Conditionality is probably good, but I can be persuaded otherwise. Please read a solvency advocate.

Topicality - yes competing interps. By the end of the debate, you should only be going for one standard. I see topicality as a disad, so both teams should explain why the other team's interp is worse for debate. Frame your arguments in the context of the topic - don't just read generic T blocks.

Kritiks - I went for generic neolib and arm sales kritiks my junior and senior year, so I am not well-versed in the K lit. I will listen to it if you wanna go for it, just make sure you clearly articulate things and emphasize important arguments. A lot of debaters will rely on fancy jargon to sidestep a real explanation of what the kritik actually is. It is more valuable in my eyes for you to be able to apply the argument. For these debates, judge instruction is extremely important. Long overviews at the top should be shortened and replaced by line by line throughout the flow - it's easier to follow and more organized. On the other hand, I think link/FW arguments are convincing by the aff. Make sure you're explaining why the kritik is not just the status quo and how the aff makes it worse. Fiat is illusory doesn't make sense to me.

Framework - affs need to have some link to the topic. I like fairness impacts, but I can be persuaded with topic education.

Theory - make you sure you have an impact to your theory arg.

Current assistant coach at Blue Valley North; debated at Oklahoma (2018-19) and Blue Valley North (2014-18).

Email chain/questions: emendelson7@gmail.com

Note for NSDA: I haven't judged PF before but I did compete in it a few times in high school. Everything below is in the context of policy debate.

General:

Online debate: please have your camera on, at least during your speeches/cx. I won't dock points if you can't, but online debate is a little less soul-crushing if we can at least see each other.

Debate should be enjoyable. Be nice to each other and have fun.

Do whatever you do best. I don't have any strong ideological positions on debate and I'll do my best to fairly judge whatever you put out there.

Please don't go top speed through T/theory/other dense analytics. I will not consult the speech doc to fill in gaps if I can't understand you or am unable to write it down fast enough. This is especially important for online debate.

I'll read cards after the round to verify the claims you're making about them, but I will not do the work of warrant explanation for you.

Case:

I would MUCH rather see in-depth case debate than a 10-off round. Substantive solvency arguments and indicts of the 1AC evidence are some of the easiest ways to my ballot. Offense is always important but I think I am slightly more willing than most to vote neg on presumption.

Counterplans:

I love counterplan debates. The more specific and creative the better.

I’m sympathetic to theory arguments against word PICs, delay/conditions/consult CPs, and CPs that fiat outside the federal government. Outside of those examples, I lean neg on counterplan theory. If the aff wins theory it’s more likely a reason to reject the argument than the team, with the exception of condo.

Kritiks:

Don't read a kritik that you cannot clearly articulate in CX. If you are unable to explain your own evidence, I will be very unlikely to vote on it.

The link is the most important part. Winning framework does not reduce the necessity of winning the link.

The neg still needs to beat the aff in order to win the K. What that looks like can vary, but I'm not very persuaded by arguments that I should just ignore the 1AC.

K Affs/Framework:

The aff should probably defend something in the direction of the resolution but that doesn't necessarily require a plan text. The farther the aff strays from the topic area the more likely that I'll find framework arguments persuasive, but I won't on-face reject any aff.

In general, I'm less concerned with whether the act of reading the 1AC solves a real-world problem than I am with whether the kind of action/inaction the 1AC advocates is hypothetically a good idea.

As the aff, you need to explain why the ballot matters and why debate specifically is a necessary site for your argument, not just why the thing you're talking about is important to learn about/discuss.

As the neg, framework is not a "they cheated" argument and I probably won't vote for it if that's how it's framed. I increasingly think that fairness is not its own impact but an internal link to education, but I can be persuaded otherwise.

Topicality:

The neg should frame T as "here is why the aff model of debate is bad," not "the aff should lose because they cheated."

I think I'm more pro-reasonability than a lot of judges, but "the aff is reasonably topical" is not a compelling deployment of it. The explanation of reasonability that makes sense to me is "our definition is a reasonable interpretation of the topic." That still needs to be backed up by warrants, though.

