Please add me to the email chain: Brenda.aurora13@gmail.com

I debated for Washburn Rural for four years between 2014 and 2018. I debated for the University of Kansas last year, but am not debating this year so I can focus on my nursing degree. Generally speaking, I am not picky about arguments and speed. Do what you want and I’ll do my best to keep up.

T: I believe that topicality is a question of competing interpretations. I like to see good explanations of each team’s offense on the flow, how their offense interacts with the other team, and why their interpretation creates a better model for debate.

Disads: I’m a big fan, especially when you have a specific link. I think impact calculus and turns case arguments are important. I always enjoy listening to a good agenda or election disad.

CPs: Delay counterplans are cheating. I’m willing to judge kick a counterplan unless the affirmative gives me a reason not to. I prefer specific solvency advocates.

Ks: I didn’t read a lot of Ks in high school. I am most familiar with neolib and cap, but I am willing to listen to pretty much anything as long at it is explained well. I will NOT listen to death/extinction good kritiks. These arguments can be triggering for me and for other people that may be competing in or watching your round. When it comes to links, I like when they are specific to the affirmative and describe how the aff increasing/makes worse whatever it is that the neg is critiquing. If you’re going for your alt, you need to prove that it solves, as well as clearly explain to me what a world of the alternative looks like. The framing debate should be more than a block reading competition, especially if the neg isn’t going to go for the alt. The neg’s interpretation should be meaningful and not just “whoever best challenges (whatever the K is critiquing)”

Theory: I believe theory is usually only a reason to reject an argument, not a team, especially considering most theory debates are block reading contests where no one really explains or understands the argument. That being said, I might be willing to vote on condo if you really explain your interpretation and impact the argument out.

Some other things to note: I enjoy a good case debate. Please be kind and respectful to one another. If you are horribly rude and disrespectful I’ll probably vote against you

I graduated from Blue Valley North in 2019 and I'm now a sophomore at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. I debated policy all four years of high school, mostly participating on the Nat Circuit. I qualified and went to the TOC my senior year, as well as going to other national tournaments like CFL and NFL throughout the years.

I don't know a ton about the topic this year, so bear with me. I judged a decent amount last year but haven't much this year. That being said, what is below should still apply.

My email is ellieanderson295@gmail.com if you want to add me to the email chain or have any questions.

GENERAL PARADIGM (Mostly applies to policy but read it anyway.)

Whatever your typical style of debate is, I'm probably fine with. However, I haven't judged a lot of rounds on this topic so if talking about super complicated jargon, take some time to clarify for me.

General Notes: I typically default to tech over truth, just because I think it's the best way to evaluate the debate that's the most fair for both sides and relies mainly on the skill of the debater.

I WILL vote on presumption if you prove the aff doesn't do anything-- a logical argument against a bad aff is better than a bad disad against a bad aff.

Topicality: I typically default to competing interpretations but can be convinced otherwise-- contextual definitions are good. Prove in round abuse.

Disads: If your disad doesn't make sense, it's going to take a lot to get me to vote for it, unless the aff also doesn't make sense. Spend time on impact framing in the rebuttals is extremely important-- especially if you're going for a DA without a counterplan. Disad turns the case can also be a very valuable argument.

Counterplans: You can read pretty much any counterplan in front of me but if it is super abusive and the aff makes a logical argument on why it shouldn't be allowed I will reject it. Most times I'll just reject the counterplan, not the team, unless the argument is really convincing. Judge kick is good.

K's: I'm good with most K's until you start getting into POMO stuff-- aka I'm not a fan of Baudrillard and similar authors, but will have a good time if you read K's like anti-blackness, neolib, queer theory, etc. I think you need a coherent explanation of your alt and if you can't understand it you shouldn't be reading it.

Theory: Condo is usually good unless it's absolutely and obviously abusive or dropped by the neg. I'll listen to any theory argument but probably won't vote on it unless I can see abuse in round, again unless it's completely dropped.

Feel free to ask me any questions if I forgot anything, good luck!

he/they - debated for 3 years at kapaun - haven't debated since then though - im ok with most speed (although it would be better for me if you spread at about 80%) just make sure you are being clear, if you aren't I won't flow.

add me to the email chain (though im ok with speechdrop or whatever is preferable to you): aaronkmcwork@gmail.com

tldr: you can do almost anything, i will always make sure to set my own biases aside when it comes to arguments

if your time is done, stop there cause anything after the timer will not go on the flow.

you need to tell me why I should vote for you, expecting me to clash evidence and compare and contrast is not something I wish to do, so impact calc, telling me how to judge the round, comparing evidence, contradictions, all of that is extremely important, absent that, you should expect some sort of judge intervention when it comes to me interpreting the evidence, assessing which is better, and which arguments hold better than others.

biases:

i feel like this is obvious but still if you drop args, i will flow the evidence the other way, including its claims, dont drop arguments

i was a policy debater throughout my years and so I strongly believe the aff should run a topical plan

Im ok with T debates, and if the 2NR is gonna go for it - I usually lean aff but am willing to go neg if the neg convinces me that impact (including fairness) outweighs - I'm ok with other theory arguments, just be clear, concise, and push hard on your theory args (unless of course you drop em) otherwise ill consider it more of a wash and vote on other args in the round.

when it comes to cp's and da's - I'm a big fan, and i will vote for a cp if it solves for the aff and solves the da impact, and for da's im also a big fan - especially politics, i think impact calc is super important though when it comes to outweighing impacts if one impact is extinction and the other is something more moral and loose (ie: dignity).

K: I debated a few K's throughout my career but never ran one myself, though I am ok with them if you are able to explain your K properly (do not assume I have read your specific philosopher, explain what your K is) and if you are able to give proper attention to the alt. one thing to note though: its pretty hard for me to be convinced that my ballot will impact something outside of the debate, but if you are willing to offer another explanation of what my ballot will impact then I'm certainly willing to consider that into my decision.

1AR/2NR - when it comes to the 1AR I think answering every argument, even if its just analytics is critically important, if you drop something, as stated above, ill flow the arg the other way, and for the 1AR/2NR, extending your evidence is critically important (and often times your evidence can be used as responses to arguments themselves) to me, if you do not extend a certain piece of evidence, (ie: looking/extending etc our X {year} card... [from here you can answer an argument by using the card itself, which i consider an extension, or just extend the card by itself]) then i consider the card dropped and will not factor in to my final decision.

as a final thing: being able to judge is a privilege and debate is something i hold close to my heart, debates are also educational, and making sure that you get something out of every round is critically important.

I debated Varsity and Champ in High School from 2001-2005, but haven’t seen a debate round in at least seven years. As for default paradigm, I’ll entertain reason above all but if you want to put me in a specific paradigm, argue it well. I don’t have a default prejudice against any argument well ran (though I rarely recall a well done K). If speed is still a thing in 4 speaker, remember I haven’t heard anyone talk that fast in a decade.

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.

Lansing High School '17

University of Kansas '21

Please add me to the Email chain: Patrick.bircher7@gmail.com

TLDR: do what you do best, impact out your arguments

Updates for 2020-21:

The older I get, the more I believe in the "do what you do" mentality of approaching debates. I want to judge a round where you are making the arguments you enjoy, rather than ones you think I will like.

I also think that people do not focus on the meta level of the debate, and instead do not look at how individual arguments affect the debate as a whole. Impact out all your arguments and explain why they matter

Top Level:

Please just make good arguments that you enjoy reading

Tech over Truth, unless the argument is something explicitly offensive

Please be respectful to your opponents

I believe that debate is a game. People play games for different reasons, whether that be to simply have fun, to win, to make change, or whatever it may be, just play your game.

Topicality:

T is often a very strategic argument, but not deployed effectively by both sides.

It is always a voter and never a reverse voter.

I tend to default to competing interpretations, however a strong defense of reasonability can be persuasive

Reasonability is a way to evaluate two different interpretations. It is not whether your aff is close, but whether your interpretation is okay for debate.

I think that most debates revolve around the standards debate, and innovative takes on the classic standards (limits, ground, etc) are greatly appreciated.

Framework/ Topicality vs. Planless Affs:

Arguments centered around research practices or method debates are much more persuasive than generic fairness impacts.

Arguments like Topical Version of the Aff or Switch Side Debate can be used very effectively, however should not be used as offense.

Planless Affirmatives vs. Framework

Use your aff specifically as offense, rather than deploying a more generic "roleplaying bad" argument.

Having your own interpretation of the words in the topic is important. Most neg definitions are pretty self-serving, and having a defense to that can be very helpful, unless your offense is specifically designed to counter that.

Disads:

Impact comparison is extremely valuable, however it should not come at the expense of in depth link and internal link analysis.

Turns case arguments and specific links are greatly appreciated

Counterplans:

Counterplans are one of the most strategic arguments in all of debate.

In depth and nuanced counterplans are extremely persuasive

I will default to sufficiency framing, unless otherwise told so

Affs-don't heg your bets on theory, but rather use your aff as offense against the substance of the CP

Kritiks:

I am not super well-versed in the literature of your criticism, but I am open to most-all positions

Explain how the alt operates in the world of the status quo, and also what happens after I vote negative and endorse the alternative's method.

Clear, consise links to the mechanism of the aff, rather than just the actor go a long way.

Case:

The must underused, but most effective part of any debate.

I found that aff teams have a difficult time answering offense on case.

Use a combination of offense and defense on case in partnership with your off case to effectively win neg debates.

If the 2nr is not T, some part of the speech should involve case.

Theory:
Everything except conditionality is a reason to reject the argument

Condo is probably good, and unless it is extremely well argued or dropped I will probably default neg.

Any questions please feel free to email me.

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.

for catnats -i have not judged a round on this topic but serena gave me a rundown of it so i’m good2go

-please add me to the email chain: mattbrandenburger@gmail.com

-debated 4 years at Lawrence Free State HS

-currently a junior at American University

-be nice

-i don't care what you read

-i think your aff should interact with the resolution

DA: i really like these especially when there are specific links and good turns case arguments that make it hard for the aff to weigh it's impacts against them. DA's are not a yes/no question it is all a question of comparative risk between them and the affirmative's advantages so debate them as such. i don't care how bad the DA is, so long as you have specific links to the aff and something to weigh in the end.

CP: i don't like bad CP's but you need to make theory arguments against them. if a CP has a high risk of solving the aff, it is easy for me to vote on any risk of a DA. aff's need to prioritize offense against CP's and recognize most 1AC cards have embedded warrants that can be used as solvency deficits.

T: please explain why your model of debate is good and why your opponent's is bad

K: i think they are more compelling when you put them in the context of the aff instead of the resolution writ large. i think impacts in the debate space are just as important as out of it. ultimately, you need to explain your theory and why it impacts the debate.

Case: definitely underused in round. i like when the aff uses the case offensively against the neg. on the other side, 2Ns should make it a clear point in the 2NR if there's a low risk of the aff

-tech>truth

questions? look at https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=30844 for more detail!

POLICY DEBATE PARADIGM

Name: Jamelle Brown

Current Affiliation: Sumner Academy of Arts & Science High School - Kansas City, KS

Debate Experience: 20+ years as a Head HS Coach, Debated 4 yrs in High School and 1 semester during college

List types of arguments that you prefer to listen to.

1. I appreciate real world impacts.

2. I love the kritical arguments/AFF’s with this year’s resolution. Make the debate real and connect to the real social issues in the SQ.

3. For T, neg if you want to prove that the AFF is untopical, provide valid standards and voters. AFF, then correctly answer these standards and voters. However, don't expect to win a ballot off T alone.

4. Know and understand what you are reading and debating. Be able to explain your card’s claims.

List types of arguments that you prefer not to listen to.

1. Every impact should not equal nuclear war. I want to hear realistic/real world impacts.

2. Generic disadvantages without clear links to the AFF.

List stylistics items you like to watch other people do.

1. I prefer medium-speed speaking. Completely not a fan of spreading.

2. Label and signpost for me. I like to keep a very organized flow!

3. Let me see your personalities in CX.

4. Impact Calc – I want to know why you want me to vote for you and weigh the round.

5. I am excited about performance teams!

List stylistics items you do not like to watch.

1. I dislike unrecognizable speed.

2. I am a Communications teacher, please allow me to see valuable communication skills. (Pre-2020 comment) For example, don’t just stare at your laptops for 8 minutes. Hello, I'm your judge – engage me!

In a short paragraph, describe the type of debate you would most like to hear debated.

Debate is a slice of life. I appreciate seeing a variety of styles and “risk takers.” Debate is also an educational venue. I enjoy K debate and appreciate high schoolers tackling K lit. There are so many important social justice issues that debaters can explore. As your judge, engage me into the round. I will not tolerate rude debaters or disrespectful personal attacks. I am a current high school Speech & Debate coach – please don’t forget about the value of communication skills! I coach all of the speech and debate events, so I love to see kids fully engaged in this activity by utilizing the real-world value it brings.

First, congratulations on being involved in this prestigious activity. It's very impressive that you've taking time to prepare (for sometimes years) for today's debate. Thanks for sticking with this activity and making the most of this experience.

I can usually handle most arguments; however, I have not debated or coached for a while. Unless asked to do something differently in the round, for the most part, I tend to default policy-maker. Once the stock issues have been addressed, I pay attention to whether or not the policy, once changed, will produce the desired results (so, I like to know there's a real reason for the change and that the change will work). If an ideology other than the status quo is presented in the round, the framework should be substantiated and debated. I like arguments to be fully developed, if I'm expected to vote on them. I tend to assume everything is Topical. Please assume that I will likely not vote on Topicality, unless there is a really compelling reason to do so, or the case is so extreme that it warrants a review. Debating procedures may not be the best use of time, if other arguments are clearly worth debating.

I enjoy the activity, and I think it shows a great deal of hard work for all students who are involved in the activity. I try not to intervene, using my own preferences. However, please help me see the argument develop in the round.

Regarding experience, I debated in high school (LD) and college (Parliamentary and CEDA - though limited). I was an assistant debate coach for 4 years and a head coach for 2 years, though I have not coached recently.

I prefer clarity over speed.

Please make eye contact. I'm typically expressive and usually fairly easy to read.

Good luck today! I know you'll do well!

I approach judging from a largely tabula rasa place. That said, without other direction from the teams I will default to policy maker. Weight the advantages and the disadvantages for me as that calculus is critical. I prefer well thought out arguments that are well presented over a huge number of generic arguments. I almost never vote on Topicality. Speed is fine as long as the quality of your speaking, presentation, or argument doesn't lag as a result.

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.

I'm a pretty traditional judge and debated 4 years during high school with state/national caliber policy and public forum experience.

Generally speaking, I’m a hybrid stock issues/policy maker, and will default to an impact lean if not guided how to evaluate otherwise. Keep links as specific as possible and use well-thought, analytical arguments. Tell me a clear, compelling story through warranted evidence and end your rounds focusing on why things matter.

I vote based upon quality of argument/evidence. Smart, substantive debate will win my vote much more often than a speed, quantity round. I’ll flow all arguments as long as they are coherent.

There are no arguments to which I am automatically opposed---with 2 important notes.

1) I strongly prefer arguments that are defended the entire round, meaning I’d rather you not kick counterplans or Ks.

2) If you can’t thoroughly understand your argument, you may not want to run it. I’m in education now and 100% believe that if you can’t teach someone something, you do not fully understand it. Same goes for debate and how you communicate/teach me.

Be nice and have fun!

Hello,

My name is Alex Didlake and I did debate and forensics in High School at ONW for 4 years as one of my primary "activities" from 2008-2013. Have attended multiple camps in the past during this time such as JDI at the University of Kansas and have done generally well at flow/ lay tournaments in the past, but have also done terribly plenty of times. Have not done anything related to judging or policy debate since 2013. Went to college and Received my Bachelors in Finance at the University of Colorado in 2017 and now work in Real Estate managing and acquiring multifamily properties throughout the Midwest. Since this tournament is over zoom due to COVID, would prefer a lay round, but do what you do best. Will judge based on whoever is able to effectively respond to all arguments regarding solvency/topicality/whoever convinces me to go with their plan or against(neg) it the best.

I would appreciate a clearly debated round. Don't gaslight each other, and don't gaslight me. I will take your general assertions as truth, and counter evidence needs to be obvious.

Treat me like a (hopefully) smart lay judge who is willing to bend if the actual speaking is good. K's are fine with me as long as there is not an obscene amount of legwork required to make your point worth making.

Lastly, I believe cordiality is important in round. Aggressiveness can work in making points, but not to the point of being snide or rude. Keep professional within the debate.

Educational background:

Bachelor degree in rhetoric and communication with a focus on persuasive effectiveness (Kansas State University - Manhattan, KS)

Master degree in secondary education with a focus in English language arts (Western Oregon University - Monmouth, OR)

Specialist degree in literacy leadership and assessment (Walden University - Minnepolis, MN)

Profession:

My background has a plethora of experiences in various fields. I teach all levels of high school ELA classes at Newton High School and am an assistant debate coach. Also, I've taught undergraduate composition and speech courses at a variety of local community colleges and currently serve as a consultant for graduate-level business communication coursework at Wichita State University and Alamaba A&M University.

Judging Preferences:

At heart, I am a 'flow' judge. I expect clear and respectful speaking that addresses stock issues and does not attack an individual debater or team. (Poke holes in the argument instead.) I am not a fan of counter plans since this tactic usually does not address Aff's presented arguments. Communication skills and the resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance to me. I prefer a moderate contest rate so long as the presentation is clearly enunciated. Please provide real-world arguments and if addressing topicality, be sure to pair it with other major issues addressed in the round.

Background: Four years of high school policy debate in the mid-eighties. Active in local/state politics, particularly those policies pertaining to public education. Four years as assistant debate/forensics coach and 31 years teaching. I have been out of debate/forensics for two years.

Philosophy: Quality policy debate, please. Roadmaps and signposts should be provided and followed; line by lines are useful. Provide argumentation and clash. Use quality warrants that specifically link to opposing arguments; don't be afraid to use opponent's evidence against them. Re-reading the same evidence is redundant and may lose my vote. Back-up evidence is key-I don’t need to hear you repeat your thoughts or someone else’s-give me new information that proves your point! I will request plan text and evidence for clarification. Be respectful and civil to one another; failure to do so will guarantee lowest speaker rank. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me before the round begins.

Open CX? Tournament rules apply. That said, this is your debate round. Both teams must agree to open CX prior to round starting for it to occur.

Topicality: Must be specific and provable by neg. Any topicality argument should be well grounded and explained thoroughly. Trying to run topicality as a time suck is abusive to everyone sitting in the round. Please only do so if the aff plan is truly untopical or extra topical.

CPs: Your CP should be clearly exclusive of the aff plan. CPs need to be competitive and believable and provide clear net benefit. Aff: can perm and should!

DAs: Generic DAs are highly discouraged. Make sure you link specifically to the aff case and make your impact calc clear. Disadvantages should clearly link to the real world and to the case presented. Take the time to explain each DA that you present in your own words. Aff: need to turn the DA.

Power Tagging: This round is flowed. Warrants will be checked, so avoid this.

Analyticals: As long as the argument links to case and is articulate, then this is acceptable, however any analytical should follow presented evidence and be an extension thereof. Analyticals on their own, don’t stand with me.

Kritiks: This is a debate regarding policy; therefore there is no place for K’s.

Emotional Arguments/Impacts: Overused and unneeded. Stick with policy and likely impacts.

Speed: Fast conversational (AKA “moderate”) rate is preferred. You should speak at a rate and volume to be understood. When speaking, speak slowly, clearly and to me. If I can’t hear your argument, then I can’t understand it or vote for it. Remember to enunciate. If you read tags, but the warrants of the card are unintelligible or cut out due to time, then the information wasn’t presented and the argument doesn’t exist.

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!

Past experience in debate: Relatively speaking, I am a dinosaur. 16+ years experience. Former debater for Central Missouri State University (now UCM). Competed in policy, LD, and parli debate. Coached all three forms for CMSU and Western Kentucky University as a graduate assistant. Coached parli debate at University of South Carolina in the early 2000s. Have only picked up occasional rounds to judge since that time.

I'm probably considered more of a traditionalist/favor classical argument types. Narratives, performances, and Kritiks were just coming into play at the end of my tenure. I've read some of your critical theory but you'll probably want to explain it during the constructives if you want me to apply it during rebuttal/vote on it.

Not everything needs to wind up in nuclear war or genocide to win my ballot. Something can be "bad" enough to warrant action without claims that failure to act / any action will result in total destruction. However, I am a fan of weighing impacts.

My default paradigm/lens is as a policy maker. I'm more than happy to view it from whichever lens you want - you just need to TELL me which paradigm is best and why.

The best speaking team is not always the team that actually wins the debate. I may have set a record for low point wins as both a competitor and as a judge.

Given this year's topic, I feel it's appropriate to share this - I am a former prosecuting attorney that prosecuted traffic, drug, juvenile, and sex offenses. I am currently an attorney for the State of Kansas - and a large part of my current job is to prosecute allegations of professional misconduct. Many of those allegations are based on criminal activity.

Experience: High school policy for 3 years 2008-2011 - Kansas (Primarily Plan/Adv vs. DA/CP). Learned things from KU's team. 1 year APDA college parliamentary debate 2011/12.

Policy: I like intelligent, warranted arguments.

Please provide a roadmap and signpost. Otherwise, I will probably fail to structure the flow well, then fail to vote for you for the reason you told me to. I try to be obvious if I'm not following.

The round will come down to impacts of some kind, so I need them well explained, clearly highlighted, and warranted.

- Rate of delivery - comfort & clarity is key. It's been a good while and I'm not up on this year's acronyms. Complex or especially important arguments may require more care for me to absorb. If I can't flow, I'll try to be somewhat obvious about it.

- Ks - If you win them, I will vote for them. I need to understand what you are trying to say so please explain very clearly. I won't just assume that alt solves case because you say it in your 2NR. If you do not know what your tags mean, that is probably noticeable.

- Theory - I tend to consider conditionality, multiple cps, etc., to be okay. That also seems to make it harder to be the aff. If you win theory, I will weigh the round accordingly.

- Evidence - it should be good stuff that actually says what your tag claims it to. I'm hoping you will do the comparison work for me. I prefer to review evidence only when I must.

- Sketchiness - Debate is competitive. I'm okay with legitimate strategic choices - some might be unnecessary, but fine. Detriments to education such as lying about what you read, clipping cards, refusing to share evidence, etc., aren't fine.

I will subscribe to any speaker point guide published by the tournament. Otherwise, 26 is unhappy, 27.5 is average, 29 is very happy.

Congress: Competed for 3 years and went to nationals once. I really like new and responsive argumentation. I lean on content & argumentation a hair more than delivery.

My old tabroom account is here, though that's from 2014 and is similar to above.

My name is Sherrie and this is my second year as a debate/forensic judge. I have a son who is also in his second year competing in debate and forensics. I have voted equally both affirmative and negative. It is helpful to me when students enunciate and slow down their speaking pace. When students "speed speak" it's difficult to follow the arguments being presented. I'm open to all arguments and affirmative plans. I look forward to judging your rounds.

I have judged debates at Olathe Northwest High School in 2020.

I have participated in debates at Manhattan College in Riverdale, New York. Having grown up in New York, I am used to rapid speaking styles.

I judge on the quality of arguments made, not on personal beliefs or issues I think should have been covered. Teams should have a straightforward perspective on the resolution. I do discount for unfair and/or obscure interpretations that serve to only confuse the opposing team. Quoted evidence should support and strengthen arguments, not replace arguments.

I value clear communication and explanation of arguments. Arguments that are too fast, too garbled, or too full of technical jargon are discounted. Speakers should appeal to the widest possible audience through sound reasoning, succinct organization, credible evidence, and clear delivery.

-Alex Hapka, PhD

If you're using an email chain, please include me, my email is cassidyeh22@gmail.com

my pronouns are she/her/hers

If you have questions, feel free to ask.

I debated for four years in high school and I've been judging since then.

I'm a tabula rasa judge. It's your job as a debater to tell me how to evaluate a debate.

Do what you want to do, I'm not here to constrain what you do as a debater. Do it well.

To be totally honest, my grasp of k theory and functionality has declined as I’ve spent time away from debate. Like I said, I’m tab rasa, but it will likely require a little more effort on your part in framing and winning the k.

Background: 4 year HS debate at Olathe East High School, class of 2004

· 2nd Place in 2003-04 6A 4-Speaker State (Negative)

· Add me to the email chain: ahayden@cmplaw.net.

About me: I graduated from Olathe East in 2004, from KU with a bachelor’s degree in political science in 2007, and from the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law in 2011. I am an attorney in the Kansas City area.

Judging Experience: I've judged plenty of rounds in the past, but I have not judged any rounds on the 2020-21 topic. I have a general understanding of the resolution, but you will need to be clear with your jargon and explain your acronyms. Virtual debate=Camera on please.

Tech and Truth (Tech > Truth): I will do my best to leave my personal preferences out of my judging paradigm. Dropped arguments are true arguments, but not all true arguments are winning arguments.

Kritiks: I’m open to anything you want to throw at me, however please know that if you plan to be critical, I am much less familiar with the literature now than I was in when I was in high school 20 years ago. Do not assume that I automatically know your authors and understand your buzzwords; be sure to be thorough in your analysis.

Disads: I prefer specific claims on disadvantages to overarching, overwhelmingly non-unique ones. Generic DA’s are fine if you have a specific link. You don’t necessarily have to have a card for the claim to make sense. If your link or uniqueness claim is intuitive, I can just as easily give that weight as I could to specific cards that take into account the aff’s actions. And please, for the love of all that is good, DO IMPACT WORK!! If you just say, “extend the impact,” I will not be happy with you.