Parker Mitchell

[unaffiliated]

Updated for: DSDS 2 - Feb '24 - Link to old paradigm (it's still true, but it's too much. This is a shorter version, hopefully less ranty. If you have a specific question, it's likely answered in the linked doc.)

Email: park.ben.mitchell@gmail.com

He/They/She are all fine.

General Opinions

I view debate as a strategic game with a wide range of stylistic and tactical variance. I am accepting (and appreciative of) nearly all strategies within that variance. Although I do try to avoid as much ideological bias as possible, this starting point does color how I view a few things:

First, fairness is an impact, but: Economic collapse is also an impact yet I'm willing to vote DDev, the same holds here. I view Ks and K Affs as a legitimate, but contestable, strategy for winning a ballot. In other words, I will vote for K affs and I will vote for framework and my record is fairly even.

Second, outside of egregiously offensive positions such as Racism, Sexism and Homophobia good, I have very few limitations on what I consider "acceptable" argumentation. Reading arguments on the fringes is exciting and interesting to me. However, explicit slurs (exception - when you are the one affected by that slur) and repeated problematic language is unacceptable.

Third, it affects my views on ethos. I assume most debaters don't buy in 100% to the arguments they make. This is not to say that debate "doesn't shape subjectivity," but it is to say that I assume there is some distance between your words and your being. In other words: There is a distant yet extant relationship between ontology and epistemology.

I find I have an above average stylistic bias to teams that embrace this concept. In other words, teams that aggressively posture (unless they are particularly good and precise about it) tend to alienate me and teams that appear somewhat disaffected tend to have my attention. This is not absolute or inevitable. This operates on the ethos and style level and not on the substance/argumentative level.

Fourth, I will attempt to take very precise notes. My handwriting is awful, but I can read it. I will flow on paper. I will flow straight down and I will not use multiple sheets for one argument (I'm talking Ks too, this isn't parli). I will not follow along with the doc. I will say "clear" if you are unclear during evidence, but not during analytics, that's a you problem. Clarity means I can distinguish each word in the text of the evidence. Cards that continue to be unclear after reminders will be struck from my flow. I flow CX on paper but will stop when the timer does. I will not listen during flex prep, I don't care if you take it.

Experience

13 years of experience in debate. I'm currently working in the legal technology world, not teaching or coaching for the moment. I have been volunteering to assist for Wichita East in a very limited capacity this year, while judging for SME on occasion.

Formerly: 6 years assisting at Shawnee Mission East (KS, 2015-2021), 2 years as Director of Debate and Forensics at Wichita East (KS, 2021-2023). 4 years as a debater for Shawnee Mission East (KS, 2010-2015), 5 years for the University of Missouri-Kansas City (MO - NDT/CEDA, 2015-2020). I have worked intermittently with DEBATE-Kansas City (DKC, MO/KS), Asian Debate League (aka. ADL, Chinese Taipei, 2019-2021), Truman (MO, 2021) and Turner (KS, 2019). 2 years leading labs at UMKC-SDI.

Topic Experience (HS)

19 rounds. Did not coach at a camp and I am not actively coaching, so my experience is middling. I think I have decent familiarity with the topic concepts due to personal interest and participation in past topics, but I'm not exactly up to date. I think my knowledge is rather limited on social security affirmatives. I feel that most teams are broadly misinterpreting the topic and that topicality is quite a good option against most affirmatives.

Topic Experience (College):

Basically 0. I know some NFU stuff from the prez powers topic.

Topic Specific Notes

This is a rant that you should probably take with a grain of salt pre-debate or during prefs, I just think aff strategic choice has suffered this year and can improve.