I’m also more than happy to listen to politics. Please just make sure to have done your research –politics DAs require well researched and current uniqueness and internal link cards, especially in context of what is going on today.

Counterplans: I like counterplans, especially in tandem with a specific (or link specific) DA. I’m a bigger fan of well thought out, specific Advantage CPs. With a generic CP, tailor your analysis to the aff.

Topicality: As a default, I evaluate topicality through a reasonableness standard. If the neg wants to conjure some more limiting interpretation, they should explain what the standard is, provide a case list of what each team’s interpretation would allow, and clearly explain the effects on limits, ground, etc. If you’re going for T in the 2NR, really go for it. Topicality should not be a fallback position.

Speeding and Spreading: Speed is fine, but it is probably in your best interest to slow down a tad for tags/cites. Virtual speed is harder to understand than when I am in the same room with you, so it is probably in your best interest to go slower while debating online versus in person. If you can’t speed while speaking clearly, slow down.

Neg Block: If you have a large volume of solid arguments and are providing smart analysis through the block you’re not spreading as a strategy. I'm not a fan of spreading as a generic strategy. Spreading as result of solid research is good. Be smart about what you pull through to the 2NR.

Speech Docs/Evidence/Clipping: Technical malfunction isn't an excuse for clipping. Debaters have an obligation to accurately represent the material they have read out loud. If you engage in clipping or utilize fraudulent evidence, you will lose the debate. I may take speech docs to check clipping but generally try to not use speech docs for the decision unless there’s no other option. I much prefer the clash to occur in round, so please do your work on the flow.

Tag lines don't mean anything if you don't cite and read the warrants. Tell me WHY your evidence makes a claim, not just the claim it makes. I won't vote on your issue if you don't read and carry through the warrants your authors make. Also, make sure your authors are credible for what you are saying.

Round Decorum: Be polite, be courteous. Poor decorum will affect your speaker points and egregious conduct may affect the ballot. As long as you attack your opponent's arguments, and not them as people, we should be fine.

People seem to misunderstand this so I'm putting this at top to make it clear. I will vote on any argument because I am tech > truth. Run what you are comfortable with. These are just my general thoughts about debate. Don't run an argument that you think I would like just because. If you don't know how to run it properly you probably won't win.

hudsonhrh7@gmail.com put me on email chain or email me any questions

General:

He/him. I debated at Olathe Northwest for 4 years. I'm now an assistant debate coach at ONW for 2 years. I competed in both policy and LD. Debate should be an activity for everyone, and if you prevent that from happening in the round, I will vote you down. I have done a pretty even mix between DCI and KDC, but I would definitely prefer to judge a DCI style round.

I am fine with speed but I would prefer if you slowed down for tags, analytics, and theory especially because I'm not debating anymore.

I'm tech>truth maybe too much

I hope I can make my biases clear. Even though I say there are arguments I do and don't like that doesn't mean I won't vote for these arguments, so please run whatever you are comfortable with because that will make the most educational round for all of us. I will do my best to adapt the debaters in the round. So, if you prefer to run policy arguments that's fine too. If you run weird arguments go for it. However, I will not vote for any racism/sexism/ableism/homophobia good or any similar argument.

Please ask me questions about my paradigm before the round!!!!

Disadvantages:

I never really used these in flow rounds when I debated because I don't think they are good arguments compared to other things that could be run. That doesn't mean I don't know a lot about DA's. I would run some pretty specific and weird disadvantages when I debated. Generic links are okay but can be easily defeated by a smart team. I'll listen to politics disadvantages but this is not the round I would like to see. Theory against DAs can be cool.

Impact turns:

I like impact turns because I feel like they are underused. I ran heg bad a lot and ddev sometimes.

Counterplans:

Rarely used counterplans but when I did they were usually really abusive. PICs are fine. Delay and consult counterplan are less fine and you should watch out for theory but still acceptable. Perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy. Theory is fun I will vote for anything if you do it right.

Kritiks:

I ran one-off ableism a lot, usually attacking language, representations, and generic links to the topic. I also am very familiar with fem, intersectionality, Nietzche, and cap/neo-lib.I have read some Baudrillard, psycho-analysis, and afro-pess lit so I understand most of the concepts, but don't expect me to be familiar with all the different niches. I am comfortable judging all types of rounds.

Doesn't need an alt if you can impact out how the K turns the aff, wins framework, or gives me a reason to ignore the affirmative impacts. PIKs are acceptable especially for language/reps Ks.

Floating PIKs are maybe abusive but you can win the theory on that by using your K as an offense or any other way but it is still a risk you have to be willing to take. Please explain your alt and how it solves. The ballot can be alt solvency if needed and explained. Severance on perms is a voter but be careful how this interacts with other theory-based arguments you have already made on why we shouldn't be looking at education or fairness etc.

K-affs:

I ran a k-aff with a plan text that would either fiat my alt or I would kick plan later in the round after reading a K. Your plan doesn't have to relate to the resolution, but it would be preferable if it does. If you are negative against a k-aff your best strategy with me as the judge would be to run a K. I feel like lots of teams put themselves in a position where they are defending policy or the state action which the aff team probably has prepped against. Running a K makes the framework debate easier, will catch the team off guard, and can turn the aff. I do think switch side debate can be good. Not too familiar with performance affs but I am very intrigued by them if you want to run it please do

Topicallity:

I love a good technical T debate and will vote on T even if the plan is perfectly topical if the neg has good impacts.

I default to competing interpretations. I belive your interpretation is your model of debate and that voting on T is meant to prevent certain affs from being run debate wide. I don't think a definition needs to be contextual to the resolution. If by the end of the round it produces the most [insert T voter here] than I will use that defintion to evaluate the round.

I feel like a lot of teams think that a dropped standard means they won T. Think of it like conceding the other teams solves for 500 lives when you solve for 1000 lives. If you don't articulate how that conceded standard acceses the T impact the most you won't win the round. For example if they concede a limits standard it would be smart to go all in on depth>breadth. It is also good to impact out voters, ie people quit debate which means education is decreased writ large. K teams feel free to impact turn T thats always a fun time. I will vote on time skew RVIs, but I also believe that topicallity is not an RVI most of the time unless they are running multiple interps. RVI's can also be abusive. Basically, I am open to any theory argument if you can argue it well.

Theory:

You can run theory agaisnt anything if you believe hard enough. That being said you have to have a good impact that is clearly articulated by the need of the round

I love theory arguments and would like to see an in depth debate here. I will vote on blippy dropped theory arguments if all the parts are included (need to see some resemblance of interp some standard and voters) and it is thoroughly impact it out in the round. If you drop a theory argument your best way to win is weighing your inherent voters and trying to claim education gained (or some other voter) outweighs the education lost. Theory spikes aren't used as much in policy but I think they are cool and test a teams ability to flow and respond to every argument. Might be abusive tho. A lot of the stuff I said for topicallity applies here.

Only place I intervene is obvious egregious clipping and won't allow new args in the 2nr(unless justified) or 2ar (never allowed even with justification unless justification is in previous speech then it wouldn't be new arg)

Stock issues:

Inherency/harms/significance is only a voter(most of the time) if the plan is already happening. Please impact out why this is a voter because the affirmitive can still generate offense off of advocating for a plan that already exists. I think circumvention arguments are cool and will vote on them if they are sufficient (don’t think durable fist applies to everything the aff will claim). Solvency deficits are good and underused arguments and remember to bring them up when weighing impacts.

Framing:

I don’t default to a utilitarian framework for evaluating impacts, and don't believe magnitude outweighs probability by default. I don't think I ever ran a extinction impact unless I had to throw together a crappy DA because the judges in round made me. Since I see myself as more of an LD debater, framing debates are very important to me and I think they are underused in policy. I'll evaluate the round however you tell me to.

Framework:

I made lots of framework arguments when I debated and I will defintely vote on them. I like a good role of the ballot. It shouldn't be self serving, but if the other team drops it then I guess it is over for them if you continue to meet the role of the ballot as the debate goes on. I believe that the affirmitive and negative should be viewed as a body of research and that plan focus is bad. However, like any argument you could argue me out of this. I think education is more important than fairness, especially in terms of a framework debate. Fiat is illusory is a real argument because it is true. I'd like to see clash on out of round impacts as much as possible whether it is fairness, education, violence, or some other impact. I think fairness should be used to show how education is lost or how they further an out of round impact.

You can use framework still in round with normal affs and no K's. If you did this I would be pretty happy. Honestly don’t know why more teams don’t do this

Final notes:

DEBATE IS A PLACE FOR ALL PEOPLE. To reiterate, I am very lenient about what you run, but if it doesn't include certain groups in the debate space or blames certain groups of people you will not like the ballot at all.

Please have fun that's all I really care about. Don't make the debate bad for another participant.

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

T-USFG

Impact weighing and comparisons are very important to how I decide these debates. If I think that both teams have some point of offense they are both winning, it makes it difficult to decide these debates if there isn’t any discussion of the other teams impact. If you solve their impacts, your impact turns them, or anything else related to that then please point that out. However, less is more when it comes to the number of impacts you are extending throughout the debate. One really well developed impact or impact turn is much better than three or four less well developed ones.

I also think it’s important for affirmative teams to have a clear tie or relationship with the topic. I find it harder to be persuaded to vote for affirmatives that I don’t think have a lot to do with the topic in some way. How you do this is up to you, but just make it clear to me.

In the past, I have voted on various impacts from and on framework. Personally I have been more of a fan of clash impacts than fairness, but I don’t think that should discourage you from going for whatever impact you feel most comfortable with.

Topicality

More explanation needed if you go for reasonability. Most of the debates I have judged where the aff goes for reasonability are very surface level extensions from the one sentence you said in the 2AC.

DA’s

Not much to say here. Read them and go for them when you can/want to. Where I start evaluating the debate for disad vs. case debates is very dependent on the disad and what arguments you are making a bigger deal about. If there is a lot of push back from the aff on the link and this is where you spend most of your time in the 2nr/2ar, I will probably start by evaluating the debate there. If impacts/their comparisons seem to be where a lot of time is spent, then I will start thinking about that first.

K’s

Debating case is very important. Having arguments that you think not only implicate the aff but also help your links are nice. Sometimes I feel like whenever a team goes for case arguments it feels detached from the rest of the debate on the K. IF you can make them connected somehow that would be good.

Have a reason for going for whatever framework arguments you are going for in the last speeches. This goes for the aff and the neg. So many times I have felt like people are just extending framework because their coaches told them to and not because they think there is reason why it is important for how the judge evaluates arguments at the end of the debate.

If you have a bunch of what seems to be conflicting theories in the cards you are going for and extending on the neg, please make it clear why what you are doing is okay. Alternatively, affirmative teams should be pointing out when they think the things the negative has said don’t make much sense.

CP’s

Again, read them and go for them when you can/want to. I don’t think I have very many predispositions about certain counterplans at this point in time. I think this just means that if you think a certain counterplan automatically beats an affirmative, I would prefer it if you showed it in the arguments you are making and the evidence you are reading. A counterplan that seems to be very solvent when explained, but lacking in evidence or that just generally has under highlighted cards will be harder to win in front of me.

A really good solvency deficit that aligns with whatever advantage you are going for in the 2ar is more important to me than you going for a bunch of different arguments that are less well developed.

Daytona Hodson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I debated in the early 00s and judged for a few years after. I have been mostly out of the game for the last 8-10 years, but I've always considered myself a policy maker and generally unpersuaded by theory argumentation. I see these as presenting unnecessary barriers to competition and detrimental to the game.

About Me

Bvn debate class of 19

3 years DCI circuit experience

2 years TOC circuit Experience

2019 DCI Champion

I go to school at the University of Kansas

add me to the email chain- MHindiveri@gmail.com

Top level

I am familiar and proficient with TOC style debate. A dropped argument is true, given that argument consisted of a claim and a warrant. My goal as a judge is to intervene as little as possible. There are two instances where I might betray that goal. First, if the flow is left unresolved by the debaters then i wont have any choice but to make make some value judgments on the arguments that are left unresolved. Second, if a relevant portion of the debate has been conducted in bad faith, then I will evaluate that component differently as a result.

Bad faith= conducting the debate in a way that is detrimental to the overall educational and competitive purpose of the activity.

This does not mean that I am against speed, but if your strategy consists of mumbling through cards just so you can read one more off-case, relying on buzzwords and references on K's without explaining the total argument, or making 45 theory arguments that you develop for 5 seconds each, I am not the judge for you, and you may be pretty upset at me when I dont go through your doc for you at the end of the round and do the work that you should've done for me in the round

I plan to flow on my computer, but if you want me to flow on paper, just bring me some sheets and I can definitely do that for you.

I have been out of debate for 6 months, and have no experience on this topic, so explain any acronyms or topic specific knowledge in depth.

Clarity >>>>>>>>>>> Everything

I've watched and been in so many debates where teams throw any concept of normal human communication out the window purely for the sake of speed- I am not the judge who will listen to your 30 second block of unintelligible nonsense and assume that something in there was a legitimate answer to an argument the other team has made. When it comes down to it, I am not responsible for what makes it onto my flow, YOU are. Thus it would behoove you to make sure that important things you say are being registered and flowed. If it's important, say it loud, say it twice, scream it three times.

Now for the specifics

Clash of Civs, FW v K

Tech over truth, no free wins for defending a value statement that is objectively true

No plan no win

I'm more persuaded by arguments for a limited version of the topic than against it, but in the end my decision will come down to the technical debating of the round

Condo

I think conditionality is good and the negative should get infinite condo- your job as an affirmative team is to prove that your affirmative is not just adjacent to the topic but rather an integral part of it.

That said, every advocacy NEEDS to have a specific solvency advocate with it- idk if you just recut their ev to advocate for your CP but having a card that advocates for that action is the only way to stop negatives from reading 500 CPs

K's

I think that more often than not, the aff starts ahead on the impact debate vs the K because the internal link chains are typically more warranted. This means that to win a K in front of me, you have do a lot of work on the turns case debate and win alt solvency for those specific case arguments. If you use the K to neutralize the aff's offense, I'll be much more willing to vote on your vague external impact

CP's

Should test the aff's relevance to the topic

PICs are ok unless they aren't- the litmus test is " is this an actual academic test of this affirmative, or something i thought of in order to avoid clash and meaningful debate?" if the answer is the latter I probably won't enjoy listening to it.

DA's

Honestly the best piece of advice for winning DA debates is to make turns case arguments. I will weigh these heavily if they are mishandled/ conceded by the aff. Making these arguments from several points in the internal link chain is a good idea too.

T

See framework above- I dont have any preconceptions about T, so it comes down to effective technical debate and impacting these args out

Affs

same type of debating as a DA- explain and defend your internal links and then expand your impacts to interact with the rest of the debate.

Speaker points

these are an evaluation of your clarity, debating and ethos/behavior in that order. I love a good 1nr ;)

Conclusion

Enjoy competing, dear god don't be rude to your opponent (I promise if this is part of your strategy/ethos that you will look back some day and realize that you weren't nearly as cool as you think you are), and care about it while you are in the moment, because before you know it, you'll look back on this and want to be proud of what you did.

GO FIGHT WIN

* very out of date ask specifics in round

About Me:

graduated from onw in 2019 and was in policy for all 4 years. dabbled in forensics but it wasn't for me. in policy i competed in both kdc and dci throughout my years.

Standards/Norms:

cx - open or closed is fine just agree to one and please be kind to one another.

speed - signpost and slow for tags. i dont have issues understanding speed but may use "clear" for you. i request that all debaters agree on whether the round will be fast or slow regardless of the division. please communicate the work on the flow for me, and tell me what goes where.

Case:

Harms and Inherency are somewhat important. If they are debated, I honestly could and would vote on them. (I.e. if nothing bad rn - no reason to pass the plan, and the plan best not be already existing, fam)

I am one of "those" people who will vote on solvency and only vote for "try or die" for the aff if I am told to. If there is no solvency, there are no advantages.

DAs:

Please try your best to have a specific link and/or a clear story. I like most DAs and will still vote on a generic link. An Aff answer of "it's a generic link" is never enough. I enjoy impact work and probably will want some from both sides.

CPs:

Delay CPs are abusive, I can and will listen to it though. Condo good/bad and other theory args are fine if you want to make them. Advantage CPs can be fun especially when paired with a turn on the other advantage. Neg - please have a clear net benefit. Aff - I appreciate a good perm or multiple perms other than "perm do both."

Ks:

I am not familiar with kritiks enough nor on the lit of this year to evaluate a debate on them. Though I have debated them before, don't run one in front of me. If I had to evaluate one, I can and will, but really don't want to.

Framing/Impacts:

I like framing, and if it comes down to me making a decision solely on impacts, if you do the work and run and extend framing I will probably vote on it. Impacts should be extended. You can run terminal impacts with me, and impact turns are fine, though I do prefer structural impacts and ones that are more predictable/probable.

T:

I will vote on topicality and feel that standards and voters are important. Please extend them and respond to them, if you don't, there is no reason to vote on it. I think jurisdiction is a good voter, and that predictability and reasonability are good standards. I like competing interps. Please don't just say "hurts limits and grounds and is a voter for fairness and education," give me more.

SPEC/Vagueness:

I don't really like many, if any, SPEC args, but if there is a good line-by-line I will vote on it. Please ask for the clarification in cross and prove in-round abuse.

I think vagueness is a good argument and like it as a solvency deficit or with an un-intentional consequences impact. If there is enough for it to be on its own flow, please give it it's own sheet, if not, put it on solvency. This argument, if held through the round, most likely will factor into my decision.

OVERALL:

I guess I am a stocks judge ??? I like impact work and more technical and strategic arguments if they can be made, and made well. Saying that, I do feel like stock issues (for the most part) come first. Most importantly, there should be clash (and flowing to produce said clash). If arguments are just being read, extended, and going without responses, I am not going to know where to vote.

*** this is my old paradigm, as of fall 2020 i lean more tab ***

Updated pre-woodward 2024

Yes email chain-- willkatzemailchain@gmail.com

I am currently a coach at Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart. I debated in high school at Washburn Rural and in college at the University of Kansas.

I have a large amount of topic knowledge for the hs fiscal redistribution topic. I am actively involved in research and have judged at a lot of tournaments.

As a judge, these are the things that I care about (in order of importance):

1. That you treat all participants in the debate with respect and that your speeches are something that I, a high school teacher, could enthusiastically show my administration

2. That you flow the debate and use that flow to make and respond to arguments. I find that debaters are almost universally better at flowing if they try to flow and line arguments up on paper, not their computer.

3. That you are advancing logical, well-evidenced, warranted claims that demonstrate topic knowledge and research. I am not a good judge for you if your arguments are generally 1 sentence assertions, uncarded, or wholly irrelevant to the topic.

4. That you make good, bold strategic choices. I will give absurdly high speaker points to students that take good risks to collapse the debate to a small number of arguments that create favorable win conditions for them.

5. That you make comparisons between your arguments/evidence and your opponents. If your final rebuttals consist of more comparisons than summary and description, I am a great judge for you.

Note that "subject" isn't really on this list outside of it being relevant to the topic. I don't care if you read a soft left aff, go for topic-relevant critiques, read 90 plank advantage counterplans, or go for politics.

Everything below offers clarification on how this set of arguments plays out in practice

_________________________________________________

I love debate. I really, really like seeing students demonstrate that they are having fun, working hard, thinking about debate, researching the topic, and engaging in debates that reflect the topic's literature base. In many ways, debate is better now than it has ever been.

I will not evaluate arguments about an individual's character or behavior that occurred outside of the debate. If I am told about or personally observe behavior that I would consider in need of an intervention, I am going to approach the tournament administration about it rather than use my ballot as a punishment/reward system. If your speech explains how you are discriminated against, oppressed, bullied, or otherwise unsafe in debate, I am going to talk to the tournament administration instead of letting that be a matter of debate. Ad hom attacks against the other team are a sua sponte reverse voting issue. If you launch one against the other team, I will vote against you (whether your opponents tell me to or not). If your debate strategy relies on ad hom attacks against your opponents, I am not the judge for you. If your opponent is so horrendous of a person that you must levy ad hom attacks, please direct your complaints to the tabroom

Debaters should flow and use that flow to make arguments in a line-by-line fashion that responds directly to what the other team said. Debaters should not just read into a speech document for the entire speech.

Have fun! I more often vote for and give higher points to teams that have fun and are nice. If you are mean or look like you are here against your will, voting for you will be a challenge.

I am trying to adjust to modern speaker points. I still find it hard to believe that if you got a 29 in every debate, you would not have been particularly close to a top 25 speaker at Greenhill or St. Marks. That is the reality we live in, but it is a difficult pill to swallow.

Here are my biases.

-I prefer debates about the topic. That means aff with a plan and negative strategies that use arguments germane to the topic to say the plan is bad. That also means that I do not prefer super generic impact turns like spark/wipeout or arguments like "x author is bad so they should lose for introducing that author"

- I prefer specificity over vagueness. That's true with plans, cp's, da links, alternatives, etc. With me as a judge, vagueness is not as strategic as specificity.

-I care about cards. I want you to read good cards and a lot of cards. Good is more important than a lot, but if you end the debate and your card doc is 4 cards long, something has gone wrong.

- Plans have texts and functions. Unless the debating is very lopsided, I will probably not view the plan's text "in a vacuum" because I will also care about the action that the plan does. If that changes in every speech or multiple times a speech, I will be grumpy (see my point about vagueness)

-Bring theory back! Not in an annoying way where you always go for conditionality when you're losing. But in a way that punishes negative teams for relying on strategies that aren't germane to the aff.

-I feel reasonably strongly that "Social Security" refers to Old Age, Survivor, and Disability Insurance and I think that affirmative teams that read an ssi/medicare/tanf/etc aff probably need to treat topicality as a very threatening 2nr choice. I haven't really seen debates over any other t argument yet.

-I think if evenly debated, I would agree with an aff team that said "cp's must have published solvency advocates." While others interpret this standard as necessarily arbitrary (what is a solvency advocate? Why can't the debaters be solvency advocates?), it seems like it would create a massive increase in the quality of debates for a relatively low amount of arbitrariness.

A note on kritiks

I often find myself frustrated in kritik debates, not because of some ideological objection, but because there is not a lot of internal consistency with most kritik debates that I judge.

In a typical kritik extension follows this format: 1. Framework- evaluate aff as object of research. 2. Link- plan doesn't do enough and/or reps k link. 3. Impact- extinction. 4. Alt- maybe movements, maybe just framework.

This does not make sense to me. The links do not prove the aff is a bad object of research, and the impacts do not stem from having a bad object of research. Alternatively (pun intended), the links and impacts are not offense because they are not unique or causal (they don't say "plan causes extinction", they say aff takes part in something that already exists and will cause extinction). And the alt is almost always useless or loses to the perm.

So if you do want to go for a kritik in front of me, it would help to extend a coherent, well thought out position where every component works together. Below are 2 examples:

1. Framework- treat the aff as an object of research. 2. Link- aff's research is flawed and capitalist (bought out by think tanks, buys into a flawed ideology of competition, etc). 3. Impact- capitalism is unethical because it relies on exploitation, and research that relies on capitalist methodologies furthers that exploitation. 4. Alt- insert better form of research

1. Link- increasing pharma patents in the US causes more exploitation of countries in the global south 2. Impact- exploitation of global south is unethical, linearly causes structural violence, and turns case because gutting public health infrastructure means more disease spread. 3. Alt- policy approach to public health that is opposed to patents. 4. framing/framework- k of extinction focus

Both of these examples are beatable by the aff, but at least give me as a judge a coherent "here is why the aff is bad" decision.

I am a Kansas HS assistant debate coach. I am a science teacher that values logic and scientific fact. My background is not in debate however, I have been coaching for 4 years. I have judged for high school debates for 36 years. I believe that most anything is debatable however some styles of argument work better for me than others. I am more of a CP/DA Case debate kind of judge. Speed of my flow is far lower than what I would call fast. Clear tags/authors and quicker on text is fine. Also please tell where things go and how they apply. I enjoy most debates but not a fan of T debates. If the aff is not topical run it. If the aff is center of the topic then do not run T. IF they are off topic, I am easily swayed on T. Theory debates are kinda like T for me. Rather not see it unless there is a legitimate violation. I do not penalize teams for style choices. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I need to be able to understand the words. If you speak for your partner during their speech or tell them what to say during their speech, you will lose. If you get up and take your laptop to your partner during their constructive or rebuttal speech and have them read what you wrote for them to say, you will lose.

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.

I have had minimal recent experience judging debate (but not none). I am highly educated and informed on most if not all common debate topics.

I am generally open minded and aware of my own biases which allows me to not be influenced much by them. I will caution against basing your entire argument on debate specific procedural/technical arguments. Absolutely bring them to my attention but then move on and argue the case on it's merits. The flip side of that means if you happen to make a procedural error, you still have an opportunity to win since I will not over-weight that one mistake.

One more thing - slow down. I know talking fast is encouraged but effective communication isn't exclusively getting the most information conveyed. Have a strong argument, present it succinctly and persuasively.