Outside of K affs, I've been thoroughly unimpressed by most affirmatives on the topic. I think they are largely vulnerable to some easy negative argumentation. I do not think this is because the topic is "biased," but because affirmative teams have been simultaneously uncreative and, when creative, counterproductive. I think the best way of reading a plan aff is by digging in your heels in the topic area and strongly defending redistribution. I think the ways of skirting around to initiate other plan based debates often introduce far more significant strategic issues for the aff than they solve. There seems to be this presumption that winning a dense econ debate is impossible so you have to find a different topic, which to me is both dangerous and lazy. I have actually 0 problem with being lazy, only with the fact that these alternative topics seem to be way worse for the aff than the existing one. See the following paragraph for my earlier rant about this that illustrates one example, however it is not the only example I have seen:

If you read the carbon tax aff - cool, it's not like I'm auto-dropping you but my god, this cannot be the biggest aff on the topic. I'm not sure I've ever seen the biggest aff on the topic stumble into so many (irrelevant and non-topic germane!) weaknesses while revealing so few strengths. Have we all forgotten about basic debate strategy? Trust me, no one is forcing you to read a warming advantage and lose! At some point, this is your own fault. Typically on climate topics judges are prone to give a little leeway to the aff on timeframe just so the topic is debatable - but make no mistake - you will not get that leeway here.

Argument Specific Notes

T - my favorite. Competing interps are best. Precision is less important than debate-ability. "T-USFG" will be flowed as "T-Framework." No "but"s. It's an essential neg strat, but I'm equally willing to evaluate impact turns to framework.

CPs - Condo and "cheating" counterplans are good, unless you win they're bad. Affs should be more offensive on CP theory and focus less on competition minutiae. Don't overthink it.

DAs - low risk of a link = low risk of my ballot. Be careful with these if your case defense/cp isn't great, you can easily be crushed by a good 2AR. I find I have sat or been close to in certain situations where the disad was particularly bad, even if the answers were mostly defense.

Ks - I feel very comfortable in K debates and I think these are where I give the most comments. Recently, I've noticed some K teams shrink away from the strongest version of their argument to hide within the realm of uncertainty. I think this is a mistake. (sidenote - "they answered the wrong argument" is not a "pathologization link", but don't worry, you're probably ahead) (other sidenote - everyone needs a reminder of what "ontology" means)

Etc - My exact speaks thoughts are in the old paradigm, but a sidenote that is relevant for argumentation: my decision is solely based on arguments in the debate (rfd), my speaks arise from the feedback section of my ballot - I will not disclose speaks and I won't give specific speaks based on argument ("don't drop the team, tank my speaks instead" "give us 30s for [insert reason]") I'm much more concerned with your performance in the debate for speaks, argumentation only has a direct impact on my vote and not other parts of my ballot.

****************************************************

that should be all you need before a debate. there are more things in the doc linked at the top including opinions on speaks, disclosure, ethics as well as appendices for online debates and other events.

NSDA qualifier - Just wanted to clarify for the NSDA qualifier this weekend that this is the first tournament of the season I will be judging. I am good with speed, but I do not recommend you go your fastest. With that being said, make sure you contextualize any kritiks as I have not judged a round on this topic.

emporia high school 2015-2019

ku 23

they/them

yes add me to your email chain: itslenamose@gmail.com

about me

i did policy debate for all four years of high school and a semester of college debate at KU. i ran mostly policy arguments in high school but i spent most of my time running Ks and K affs my last year and a half in debate.

high school experience = two time DCI qualifier, 5A two speak policy debate finalist, and two time NCFL qualifier in LD.

yes spread. yes be clear.

prep doesn't end until the speech doc is sent.

top level

i will listen to most of what you have to say. here's what i think is super important/things people mess up a lot:

1. win your aff -- case is super important and if you win it, then you can win a lot of other stuff on the flow (like case o/w and using the aff as an impact filter)

2. engage with arguments and understand your arguments -- shadow extending cards/making claims with no warrants does not persuade me. clash is good.

3. good cx -- a lot of people don't have goal oriented cross examinations anymore and it's pretty sad. cross ex is a speech. you can get a lot from cx, and when you do you should point those things out in your speeches.

4. impact calc -- do impact calc. often times debaters don't do good enough impact calc and it becomes difficult for me to judge debates. probability, magnitude, and timeframe are important things and you should talk about them. doing impact calc is what will help you write out the ballot for me.

T

i default to competing interps unless convinced otherwise. i will vote on T and i enjoy t debates. limits is probably the only convincing impact to T. obviously warrant out fairness and education claims, but if you don't talk about limits in your 2nr it will be easier for me to vote aff.

theory

theory debates are pretty cool. i'm familiar with condo debates. if you wanna go for it, go for it. please go slow on theory though, spreading at top speed on theory will become frustrating for me.

disads

love a good disad debate ngl. if you can give me a good story and do some good line by line AND win impact calc, then you have a good shot with most DAs. i tend to be a fan of ptx.

K

i like K debates. these are probably some of my favorite debates to judge. as long as you can explain your K and it isn't some death good args then i can evaluate it.

i am most familiar with queer theory, cap, set col, and identity based kritiks

perm debates on the K are fun and good overviews are also fun.

i also like good alts. alts that are specific and well explained will def boost speaks but i can also evaluate a debate where you kick the alt and go for the link.

CP

i like creative CPs and just any CP that tests the aff well. CPs are good and should be competitive. please understand your perms.

Put me on the email chain please: lexi.ellis227@gmail.com

General Stuff:

-I will not evaluate arguments that are about something that happened outside of the debate round.

-unless otherwise argued, I default to judge kick is okay. If you want to get into specifics like cp planks, then I would prefer you make an argument about why judge kicking one part is okay.

-I believe that affs should be in the direction of the topic

-Impact out theory debates

~More specific arguments~

Kritiks:

-I don't think that a link of omission is a link. My threshold is pretty high for this so if you do so feel compelled to go for this argument, just know you will need to dedicate a lot of time to it.

-I like to see a lot of work done on the alt debate in the block. I need to see clear arguments as to what the world of the alt looks like and why the alt solves better than the aff.

Framework:

-I think fairness is more an internal link than it is an impact. (i.e. fairness is an internal link to topic education, clash, etc)

-In addition to framework there needs to be some sort of argument to indict the aff's methods. In rounds where this doesn't happen by the neg, I find the aff's argument to weigh the impacts more compelling. Read arguments as to why their theory is wrong.

Topicality:

-Limits are universally good.

-You should slow down

-T-USFG is more persuasive to me than a framework arg.

Put me on the email chain: dustinrimmey@gmail.com

I think you should have content warnings if your arguments may push this debate into uncomfortable territory.

Quick Background:

I debated for four years in High School (Lansing HS, KS) from 1998-2002, I debated for four years in college (Emporia State University, KS) from 2002-2006, Coached one year at Emporia State from 2006-2007, and from 2007 to present I have been a coach at Topeka High School (KS) where I have been the director of Speech and Debate since 2014. In terms of my argument preference while I was actively debating, I dabbled in a little bit of everything from straight up policy affirmatives, to affirmatives that advocated individual protests against the war in Iraq, to the US and China holding a press conference to out themselves as members of the illuminati. In terms of negative arguments, I read a lot of bad theory arguments (A/I spec anyone?), found ways to link every debate to space, read a lot of spark/wipeout and read criticisms of Language and Capitalism.

In terms of teams I have coached, most of my teams have been traditionally policy oriented, however over the last 2-3 years I have had some successful critical teams on both sides of the ball (like no plan texts, or slamming this activity....). For the past 2-3 years, I have been working with teams who read mostly soft left affirmatives and go more critical on the negative.

My Philosophy in Approaching Debate:

I understand we are living in a time of questioning whether debate is a game or an outreach of our own individual advocacies for change, and I don't know fully where I am at in terms of how I view how the debate space should be used. I guess as a high school educator for the past decade, my approach to debate has been to look for the pedagalogical benefit of what you say/do. If you can justify your method of debating as meaningful and educational, I will probably temporarially be on board until persuaded otherwise. That being said, the onus is on you to tell me how I should evaluate the round/what is the role of the ballot.