-top-

tldr: read whatever you want but policy is my forte - feel free to email me if you have questions

put me on the email chain: d3lett@gmail.com

call me dom and use they/them pronouns

wichita state university: 2018-now

coach at maize high school

-o/v-

certain issues can and should supersede tech such as clipping cards or egregious ethics violations - however, most debates i judge don't involve those issues - i default to tech over truth - initially evaluating presented arguments at equal merit is the most consistent, impartial mechanism i've found to provide competitive equity - evidence matters a lot to me - i tend to think specificity and author qualification should act as a filter for claims/warrants

clash is crucial - how you prioritize arguments alters how i connect the dots to determine a decision - provide judge instruction and organization - the more you focus on explicitly characterizing the direction of the debate, the more my rfd will sound like your 2nr/2ar

i reward nuance and depth - more pages covered tends to mean less time developing substance/structure - narrowing the debate allows for greater engagement - impacting out warrants makes comparison for me much easier

insert graph joke here

-fw-

i tend to think resolutional action is good but i can be convinced otherwise - capacity to debate matters to me - it's why clash is possible - limits and grounds are good - they provide the foundation for clash - portable skills/subject formation are important, but i'm not sure i understand why it's unique to debate - the interp is your model of debate - defend it - definitions are vital in helping me understand your model's mandates/effects

for the aff: explaining how your counterinterp uniquely generates offense (e.g. explaining why affs under your interp are important) and generates defense (e.g. quantifying affs under your interp) help me conceptualize weighing clash vs your model - i appreciate the "no perms and you get links to your disads" strategy - it seems to resolve a substantive portion of clash offense but becomes less convincing the more generic neg ground is eliminated

for the neg: explaining internal link turns are important - quantifying limits/grounds to demonstrate loss of clash is helpful - procedural fairness/switch side is often a compelling way to frame decision-making, but i'm not opposed to the mechanism education style fw if that's your expertise - the tva is a useful defensive resource but requires development and evidence

-t-

many of my preferences for fw apply here

reasonability makes little sense as an argument in and of itself - read it as a limits bad arg (argument diversity, topic development, research innovation, etc) - arguments for interp precision are often pretty compelling

-disad/case-

i like detailed link/impact explanations - focus on evidence comparison will be rewarded

-cp-

i like solvency advocates (someone who proposes a process of achieving an action to fix a problem) - read them - the more specific, the more legitimate and likely to solve

-k-

it's probably safe to assume i lack familiarity with the nuances of your chosen field of critical theory - do not read suffering/death good - specific link application (e.g. circumvention/internal link turns) and alt explanation will help guide my decision calculus - the aff should get to weigh the plan

-soft left affs-

the cohn card alone will likely never convince me disads should go away - it makes a lot of sense to me to go for critiques of da's/cp's - critical strategies (e.g. technocracy bad) and scenario planning indicts (e.g. tetlock and bernstein) are applicable - i have more experience with the latter

-theory-

actually engaging in their theory block results in better args, lends credibility, and will be rewarded - most theory doesn't justify rejecting the team - whatever your proposed remedy is, providing a justification for it will be appreciated

condo is maybe good - i like the idea of reciprocity, but aff variety makes being neg tough - if you're aff, i find substance args more compelling than advocacy stuff - if you're neg, i find strategic flex args more compelling than critical thinking stuff

-other thoughts-

misc - don't worry about visual feedback - i'm always tired - i will clear you however many times i feel necessary - please try to increase volume/clarity in front of me as much as you can - feel free to alert me of any concerns about structural impediments you experience that could implicate how i evaluate the round so i can accommodate accordingly

cross-ex - i think anything goes in cross-ex as long as it's the 'asking team' - reading cards, taking prep, bathroom break, whatever - i think the 'responding team' is generally obligated to answer questions if asked - if you ignore and it's not reasonable, you will lose speaks

inserting arguments - generally fine as long as you explain thoroughly - graphs/diagrams/screenshots are cool - i'm far more skeptical of rehighlighted evidence

new arguments - they're almost always justified in response to new args - i grant more leeway to 2nc shenanigans than the 1nr - i think that 1ar's get the most leeway bc of structural time disadvantages and inevitable block creativity

Email me if you have questions: kyleblorey@gmail.com

Upshot: Tell me how to write my ballot. I'm a tab judge, I'm not going to make any arguments for you, and it'll be a mess if you don't explain to me why I should vote a certain way, pref certain kinds of impacts, care about XYZ, etc. I will not make arguments for you, and if you don't say something it doesn't exist. Assume I don't know why I should care about any of the arguments you're making. If you do a better job explaining why I should vote a certain way, you'll probably win. When in doubt, it is better to assume I know less, not more, and explain it more thoroughly.

Background: I was a policy debater at a 6A Kansas high school from 2010-2013. The college I went to did not have a policy team, so since then the extent of my involvement in policy debate has been occasionally judging rounds in Virginia.

Paradigm: Tabula Rasa. All arguments are fine. Just explain to me why you should win. I won't vote on arguments I didn't hear, and I won't make arguments for you if you forget to make them explicit.

Speed: I was a flow debater, I can handle speed. HOWEVER, please make sure to enunciate and go no faster than you can handle while still being understandable. I can't flow what I don't understand, and if I don't catch it, you may as well have not made the argument. The cleaner the flow is, the more able I am to evaluate the round properly. Taglines, signposting, theory blocks, etc should be slower than reading evidence.

Additionally, you should be slowing down significantly for theory, weighing, etc -- especially in the 2NR/2AR. It is more important that when you're performing judge instruction/telling me how to write my ballot that you are persuasive than that you are fast.

I debated at Blue Valley North and at the University of Kentucky.

clucasdebate@gmail.com

For online debate, please turn your cameras on.

I would prefer if you went slightly slower than what you usually debate.

Topicality: I view topicality as a strategic argument on the same level as any other off-case position, I think it is incredibly valuable to debate. I don't think limits are the only impact but it is probably the best one. Instead of listing a lot of cases that exist under interpretations, I would prefer a smaller amount with a little explanation for each one. If reasonability is a big push, explain what you want me to understand when you say reasonability because I won't automatically understand how you are using it.

Disads: I will care a lot about smart turns case arguments especially ones that have cards. 

Counterplans: I won't judge kick unless you say something. This isn't a statement about how I believe conditionality interacts with judge kick or whatever, but more of if it's something you wanted me to do you should have the strategic thought to say it. I don't have any negative thoughts towards any types of counter-plans, but I would not say I am a strong judge for debates that would center around counterplan competition. 

FW: I think fairness is an impact. However, I think that the magnitude of that impact depends on your explanation of how you get there and what fairness itself means. I know that just describes doing impact calculus, but I always thought that doing impact calculus in framework debates was the most interesting kind of impact calculus because it has the most real-world implication. You are having a debate about debate so I think clearly framing impact calculus in a way that shows you have thought about how and why debate would get worse without just reading a super old script. For AFF teams, I haven't judged a lot of the debates to know my preferred aff strategy. I think it would be helpful to know I think debate is a game, I will only evaluate what's happening in the debate in front of me, and that being topical in some sense is important. I used to read a lot of racial capitalism books in high school.

Kritiks: I think that everyone gets their arguments in these debates. I do not enjoy it when people make framework arguments with no clear purpose and strategy and it is very easy to tell when you are just reading it just because you have a block. I like relevant historical examples and descriptions of impacts as supposed to generic descriptions. I research and read arguments about capitalism and biopolitics. I debated, judged, and coached about arguments centering around most other things.

Other general stuff:

I don't have a lot of particularly strong thoughts about debate so I will not automatically assume a lot of things that other judges might for you. That should hopefully give you a lot of creative autonomy in how you want to debate if you really guide me through how you want me to judge your arguments.

I think cross-ex is one of the most important parts of the debate and will pay attention to it and factor it into my points.

Evidence quality is really important and should be the main focus of final rebuttals and cross-ex. Even if people don't talk about evidence, I will read it and will inevitable have perceptions about them so reading good cards is important.

When reinserting ev if you just highlight the parts you want me to look at and paraphrase what you are trying to say that should be fine. You don't have to reread a tiny line to say what you already said.

Presumption/zero risk of something based on it literally making no sense or garbage evidence is something I will vote on.

I don't think conditionality is the only plausible to reason to reject the team.

If an argument is particularly stupid -- you should just ignore it.

I'm between a flow and a lay judge. I can follow arguments very well, and typically try to flow rounds. I will struggle somewhat with high-speed talking, but as long as I'm provided evidence I can manage. Composure and logic will help convince me in rounds, however, it is not the deciding factor for me. I am mainly a stock issues judge, but I am able to understand things as complicated as a K (Theory). The burden will be on the AFF to prove that they will solve completely, and if that is disproved then NEG will win. Although, the NEG will have to do a substantial job of demonstrating how the AFF doesn't solve.

I am a LAY judge, this paradigm is meant to give you just a bit of guidance on my judging.

I did not do debate in high school or college, and this is my 3rd year judging debate.

Make sure your arguments are clear and you talk at a pace I can understand.

Don’t be rude, discriminate, or do anything else like it.

Kritiks: Do not run these. You will lose me and most likely lose the round.

Theory/Topicality: I would prefer you not run these arguments but if you feel there truly is a need for these arguments make sure to clearly and thoroughly explain these.

CPs: I’m okay with these, just make sure to give an overview/underview to walk me through it.

DAs: I appreciate these arguments, brief overview/underview is helpful.

Framing: I prefer bigger impacts (focus on magnitude).

Case: I think case is very important, make sure you are debating as much case as you can.

Alex McVey - Director of Debate at Kansas State University

Yes Email chain - j.alexander.mcvey at gmail

Online things - Strong preference for Camera On during speeches and CX. I'm willing to be understanding about this if it's a tech barrier or there are other reasons for not wanting to display. But it does help me a ton to look at faces when people are speaking.

If I'm physically at a tournament and judging a debate with one online and one in-person team, I'm always going to try to be in the same room as the in-person team, if the tournament permits. Within those parameters, Zoom teams should let me know if there's anything I can do to make myself more present for them in that space. I respect what online debate has done to increase access for some teams, but I value in-person connection with debaters too much to go judge from an empty classroom or hotel room.

I flow on paper. I need pen time. Clarity is really important to me. I'll always say "clear" if I think you're not being clear, at least 1-2 times. If you don't respond accordingly, the debate probably won't end well for you.

I tend to be expressive when I judge debates. Nodding = I'm getting it, into your flow, not necessarily that it's a winner. Frowny/frustrated face = maybe not getting it, could be a better way to say it, maybe don't like what you're doing. I would take some stock in this, but not too much: I vote for plenty things that frustrate me while I'm hearing them executed, and vote down plenty of things that excite me when first executed. All about how it unfolds.

The more I judge debates, the less ev I'm reading,  the more I'm relying on 2nr vs 2ar explanation and impact calculus. If there are cards that you want me to pay attention to, you should call the card out by name in the last rebuttal, and explain some of its internal warrants. Debaters who make lots of "even if" statements, who tell me what matters and why, who condense the debate down to the most important issues, and who do in depth impact calculus seem to be winning my ballots more often than not.

Debating off the flow >>> Debating off of speech docs (ESPECIALLY IN REBUTTALS). I'd say a good 25% of my decisions involve the phrase "You should be more flow dependent and less speech doc dependent." Chances are very little that you've scripted before the debate began is useful for the 2nr/2ar.

My experience and expertise is definitely in kritik debate, but I judge across the spectrum and have been cutting cards on both K and Policy sides of the legal personhood topic. Run what you're good at. Despite my K leaning tendencies, I’m comfortable watching a good straight up debate.

Don't assume I've cut cards in your niche research area though. I often find myself lost in debates where people assume I know what some topical buzzword, agency, or acronym is.

Theoretical issues: Blippy, scatter-shot theory means little, well-developed, well-impacted theory means a lot. Again, pen time good.

I have no hard and set rules about whether affs do or don't have to have plans. Against planless/non-topical affs, I tend to think topicality arguments are generally more persuasive than framework arguments. Or rather, I think a framework argument without a topicality argument probably doesn't have a link. I'm not sure what the link is to most "policy/political action good" type framework arguments if you don't win a T argument that says the focus of the resolution has to be USFG policy. I think all of these debates are ultimately just a question of link, impact, and solvency comparison.

I tend to err on truth over tech, with a few exceptions. Dropping round-winners/game-changers like the permutation, entire theoretical issues, the floating PIC, T version of the aff/do it on the neg, etc... will be much harder (but not impossible) to overcome with embedded clash. That being said, if you DO find yourself having dropped one of these, I'm open to explanations for why you should get new arguments, why something else that was said was actually responsive, etc... It just makes your burden for work on these issues much much more difficult.

Be wary of conflating impacts, especially in K debates. For example, If their impact is antiblackness, and your impact is racism, and you debate as if those impacts are the same and you're just trying to win a better internal link, you're gonna have a bad time.

I intuitively don't agree with "No perms in a method debate" and "No Plan = No Perm" arguments. These arguments are usually enthymematic with framework; there is an unstated premise that the aff did something which skews competition to such a degree that it justifies a change in competitive framework. Just win a framework argument. That being said, I vote for things that don't make intuitive sense to me all the time.

I like debate arguments that involve metaphors, fiction, stories, and thought experiments. What I don't understand is teams on either side pretending as if a metaphor or thought experiment is literal and defending or attacking it as such.