This is not me being fully naive and claiming to be a fully clean slate, if you do not tell me how to judge the round, more often than not I will default to an offense/defense paradigm.

Topicality

I tend to default to competing interpretations, but am not too engrained in that belief system. To win a T debate in front of me, you should go for T like a disad. If you don't impact out your standards/voters, or you don't answer crucial defense (lit checks, PA not a voter, reasonability etc.) I'm probably not going to vote neg on T. Also, if you are going for T for less than all 5 minutes of the 2NR, I'm probably not voting for you (unless the aff really messes something up). I am more likely to vote on T earlier in the year than later, but if you win the sheet of paper, you tend to win.

I do think there is a burden on the negative to either provide a TVA, or justify why the aff should be in no shape-or-form topical whatsoever.

In approaching T and critical affirmatives. I do believe that affirmatives should be in the direction of the resolution to give the negative the basis for some predictable ground, however in these debates where the aff will be super critical of T/Framework, I have found myself quite often voting affirmative on dropped impact turns to T/Framing arguments on why the pedagogical model forwarded by the negative is bad.

Hack-Theory Arguments

Look, I believe your plan text should not be terrible if you are aff. That means, acronyms, as-pers, excessive vagueness etc. are all reasons why you could/should lose a debate to a crafty negative team. I probably love and vote on these arguments more than I should.....but....I loved those arguments when I debated, and I can't kick my love for them.....I also am down to vote on just about any theory argument as a "reject the team" reason if the warrants are right. If you just read blocks at me and don't engage in a line-by-line of analysis....I'm probably not voting for you...

I am on the losing side of "condo is evil" so a single conditional world is probably OK in front of me, but I'm open to/have voted on multiple conditional worlds and/or multiple CPs bad. I'm not absolutely set in those latter worlds, but its a debate that needs hashed out.

I also think in a debate of multiple conditional worlds, its probably acceptable for the aff to advocate permutations as screens out of other arguments.

The K

Eh.......the more devoted and knowledgable to your literature base, the easier it is to pick up a ballot on the K. Even if you "beat" someone on the flow, but you can't explain anything coherently to me (especially how your alt functions), you may be fighting an uphill battle. I am not 100% compelled by links of omission, but if you win a reason why we should have discussed the neglected issue, I may be open to listen. The biggest mistake that critical debaters make, is to neglect the aff and just go for "fiat is an illusion" or "we solve the root cause" but....if you concede the aff and just go for some of your tek, you may not give me enough reason to not evaluate the aff...

I am the most familiar with anti-capitalist literature, biopolitics, a small variety of racial perspective arguments, and a growing understanding of psychoanalysis. In terms of heart of the topic critical arguments, I've been reading and listening to more abolitionist theory, and if it is your go-to argument, you may need to treat me like a c+ level student in your literature base at the moment.

Case Debates

I like them.....the more in depth they go, the better. The more you criticize evidence, the better...

Impact turns

Yes please......

Counterplans

Defend your theoretical base for the CP, and you'll be fine. I like clever PICs, process PICs, or really, just about any kind of counterplan. You should nail down why the CP solves the aff (the more warrants/evidence the better) and your net benefit, and defense to perms, and I will buy it. Aff, read disads to the CP, theory nit-picking (like the text, does the neg get fiat, etc.) make clear perms, and make sure you extend them properly, and you'll be ok. If you are not generating solvency deficits, danger Will Robinson.

I think delay is cheating, but its an acceptable form in front of me...but I will vote on delay bad if you don't cover your backside.

Misc

I think I'm too dumb to understand judge kicking, so its safe to say, its not a smart idea to go for it in front of me.

Don'ts

Be a jerk, be sexist/transphobic/racist/ableist etc, steal prep, prep during flash time, or dominate cx that's not yours (I get mad during really bad open CX). Don't clip, misrepresent what you read, just say "mark the card" (push your tilde key and actually mark it...) or anything else socially unacceptable....

If you have questions, ask, but if I know you read the paradigm, and you just want me to just explain what I typed out.....I'll be grumpier than I normally am.

Basic practice preferences

If you want an email chain - msawyer@tps501.org

I will be flowing the round and that will be the largest decider in our round. Defend/debate all portions of an arguments and that will reflect well for you on the flow. I want to see ya'll interact with the arguments read - if you choose to discount an argument without just refutation, it'll be a yikes for all involved.

I will never vote on arguments which are discriminatory and encourage violence (racism good, ableism good, anti-queer literature, etc.) If you create spaces which encourage violence or are the source of abuse in the round in any way, you will lose this debate. I view my privilege in this round is to protect education and the safety of all debaters - in no way will I sit by and watch another team/debater be attacked for any identity they may possess. Debate space should be a space to act without fear of oppression - I will make sure that is reflected in my judgments and comments. I would rather see ethical debaters than those who read awful arguments in hopes of gaining a winning edge. Be a better person than you are a debater at all times.

I am fine with any speed you choose, but I will hold you accountable for creating a safe and accessible space for the debate to occur. If the practice is used as a way to push a debater/team out of the round, that's a problem. I will not directly intervene in this case, but if the team/debater chooses to critique your process or read in-round abuse theory, I will prefer it.

Argument breakdown

Framework: I will flow what you want from me to either change my evaluation of the round or use it as a critique of debater methods. This can be important at the end of the round if you make it to be. I will evaluate the round as your framework dictates if you give me the solid reasoning as why it should be preferred over default consequentialism. I want to see your ability to interact with the framework throughout the round, not just a one-time read at the end of an aff or at the start of a neg argument. If you are willing to read it, work with it during our time.

Author debates are tedious and boring. Do the work. Do the analysis. Disprove the argument written and presented rather than count on me to judge whether a piece of evidence should be included. Again, I want to see you engage with the evidence as read rather than dismiss it.

Topicality: I love it. A good T debate is my favorite debate to judge and was my favorite argument to run. By default, the aff needs to win the interpretation and work through the standards/voters. Don't discount the argument and make sure to prove T through thorough argumentation.

Counterplans: Always a fun time! As the neg, I feel this gives you automatic offense which can lead you away from the "the aff is still better than the SQ" debates. The thing that will irritate me quickest is the aff simply saying the perm to be argued rather than adding a simple line or two to analyze how that perm performs its abilities within the round and in the world of the aff. Do the work! In my opinion and practice, condo bad can help guard importance analysis space. Go for it! Other theory arguments are chill with me if you provide adequate analysis for how it negatively/positively shapes the round.

Criticisms/Performances: As a debater, I ran a few K arguments and have coached students through lit bases. There is a high chance I will be familiar with the base you are pulling from, but if I am not, I am sure I can understand the argument through the flashed evidence! Any K read should be an advocacy. This means that I want to see these arguments function as something you/the team truly believes and truly are a part of the community the literature bases itself within. Running literature from a community of which you are not a member runs the line of commodification which is bad for many reasons! I am willing to hear any K and will rely on the you to prove link and solvency clearly.

BOTTOM LINE

Debate is about education and learning how to interact with arguments on great topics. I want to see your work, your passions, and your way of debating. Make this activity fit you and your teammate, not the other way around! With as much as I value education, I want you to value and safeguard that education for all involved. This is why I will never vote up a team which places that in jeopardy for the round. As I tell my team: be better people than you are debaters. Never sacrifice parts of yourself for arguments that may seem competitive. Be a part of the reason this community is becoming safer for its members, not a reason people dread the activity.

Email chain: lfsdebate@gmail.com

Who Am I: I debated four years at Field Kindley High School in Coffeyville, KS, did not debate in college, and have been an assistant coach at Lawrence Free State High School in Lawrence, KS since 2013. I have a Master's degree in International Relations.

General Approach: Tell me what I should be voting on and why. If you want me to evaluate the round differently than they do, then you need to win a reason why your framework or paradigm is the one that I should use. If no one does that, then I'll default to a policymaker paradigm. I don't view offense and defense as an either/or proposition, but if you do then I prefer offense.