A nested concern with that above - I don't really understand a lot of these "we meets" on Framework that obviously non-topical affs make. I/E - "We're a discursive/affective/symbolic vesting of legal rights and duties" - That... doesn't make any sense. You aren't vesting legal rights and duties, and I'm cool with it, just be honest about what the  performance of the 1ac actually does. I think Neg teams give affs too much leeway on this, and K Affs waste too much time on making these nonsensical (and ultimately defensive) arguments. If you don't have a plan, just impact turn T. You can make other defensive args about why you solve topic education and why you discuss core topic controversies while still being honest about the fact that you aren't topical and impact turn the neg's attempt to require you to be such.

RIP impact calculus. I'd love to see it make a comeback.

RIP performance debates that actually perform. My kingdom for a performance aff that makes me feel something.

Affs are a little shy about going for condo bad in front of me. I generally think Condo is OK but negatives have gotten a bit out of control with it.  I'm happy to vote for flagrant condo proliferation if the neg justifies it. I just don't think affs are making negs work hard enough on these debates.

Negs are a little shy about making fun of 1ac construction in front of me. Ex: K affirmatives that are a random smattering of cards that have little to do with one another. Ex: Policy affs where only 2 cards talk about the actual plan and the rest are just genero impact cards. I feel like negative's rarely ever press on this, and allow affirmatives to get away with ludicrous 2AC explanations that are nearly impossible to trace back to the cards and story presented in the 1ac. More 1nc analytical arguments about why the aff just doesn't make sense would be welcome from this judge.

In a similar vein, many affirmative plans have gotten so vague that they barely say anything. Negatives should talk about this more. Affs should write better plans. Your plan language should match the language of your solvency advocate if you want me to grant you solvency for what is contained in said evidence. I'm going to be trigger happy for "your plan doesn't do anything" until teams start writing better plans.

Debaters should talk more about the lack of quality the other team's evidence and the highlighting of that evidence in particular. If you've highlighted down your evidence such that it no longer includes articles (a/an/the/etc...) in front of nouns, or is in other ways grammatically incoherent due to highlighting, and get called out on it, you're likely to not get much credit for that ev with me.

Be kind to one another. We're all in this together.

Please include me on the evidence chain at: mcdubs06@gmail.com

My Background and Experience

I debated in high school from 1991-95 at Shawnee Mission East, in one of the states that has a Kansas City. I was a sponsor and assistant coach at East from 1996-2008 and 2019-20. I judged policy at NFL / NDSA Nationals in 1999, 2000, 2006, and 2008; and at NCFL Grand Nationals in 2006, 2011, 2012, and 2013. I judged PFD at NCFL Nationals in 2018. I’ve judged policy debate, LD, PFD, extemp, informative, and original oratory at invitational, state, and national qualifying tournaments for over twenty-five years.

For additional insight on my perspective, I have judged for several years the high school moot court (mock Supreme Court argument) competition held by American University School of Law as part of the Marshall-Brennan Constitutional Literacy Project. I also judge high school and undergraduate mock trial and undergraduate and law school moot court competitions.

I am an attorney for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; I am literally a policy-maker well versed in navigating the challenges of making policy under frequently conflicting congressional mandates. The first thing you learn in law school is that the answer to every question is "it depends." Justice Breyer recently answered the question "is a hot dog a sandwich?" by responding "sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't."

Policy Debate, Generally

Speed: I am handling speed better now we have evidence chains (in legal oral argument, you always submit written briefs to the judge). That said, the responsibility is on you to ensure you are intelligible, especially when using virtual platforms. I am also of the view that all things being equal, rebuttals should be presented at a slower pace than constructive.

Strategy versus Tactics: “Seven Off-Case” is not a strategy. Negatives would benefit immensely from having a bigger picture strategy that frames the story you want to be telling at the end of the round. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t run multiple alternative arguments – you should, however, be thinking three moves ahead. Also, time-suck arguments have strong tradeoffs. Both teams get equal time allotment so if the opposing team is wasting time on it that means you’ve wasted time you could have used making winning arguments.

Topicality: T is a jurisdictional issue and nothing more. As a lawyer, I believe in precision, but I am also of the view that high school policy debate affirmatives are not capable of being drafted with the precision of congressional legislation (nor should they be). So I’m willing consider reasonable interpretations. I also am willing to entertain arguments that the Aff is effects topical. I don’t get as excited about extra-topicality because Aff can always drop the offending advantage (by analogy to severability provisions in legislation where only offending provisions are thrown out by the courts, not the entire legislation).

Conditional Counterplans: I an attorney, the concept of burden of proof is fundamental. In my view, when the Neg runs a counterplan, it shifts the burden of proof from Aff to Neg. I liken it to an “affirmative defense” in a criminal trial. Neg can argue inconsistent alternatives because it does not have the burden of proof. If I am the defendant, I can argue that you failed to prove I did it, or that maybe Graham and Maddie did it. I cannot argue that I did it in self-defense, but if you don’t believe that, then Graham and Maddie did it.

There is no rational justification for allowing Neg, which starts the round with the benefit of presumption, to “take back” a bad strategic decision to run a counterplan solely because they are losing. If conditionality were sound debate theory, we wouldn’t spend seventy percent of the last two rebuttals arguing about it. If we view conditionality as a “rules” modification to enhance competition, there ought to be a mechanism for settling that before the round. We don’t change the rules of basketball with five minutes left in the game to benefit the team that’s losing.

Critical Argument: I have never voted for a Kritik. Over the years, I have developed a much better understanding of the various philosophies underlying most critical theory. My legal training also allows me to better evaluate and apply your arguments to the Aff case. Someday I will get there on Ks, but for the time being you run them at your own peril.

My biggest hangups: (1) the lack of a meaningful alternative; (2) related, as a policymaker I do not like being in a “why bother” position – if there is a harm that can be solved, why not do something? (3) Many philosophies underlying critical arguments are extremely complex; most high school debaters (and many college judges) don’t understand what they are arguing or hearing, apply extremely broad theories to extremely narrow policy questions; or just flat out misapply the theories to affs; and (4) As a policymaker I am predisposed to utilitarianism and economically rational decision making. The limitation of Kantian ethics is that the moral compass always points true north, but it tells you nothing about all the obstacles and dangers between you and where you’re trying to get. All along the way you have to make decisions that deontology is, in my view, ill-equipped to guide.

“Performance Affs”: I rarely vote for critical affs. I have never voted for a performance aff. My views on performance affs are evolving and transitioning, but I am still working on a coherent paradigm so you assume the risk if you run one. Hang ups include: (1) I don’t like “why bother?” debates; (2) I don’t like to be guilted into voting for one team or the other; and (3) I am not a fan of dismissing the conventions of policy debate as a meaningless academic simulation. The high school moot court competition I judge is tailored to inner city students in the DC area. The problems involve first and fourth amendment issues. Even though the competition is an academic exercise, participating students are better equipped to advocate for themselves, their peers, and their families, and these students are significantly more likely to have encounters with police and other authority figures implicating free speech, illegal detention, and improper searches.

Policy Debate – Kansas Novice and Open

Please be respectful to one another. Also, a “brief off-time roadmap” should take less than ten seconds. Just state the title of the position so we can organize our flows: “T, counterplan, politics da, advantage 2, solvency” Lastly, I am a policymaker. I view the stock issues not so much as a paradigm but as the elements of a prima facie case. If the aff doesn’t solve at all, it’s pretty straightforward. On the other hand, if the affirmative has a propensity to solve, neg needs a disadvantage to outweigh. Lastly, view every round as a free learning opportunity. At work, we joke that we always reserve the right to get smarter.

Public Forum Debate

My only specific observations are that PFD is not intended to be a college style policy round in a faster amount of time. Also, in online debate only one person can talk at a time. It takes a bit of fun out of the Grand Crossfire, but online when multiple people talk over one another no one is intelligible.

Lincoln-Douglas

[To be provided.]

William Morris (he/him)

mtwilliamkatedebate@gmail.com

Olathe Northwest Highschool Debate Alumni

Updated 2021 January 14th

Hello all! First and foremost, best of luck.

I'll start by discussing my view of debate as a whole, then get into specifics. Debate is a forum for highschool students to have informed discussions about important topics. Every debate presents a tremendous opportunity for learning about the world that you occupy. In order to earn a vote from me, I need to see this in action. An educational debate is respectful, informative, and nuanced. I will not tolerate disrespectful competitors. Especially with the 2020/21 topic, I will not tolerate racism, xenophobia, sexism, or anything else of the sort. These are voting issues for me. Debate ought to be a safe space for all competitors where different ideas can be discussed, and if this basic principal is not observed by your team you will not receive my vote.

Tl;dr

Tell me what to vote on. I will not do this work for you. Present a framework for me to judge your augments: tell me which flows are more important and why I should care about your impacts. If you don't tell me what to vote on, then I will default to a policymaker mindset (ie competing impacts). If the neg's impacts outweigh the aff's impacts, I will vote neg. If the aff's impacts outweigh the neg's impacts, I will vote aff.

Truth over tech. If you say something untrue it will not be reflected on my flow or become a voting issue. If you read evidence telling me that the sky is red, I will reject that evidence. Please debate in the world you occupy.

Note on Rebuttals: Don't simply repeat what you've already said in previous rounds. Frame the debate for me. Make everything CLEAR. Run what you can win.

Note on CX: If you're not rude, almost nothing said in a CX will ultimately matter on my ballot. I understand that CX is viewed as free prep, and if you ask boring, timewasting questions than I won't count that against you.

I don't care for spreading, especially if I cannot understand what is coming out of your mouth. I will not read your evidence and try to understand your arguments for you. That being said, if both teams think that the educational value of the debate can be increased by reading more literature than I will *TRY* to keep up. Please note that if any one team does not want to have spreading in the round than spreading will not be tolerated.

Framework

I love it. I will flow it. If no counterframework is presented, I will assume the framework to be agreed upon by both teams and adopt it on my ballot.

Theory

If you make up KSHSAA rules I may laugh. I do have the rulebook, and I expect that if you are going to cite a breaking of rules that you do it with evidence from the up to date KSHSAA rulebook. If you don't cite a specific rule being broken, these are never voting issues for me.

NO NEW Ts, CPs, Ks (unless warranted) in the 2NC. Topicality, Counterplans, or Ks that are specific to the plan should be first read in the 1NC. New DAs are a stretch but in certain situations I will flow them.

Don't run Theory if it's not warranted. That being said I'll reject the argument, not the team. New evidence maybe be read in ANY speech, including rebuttals, *as long as it is relevant to ongoing clash*.

The exception to this is Ks in the 2NC if the justification for the K arouse in a later round. (ie spreading/language/racism/ableism/etc Ks are okay to run in the 2NC).

If the affirmative team believes that they were put at an insurmountable disadvantage in the round by having new Ts, CPs, Ks, or DAs run in the neg block, the MOST time you need to spend on making that argument to me is 15 seconds. Any longer than this and you are just shooting yourself in the foot by wasting your already short amount of time. I will likely agree if the abuse is apparent and throw out the specific flows from the neg block that are abusive.

NEG TEAM:

DAs

As the neg if you run a DA (or really about any other offensive argument), tell me how the impact of your disadvantage should be more important on my ballot then the aff's advantage(s).

CPs

I love counterplans. A CP run correctly by the negative team is likely the easiest way to get a neg ballot. If you want me to vote for you on a CP, it must be run in the 1NC, it must be run with DAs, and it must have a clear net benefit over the plan. If the aff team presents a reasonable perm, I will vote aff. If I vote for your CP, then you successfully proved to me that your plan can solve better, and avoid the DAs of the aff plan.

Topicality

If you run T on neg, run it correctly please. Give me an interpretation, how the aff violates said interpretation, and why the violation should matter enough for me to vote on topicality. If the neg runs T, the aff needs to either prove that they DO MEET the Neg's interp, or provide their own interp and standards, and demonstrate clearly why I should prefer their counter-interpretation of the resolution. If both teams do a good enough job on the T flow, then I (usually) will not consider it a voting issue (unless you make it one for me). To win T, you must win on interpretation of the resolution and provide standards and voters, as well as continue it throughout the debate (until your last speech). If you truly believe that the aff is untopical, T should be presented in every speech.

Kritiks

If you don't run your K correctly, I will not flow or vote on it. GIVE ME AN ALT. If you give me nothing to vote on, then I won't vote for your team on your K. If I do not understand your K, I will likely not flow it or vote on it. YOU as the debater must do the heavy lifting. I will not try to understand your K if you don't understand it well enough to explain it to me in a way that I understand. Ks DO NOT benefit from spreading.

AFF TEAM:

Advantages

DO NOT DROP YOUR ADVANTAGES PLEASE. Your advantages are the reason that a judge will vote for your plan over the status quo/a CP. Please elaborate on your advantages in EVERY SPEECH. If you drop your advantages, there becomes little left for me to vote Aff on. Thoroughly explain your impacts, and how they outweigh everything brought in to the round by the negative team. I won't vote on you advantage if you read it only in the first speech.

Case

Solvency is very important. Please defend it consistently throughout the round. If you can't, then the negative team has successfully proved that you can't solve, and I probably won't vote for your team.