Standard Operating Procedure: (How I will evaluate the round unless one of the teams wins that I should do something different) The affirmative has a non-severable duty to advocate something resolutional, and that advocacy must be clear and stable. The goal of the negative is to prove that the affirmative's advocacy is undesirable, worse than a competitive alternative, or theoretically invalid. I default to evaluating all non-theory arguments on a single plane, am much more willing to reject an argument than a team, and will almost always treat dropped arguments as true.

Mechanics: (I'm not going to decide the round on these things by themselves, but they undeniably affect my ability to evaluate it)

• Signposting - Please do this as much as possible. I'm not just talking about giving a roadmap at the start of each speech or which piece of paper you're talking about during the speech, but where on the line-by-line you are and what you're doing (i.e. if you read a turn, call it a turn).
• Overviews - These are helpful for establishing your story on that argument, but generally tend to go on too long for me and seem to have become a substitute for specific line-by-line work, clash, and warrant extension. I view these other items as more productive/valuable ways to spend your time.
• Delivery - I care way more about clarity than speed; I have yet to hear anybody who I thought was clear enough and too fast. I'll say "clear" if you ask me to, but ultimately the burden is on you. Slowing down and enunciating for tags and analytics makes it more likely that I'll get everything.
• Cross Examination - Be polite. Make your point or get an answer, then move on. Don't use cross-ex to make arguments.
• Prep Time - I don't think prep should stop until the flash drive comes out of your computer or the email is sent, but I won't police prep as long as both teams are reasonable.

Argumentation: (I'll probably be fine with whatever you want to do, and you shouldn't feel the need to fundamentally change your strategy for me. These are preferences, not rules.)

• Case - I prefer that you do case work in general, and think that it's under-utilized for impact calc.  Internal links matter.
• CPs/DAs - I prefer specific solvency and link cards (I'm sure you do, too), but generics are fine provided you do the work.
• Framework - I prefer that framework gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
• Kritiks - I prefer that there is an alternative, and that you either go for it or do the work to explain why you win anyway. "Reject the Aff." isn't an alternative, it's what I do if I agree with the alternative. I don't get real excited about links of omission, so some narrative work will help you here.
• Performance - I prefer that you identify the function of the ballot as clearly and as early as possible.
• Procedurals - I prefer that they be structured and that you identify how the round was affected or altered by what the other team did or didn't do.
• Theory - I prefer that theory gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
• Topicality - I prefer that teams articulate how/why their interpretation is better for debate from a holistic perspective. TVAs and/or case lists are good. My least favorite way to start an RFD is, "So, I think the Aff. is topical, but also you're losing topicality."

Miscellaneous: (These things matter enough that I made a specific section for them, and will definitely be on my mind during the round.)

• I'm not planning to judge kick for you, but have no problem doing so if that instruction is in the debate.  The Aff. can object, of course.
• Anybody can read cards, good analysis and strategic decision-making are harder to do and frequently more valuable.
• Individual pages on the flow do not exist in a vacuum, and what is happening on one almost certainly affects what is happening on another.
• Comparative impact calculus. Again, comparative impact calculus.
• You may not actually be winning every argument in the round; acknowledging this in your analysis and telling me why you win anyway is a good thing.
• Winning an argument is not the same thing as winning the round on an argument. If you want to win the round on an argument you've won or are winning, take the time to win the round on it.
• The 2NR and 2AR are for making choices, you only have to win the round once.
• I will read along during speeches and will likely double back to look at cards again, but I don't like being asked to read evidence and decide for myself. If they're reading problematic evidence, yours is substantively better, etc., then do that work in the debate.

Zen: (Just my thoughts, they don't necessarily mean anything except that I thought them.)

• Debate is a speaking game, where teams must construct logically sound, valid arguments to defend, while challenging the same effort from their opponents.
• It's better to be more right than the other team than more clever.
• A round is just a collection of individual decisions. If you make the right decisions more often than not, then you'll win more times than you lose.

I'll be happy to answer any questions.

About Me:

-Hello! Please add rnivium@gmail.com to the email chain.