I did policy debate in high school (Blue Valley High School, 4 years) and college (Missouri State University, 2 years). I've debated at NFL nationals, CEDA, and the NDT. (BV class of 2011; MO State class of 2015)

I really enjoy judging and want you to run the arguments you like to run/think are strategic whether that's a DA, K, CP, T, or something else. Help me write my ballot by telling me what's most important in the round and offering a coherent story of what it means to vote for you.

I think case debate is really important. Not everything needs to end in extinction and I think it's often persuasive when teams push back on that part of the impact debate. In other words, impact defense is important!!

Speed is fine, but I do think it's best to slow down a bit when everything is virtual. While I can certainly follow speed, quality is WAY more important than quantity. It's good to give yourself options in the round, but super overloaded 1NCs tend to include lots of arguments that are clearly just intended to suck time from the 2AC. Mostly, I just don't like it when a team goes WAY faster than the other team. I want to watch and evaluate a good round where we all actually learn instead of a round where we just skim the surface because one team is going as fast as they can and the other team can't keep up.

Rather than reading a bunch of cards that basically say the same thing, please actually lift up warrants and engage the other team's evidence. The best rounds include strong analytics and evidence comparisons. In short, clash is good!

I've noticed a lot of debaters assert that something has been "conceded" or "totally uncontested" even though that's not the case. If something was actually dropped, tell me why that argument is significant! If something was responded to, please don't say it was dropped!

I appreciated it when debaters say "and" or "next" or something in between cards in the 1AC/1NC or anytime you're reading a bunch of evidence back-to-back so I can get each individual piece of evidence on my flow.

Please give an off-time roadmap! All I need for that is how many off-case positions and which case pages in the 1NC and then which off-case positions and case pages for the subsequent speeches. i.e. "2 Off, Solvency, Advantage 1" or "Federalism DA, States CP, Solvency, etc. etc."

I think closed CX is generally better than open CX. I understand if you really, really need to clarify something, but otherwise trust your partner! Mostly I just want each debater to participate fully in CX. So that doesn't mean I won't allow or am totally against open CX, I just think it's important to make sure everyone gets to speak and contribute.

My familiarity with this year's topic comes from a little bit of coaching, a lot of judging, and personal experiences as a community organizer. I spent several years in Chicago organizing around racial, economic, and environmental justice which included efforts related to policing and bail reform. I say this not because I think it'll impact my decision so much as it is an area of my life that has been helpful in understanding this topic and various affirmatives/negative arguments.

Please be respectful, have fun, and I hope you learn some stuff!

(she/her)

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.

jpark.debate@gmail.com, taipeiamericanpolicy@gmail.com

University of Kansas '23, Washburn Rural '19

he/him/his

Coaching for the Asian Debate League and Taipei American School

Based in Taiwan, so the time difference will affect my judging. This means you need to have more enunciation and clarity than usual.

TLDR:

---very low econ knowledge

---very bad for K AFFs, fiat Ks, process counterplans, and technical T arguments

---decent for other policy arguments and Ks that are DAs

________________________________________________________________________________________

TLDR:

---Not the greatest flow, likes creativity, more likely to care about macro-issues than minor technical drops, avoid jargon/acronyms, will vote on args that promote sedition

---Fully-developed strategies that clash tend to perform better in front of me.

---I think have a higher bar for what constitutes a 'complete argument' than the average college-aged judge and some may say I care more about the "truth" side of "tech over truth." This is not necessarily about content, but about argument development/evidence/persuasion.

---My debate beliefs are malleable. This paradigm might make me seem like an old person (true, though), but good debating can remedy my predispositions. Good ev helps too.

---Largely persuaded that:

(1) incomplete args in the 1NC justify new responses

(2) net benefits should be verbally stated in the 1NC

The justification for both of these will be below.

________________________________________________________________________________________

General:

Positives

1---Respecting your opponents (CX, pronouns, don't mercilessly bludgeon less-experienced debaters), be ethical, etc.

2---Efficiency. In your speech, during prep, emailing, down-time. etc. If you don't need 10 minutes of prep for the 2NR/2AR, don't take it.

3---Taking debate seriously. Pay attention, flow, try. But also, have fun! We are all invested, so let's make our debates worthwhile. Ad-homs are bad and not arguments.

4---Research (evidence matters, but so could spin). Vertifical proliferation is better than horizontal proliferation of arguments. Also, likely won't vote for death good.

5---Ethos and Clarity. I am a bad judge for teams that just spit into their computer at 300 WPM at 65% clarity. Lowkey think that debaters that are slow (while being smart, technical, etc.) are *****chefs kiss***** I should hear every single word you say. Please enunciate and recognize that debate is also a communication activity instead of a block-perfecting competition in the 2NR and 2AR. If you are a team that has rebuttals prescripted without any plans of contextualization (such as asserting things happened when they didn't), then please email me your 2NR/2AR blocks, and I will assign your speaker points during the 1AC and vote against you.

6. Organization---speech docs, cards, wikis

Negatives

1---Lack of analysis. You should have framing arguments, judge instruction, contextualization, and argument development.

2---Debates that make me litigate things outside of the debate.

3---Vagueness. It should be clear what your AFF does, what the plan means, what the counterplan does, what your highlighting of evidence means, and what the tags of your cards are intended to communicate. I am likely more amenable to vagueness arguments than most judges.

Misc

I kicked the AFF in a decent chunk of debates I was in. I do not think this influences my judging but my AFF (and NEG) debates would sometimes look really different than a lot of people.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Policy:

Topicality vs. Policy AFFs

T versus policy AFFs was one of my least favorite arguments. It isn't ideological, but I spent most of my debate career debating with 2Ns who were obsessed with it, so I just never really thought about it. I find most T debates dry but I understand the strategic necessity of them. My aversion stems from 1NCs that lack a violation and then debate becoming late-breaking.

To improve my VTL when going for T, internal link explanation is important. 2Ns have seemed to forget that there ought to be a reasonable explanation about how we get from the violation to zero NEG ground ever. Both teams should have more debating about what the interp/counter-interp debates would look like. Assertions of topic biases or quality of generics should be explained with warrants. I am not the ideal judge for a technical T argument.

For some reason, I find ground arguments more compelling than limits/precision. Not sure if this will affect my judging, but I've always thought that limits arguments were hyperbolic. Big topics feel good if the NEG has robust strategies to counter them. When evenly debated, plan-text-in-a-vacuum is a tough sell for me.

Disadvantages

The optimal 2NR is a DA and the case. Counterplans are for cowards. I'm not as big on the modern Politics DA as most Kansas debaters but it's okay. I would prefer not to judge debates about intrinsicness tests.

AFFs teams should have offense on the DA. NEG teams should try to have real "turns case" arguments outside of "nuke war is bad."

Counterplans

I'm mostly AFF-leaning on theory arguments. I'm not wedded to these beliefs, but I have some predispositions. I am not a huge believer in conditionality. This is not a free invitation to go for condo in the 2AR, merely an observation that in-depth debates are better.

My least favorite genre of argument as a debater was the process counterplan. Again, I understand its strategic utility and will judge the debate neutrally. I'd prefer a 2NR that is about why the AFF's bad. Competition debates are dry. Comparative evidence between the AFF and the counterplan's process demonstrating functional competition could make me hate your counterplan a little less. I am also a less qualified judge for complex competition debates.

Case

I am a good judge for presumption and giving a low weight to the AFF advantages. The 2AC and 1AR get away with murder on the case, so the NEG teams should use that to their advantage. This is an area where good debating will be rewarded with nice speaker points.

Soft Left

I enjoy soft left AFFs but framing contentions need to contain offense. ________________________________________________________________________________________

Critiques:

Ks vs. Policy AFFs

I'm better for Ks on the NEG. I will award specificity, especially backed with evidence. I will have a hard time voting on critiques that lack interactions with the scholarship and thesis of the 1AC. If the NEG reads a K impact turn to the AFF's advantage, that is likely the best strategy in front of me. Or, have a robust framework justification with turns case arguments. I seem to care a little bit more about performative contradictions/linking to your own K than some (not for theory reasons). The closer your K is to a soft-left impact turn, the better. I am willing to vote on non-extinction impact-turns (example: heg is racist/causes violent interventions---bipolarity is preferable).

K AFF vs. T: USFG

I have voted both ways but am a bad judge for you/find most AFF offense not intrinsic to T. Explain what debates over the AFF interp would look like. I always thought framework debates were thought-provoking and helped me think about debate. Explain what debates over the NEG interp/TVA would look like. I am open to voting for either fairness or education. I am a believer in research about the topic, so the closer your AFF is to being about the topic, defending a theory of power, being a substantial shift from the status quo, and defending material action, the better. Any lit bases outside of bio power, colonialism, settler colonialism, capitalism, and IR need more explanation.

________________________________________________________________________________________

(1) Incomplete Arguments

I am mostly compelled that the 1AR should get whatever it wants in response to incomplete 1NCs. Debates are increasingly rewarding blippy 1NCs, causing debates that are worse to judge and I believe judges ought hold the line on what the debate community constitutes a complete argument. If a 1NC DA shell lacks uniqueness, then why should the 2AC be burdened to make link turn args as to how they reverse the deficiencies of the status quo. The logical conclusion of "you have to answer everything" would mean the AFF would have to read impact d to random floating impacts, which is absurd.

(2) Net Benefits

Whatever the net benefit of every advocacy is should be specified in the 1NC. This is low-cost for the NEG and would improve debates/AFF strategy. CX doesn't remedy this because NEG teams take forever to answer, which is unfair for the AFF because the 1A could be asking good, substantive questions. Instead, I have to listen to the 1N say "everything is a net benefit... wait... <>...then the 2N takes 15 seconds to decide and then lists net benefits to analytical con con, states, the one card Security K, a card-less 15 plank advantage counterplan, and a process counterplan. This take might seem extreme, but I believe it is the least arbitrary and most efficient way to resolve net benefit shenanigans (a time limit feels weird). For most counterplans, they are only complete arguments if they have arguments about solvency AND competition in the 1NC. Counterplans that rely on DAs to beat the perm and complete, so it seems logical that the NEG should be responsible for this. Lastly, I want to award bold strategies. The clearer the net benefits are, the better AFFs will be at straight-turning and NEGs will read better DA + CP combinations.

She/They. I default policymaker, but will budge if you convince me to. I'll listen to anything except spec arguments, but I'll be annoyed if I have to vote on theory.

I did Policy in high school, BP in college, and coached a few years in the Denver Urban Debate League. That said, I haven't judged in two years and these are my first rounds on this topic so be clear. Use caution with spreading; I won't penalize you but I've been out of the game long enough that I might miss something, and if I do it'll be on you for not adjusting. I can probably handle 75% of full speed.

I'm currently a law student at ASU and I've written pretty extensively about criminal procedure, especially as it relates to race or witness confrontation. I'll ignore what I know to the best of my abilities and try to approach the round with the knowledge of an average reasonable voter.

wrhs 20

kansas 24

Email - rainapeter01@gmail.com

TLDR: I care deeply about my role as a judge and will do my best to make a decision that makes sense and give feedback that is helpful. This paradigm isn't long, so don't hesitate to send me an email if you have any questions.

I have done some research on the criminal justice topic, but haven't judged much so lean on the side of more explanation for intricate topicality/counterplan arguments.

Tech over truth but arguments must be warranted. I will almost always read evidence on the important issues, but judge instruction is extremely important to frame my ballot.

I am a better judge for traditional policy strategies, but that does not mean I will not evaluate critical ones. I appreciate judges who are willing to listen to all arguments, so I am trying to be one of those judges. Death good, blatantly racist arguments, etc. are an exception.

Arguments:

DAs - Politics is my favorite argument, turns case is good.

CPs - Not good for process counterplans, generally think conditionality is good.

T - usually a question of competing interpretations. I think topicality is an under-utilized strategy on this topic.

Ks - negs should have links to the aff, I am good for abolition, capitalism and international relations critiques. Other literature bases need more explanation

Framework - Impact weighing and comparisons are extremely important. Affs should have a clear relationship to the topic and some sort of mechanism to resolve impacts

Background: I debated for 4 years in high school (Saint Thomas Aquinas, 2007-2011) and 2 in college (KU 2012-2014). I coached and worked at debate camp during that time. I've judged occasionally for the last few years and have not done any work on the 2023 topic prior to the start of the season. I appreciate explanations of topic-specific acronyms/context and warranted explanations of theory/other debate jargon. I am quite familiar with domestic policy issues related to economic security, particularly at the state level related to tax policy, antipoverty programs, and early childhood programs.

I love debate and am here to listen to and do my best to judge whatever style of debate you enjoy best. I appreciate thoughtful discussions that reflect hard work understanding the topic, detailed comparisons of evidence and warrants, strategic decisionmaking about which arguments to advance, and debaters who enjoy the activity and treat their competitors with respect. I really enjoy good case debate.