-Debated at: University of Kansas '18-'22. Arapahoe HS '14-'18.

-Coached for: Asian Debate League '22-'23, Arapahoe HS '22-'23, Lawrence Free State HS '20-'22.

Paradigm:

-I don't think arguments start at 100% weight/risk. I believe it is my responsibility to assess the extent to which your warrant supports your claim.

-I encourage you to have a coherent overall narrative/strategy, to provide argument comparison/interaction, and to emphasize clarity/organization.

-I would definitely prefer to judge the "best possible argument" as opposed to the "most possible arguments."

-I'm apprehensive about "insert this re-highlighting." If you do this, please make the tagline very clear and don't highlight more than the key part. The trend of "insert this section of a card we read earlier for reference; its warrant is applicable here" seems fine.

I debated for 3 years @ Washburn Rural
I debated for 4 years @ Emporia State (NDT '08)
I am the Director of Debate at Lawrence Free State HS (7th year at FS, 15th year as a head coach, 23rd year in Policy Debate)

*Please add me to the email chain if one exists: kmikethompson@gmail.com

tl;dr

I will do my best to answer any questions that you have before the debate.

-I don't care how fast you talk, but I do care how clear you talk. I'm unlikely to clear you but it will be obvious if I can't understand you because I won't be flowing and I communicate non-verbally probably more than most other judges. This is particularly relevant in online debate.

-I don't care what arguments you read, but I do care whether you are making arguments, responding to opposition arguments, and engaging in impact calculus (your arg v their arg, not just your arg) throughout the debate.

-I don't care what aff you read, if you defend a plan, or if you debate on the margins of the topic, but I do care if you have offensive justifications for your decisions, and if you solve.

-If you're reading generic link arguments or CP solvency cards - it will matter a great deal how well you can contextual that generic evidence to the specific affirmative plan.

-I think teams should be willing to go for theory more.

Some top level thoughts:

1) "New in the 2" is bad for debate. Barring an affirmative theoretical objection - I'll evaluate you arguments and not intervene despite my bias. But, if the other team makes an argument about it - I will disregard all new positions read in the negative block.

2) Neg ground on this topic is not very good. I'm sympathetic to the negative on theoretical objections of counterplans as a result.

3) If you're flowing the speech doc and not the speech itself you deserve to be conned in to answering arguments that were never made in the debate, and to lose to analytic arguments (theory and otherwise) that were made while you were busy staring at your screen.

4) People should assume their opponent's are winning some arguments in the last rebuttals. A decision to assume you're winning everything nearly guarantees that you are incorrect and minimizes the likelihood that you're doing relevant impact calculus. I really think "even-if" statements are valuable for final rebutalists.

-My speaker point scale has tended to be:

29+ - you should be in elimination debates at this tournament, and probably win one or more of those rounds

28.5 - you are competing for a spot to clear but still making errors that may prevent you from doing so. Average for the division/tournament.

28 - you are slightly below average for the division/tournament and need to spend some time on the fundamentals. Hopefully, I've outlined in my notes what those are.

27.5 - there were serious fundamental errors that need to be corrected.

Topicality- I really enjoy T debates, I think competing interpretations is probably true and find reasonability arguments to be uncompelling almost always. That said, this topic is kinda awful for T debates. If you're not topical you should have an offensive reason that you're not. If you are topical then you should win why your vision of the resolution is superior to the negatives.

Critiques- K debaters tend to spend an extraordinary amount of time on their link arguments, but no time on explaining how the alternative resolves them. Affirmatives tend to concede K tricks too often.

Counterplans - I like smart, aff specific counter plans more than generic, topic type counter plans.

Critical affs - I'm fine with K affs and deployed them often as a debater. I find it difficult to evaluate k affs with poorly developed "role of the ballot" args. I find "topical version of the aff" to be compelling regularly, because affs concede this argument. I have been more on the "defend topical action" side of the framework debate in the last two years or so. I'm not sure why, but poorly executed affirmative offense seems to be the primary cause.