Compelling defense can definitely persuade me to assign zero risk to an advantage/disadvantage/other impact. I might be less compelled by try-or-die framing and more open to weighing incremental changes or systemic impacts than other judges with my background. I'm especially looking forward to what that looks like this year when discussing how economic policies could meaningfully impact people's daily lives.

Winning debaters should tell me how and why I should make my decision. If you were writing my RFD for me, what would it say?

If you have not described to me in some detail what your or your opponent's evidence says and why it matters I will not call for it or read it after the round.

Particularly for debaters who enjoy kritikal debate - If you find yourself using a lot of debate jargon when answering cross-ex questions or during your speeches, you might challenge yourself to simply communicate your argument in a way that someone who is not familiar with debate could understand.

I am happy to listen to arguments that do not involve plans. That said, when I debated, this was not the style of debate that I preferred or excelled at - currently, I strongly believe that both incremental policy progress and the activity of policy debate are worthwhile. I am here to listen to and do my best to judge whatever style of debate you enjoy best; please do help me understand why your proposed role of the ballot is a good one and preferable to the opposing team's interpretation. I expect that debaters who successfully take a less traditional approach to affirming the resolution will be prepared to create clear structure and organization as they respond to arguments and frame the debate.

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

I did policy debate in high school for four years and really enjoy the activity, however, I'm not a huge fan of spreading. I'm one year out of college and haven't flowed in 5 ish years so keep the pace reasonable. Treat me like a slightly more informed lay judge who will consider voting on T. I think K's are fine, I prefer DAs. Please be respectful of one another.

I debated policy and competed in forensics for four years in high school. I am comfortable with any arguments and speeds, although I would prefer you not run Topicality solely as a time suck.

Former high school debater although some time ago. Current assistant coach. I primarily look for good logic in arguments that are well supported by your evidence. Common sense arguments can speak loudly. I'm not the best with very rapid speed but I absolutely try my hardest to keep up.

I debated policy and did forensics for 4 years at Lawrence Freestate High School in Lawrence, Kansas, reaching the Nationals my senior year. I am no longer involved in the activity except for judging a few tournaments.

KU B.S. Economics, Minor in Math. Cornell Masters in Economics. I'm working on my PhD in Economics and Public Policy at Cornell. I study issues of criminal justice, recidivism, and the market for prisons. This informs how I view the current topic.

I will drop you (or at least your speaks) if you use abusive/racist/sexist/ablest/homophobic/transphobia/etc. language. Being kind doesn't cost you anything. Don't minimize the oppression of others for a cheap ballot.

Debate and Forensics: Please use trigger warnings and treat traumatic situations/topics with respect. Painful experiences and topics do not exist in the vacuum of debate and forensics. They affect you, your judges, and your teammates.

Policy Debate:

PLEASE ADD ME TO THE CHAIN: kansasgrace@gmail.com

• Speed: Speed is fine as long as you speak clearly. I haven't debated in almost ten years, so just note that my threshold for speed may be a little lower than yours. Slow down on taglines and card names. I will say "clear" or "slow" if you are going too fast, but if it does not improve, I will not be able to flow. Slow down on anything that you find to be really important because if I don’t flow it then I won’t know it.

• Arguments: I'll evaluate whatever type of arguments you want to make, but you need to do the work. I don't mind K debate, but your alt should not be something like “reject the Aff.” In any situation, make sure you tell me why you win the round. Contextualization is key.

• Theory: Theory is fine if there’s abuse in the round, but your theory arguments shouldn’t be frivolous or a way to exclude others from the debate space. (Don’t run it as an easy way to win against an opponent who you don’t think understands it. I'm highly sensitive to the politics of income inequality in speech and debate and am not impressed with your canned theory shells.) RVIs are fine with me - it’s your round, not mine. I’ll vote on RVIs if you tell me to. With “I-Meets” I expect at least a little bit of an explanation. If your opponent made the effort to make the argument in the first place, you should do at least a little work to explain why you meet – don’t be lazy.

• Speaker Points: Generally, I will award points based on how clearly you articulate your thoughts. However, I will deduct speaks for inappropriate or overly aggressive behavior. I have no problem awarding a low-point win or at least docking your speaks if you are too rude or obnoxious in round. IF YOU BRING MICRO-AGGRESSIONS INTO THE ROUND, YOU WILL PAY FOR IT WITH SPEAKS.

• Extensions: These need to be real extensions if you want me to flow them. You can’t just go around shouting “EXTEND” to everything on the flow – what am I extending and why? Don’t be lazy.

If you have any further questions, feel free to ask me in round.

I'm a recent OE grad that debated for 3 years in High School (1 at BVN, 2 at Olathe East) mainly in the Open and KDC divisions for policy and Congress, Extemporaneous Debate, DX, PFD, and Info in Forensics.

Policy

TL:DR: I'm just here to watch your round. Be you, be respectful, follow the rules, and demonstrate understanding of your evidence. If you want to speed up, just be clear on your tag lines and analytics.

In terms of preferences, I'm not too picky about debate rounds; you can run whatever you want, as long as you understand the nuances of your agreement. It's your round, and I'm just here to watch. However, I am a firm believer in the idea that clash is crucial in debate round, and will prefer a team that takes the time to properly address the opposition's arguments over one that doesn't.

Recently, the biggest gripe I've had with debaters is the overlooking of synthesizing arguments in favor of reading more meaningless cards. In my eyes, evidence is useless without analysis. I want you to take that evidence and elevate it into an argument; reading cards to me without inputting them into the advocacy through analysis, especially in response to an opponent's arguments, isn't going to help your case. Show me that you understand your case and support your advocacy. I would love to see line by lines and impact calc whenever pertinent. Again, clash is what I prefer in a debate round, and analysis is a key portion of that.

In terms of advocacies in general; there's no argument I won't go for with the right defense (spare any offensive or inappropriate argument). I must admit, I'm not the biggest fan of dramatic and overblown framing arguments, but again, with the right defense and in the right context, it's not something I would never vote for. I prefer truth over tech.

I don't prefer topicality and/or theory, unless the argument is truly valid in the situation. I've seen the two often be used as more of a time suck than a true argument, and I'm fine with any other off case position being used in that manner. Please only run these arguments if the opponent's advocacy truly affects your ability to participate in the round.

I won't hesitate to vote against you or dock speaker points/rank if you make a blatant violation of debate rules/etiquette. It goes without saying that you should be respectful and professional with your opponents, but some people often forget that that respect extends into discourse during the round. I expect everyone to be truthful in the round, and that includes bringing up relevant and credible evidence as well as making sure that your partner follows up if you say "my partner will cover that in their speech."

In terms of speed, I can generally handle it as long as you slow down and be clear on your tag lines.

At the end of the day, Debate is just another high school activity. Respect your peers/opponents, act professionally (that includes being aware of when your audio/video are on), and have fun.

If you're going to be on an email chain, please include me. My email is aadityapore@gmail.com. Thank you.

PFD

I've got plenty of experience with PFD, so I consider myself tabula rasa. Run what you want, speak how you want, and I'll adjust. I will say though, I feel like PFD is the best place to improve and display an individual's speaking skills, regardless of what cards you've got in front of you. I prioritize clash and prefer that you use cards solely as an accompaniment to your speech. This is not Policy, and I don't want to hear what your author has to say. I want to hear what you have to say and how your cards support what you claim. If you're going to be on an email chain, please include me. My email is aadityapore@gmail.com. Thank you.

Hey yall!

⭐ I'm a former college policy debater (2 years) & 4 years in High School. Mill Valley HS Ast. Coach for 4 years.

⭐ You can throw anything at me argument-wise. Speed is fine as long as you are still articulate (a big influence in speaker points is clarity).

⭐ speech drop> email chain. email: hprins@usd232.org

⭐ I read evidence throughout the round, so know that I am paying attention to important warrants, and will only vote on something if there is evidence backing it and it's extended properly throughout the debate.

vramasamy2@gmail.com

Updated: 12/7/2023

Hi! My name is Vijay - I debated for 4 years at Blue Valley North in Varsity from 2011-2015 (debated in semis at CFL, elims at NFL). I judged in Baltimore from 2016-2017 but really haven’t judged since then other than a few tournaments here and there (none on this topic so far). I’m currently a policy advisor in the Kansas Governor's Office.

I will try my best to keep up with you but keep in mind that I’ve been out of debate for a while. My number one thing is for you to read what you feel comfortable with. Also, be nice, be nice, be nice. There aren’t any arguments I won’t vote on, but I am most familiar with DAs, CPs, and other policy arguments. That being said, as long as you explain your K or other types of arguments well, you do you.

In terms of speed, I will let you know if you need to be more clear or if I need you to slow down. Explain your arguments and don’t rush through analytics. There are no types of Affs I won’t vote on. I like strong case debates and in-depth interactions on evidence.

This is a painfully short paradigm so if you have questions, please ask. Have fun - debate changed my life and the most important thing is to enjoy yourself. Also - be nice, be nice, be nice.

For CFL PFD kiddos: First of all, congratulations on making it to CFL 2021! I hope you all enjoy the experience, and I'm sorry that we can't be doing this in person. Thank you for adapting to digital debate. My regular laptop died on me right before this tournament, so if I look like I'm having issues with tech I probably am, just keep moving on with the round as long as I'm still connected to the room. Listening and flowing your arguments will come before me fighting with the old brick I'm trying to judge off of. Next, I will always prioritize good clash in the round. This means the clarity and explanation of both your arguments and the sources you are citing matter to me, a lot. If that means slowing down the round to delve deeper into a really good argument, and skipping that last contention, so be it. The rounds are short anyways, so lets have in depth conversation about your topic(s), not a wide breadth of coverage on the resolution. Please be nice to each other, to the judges, and to yourself. No matter how lost in the round you get, keep pushing through it. Most of all, have fun! For some of you this will be your last nationals, some of you your first, but either way it should be a good experience. If you feel like it you can read through my regular season policy paradigm below.

TLDR: Policy maker, I won't vote against my own self interest, please put me on the email chain, and give good clash and good impact calc (and see bottom bolded section)

Graduated from Buhler High School in 2018. I competed in debate and forensics for all four years. I qualified to nationals (a mix of NSDA and CFL) 5 times: oration once, public forum four times. I judge semi-regularly (I try to pick up as many rounds as I can in a season, sometimes that's more than others). I've judged something like 10-12 tournaments this season thus far.

I tend to vote Policy Maker with a heavy emphasis on stock issues. However, if the role of the ballot is defined in round I will respect that.

I will be flowing. I will deal with speed in rounds but I would prefer lay speed. I just ask that if you are going to speed, make it worth it. The flow will be my utmost priority in judging the round (this includes role of the ballot arguments), so please don’t drop the flow. If you have an email chain I would love to be on it to follow along. allysonregehr@gmail.com

I will not vote against my self-interest. If your impact hurts me or my community it's a no go.

Explain your arguments and why they are important. Good debate stems from you being able to hold your ground and explain why what your saying both makes sense and is important.

Most of all debate is meant to be educational. If I feel like you are taking away from the educational factor of debate I will vote you down. There is no place to be rude, belittle, or demeaning in any way to your opponents, your judges, your teammates, etc in this round today.

I debated in HS a million years ago. So long ago, you should consider me a lay judge. I'm not impressed with technical talk, but you do need to follow the basic rules of debate. Affirmative: you need to make a prima facie case. Negative: you need to tell me why the Affirmative did not make its prima facie case.

Above all, Debate is an exercise in 2 things: communication and persuasion. Do both of those things. The side that wins will ultimately be the one that is the most effective at communicating and persuading me.

Turn off #1: Talking too fast. I can flow pretty fast. I went to college and took notes in class before laptops which means I took them BY HAND. If you see that I have stopped writing, that means you are talking too fast and I am not going to give myself a hand cramp trying to keep up

Turn Off #2: Please use all of your time for all speeches and all CX! It is your time! It is INSANE to not use all of it!

Turn Off #3: Racism, sexism, cursing, and unkindness. I am a mom. Do not come at me with any of this nonsense. I mean it.

Turn Off #4: Mispronouncing words. Read through your evidence. If you do not know how to pronounce a word, work that out before you say it in a round. It is easy to do, just show it to your parent or your coach and say "how do you pronounce this". Saying a word incorrectly tells me that you do not know your evidence very well. If you do not know your evidence, then you do not even understand your own argument so you can not expect me to either. Capeesh?

Aside from the above turn offs, you can not go wrong in my book. I am a mom through and through which means I look at all of you and think you hung the moon that very day. By merely getting up this morning and showing up for this debate makes you a superstar in my book. Have fun and good luck!

I did LD debate in high school in Oklahoma (Class of 2002). I've judged every debate and forensics event at numerous local, state, and national tournaments in Oklahoma and Texas as a contract judge. It has been several years since I last judged, and I have minimal experience judging in Kansas. I went to KU and KU Law, and I currently work in Lawrence, KS as a Policy Research Analyst for a nonprofit.

I always attempt to approach each debate as if I am hearing about the topic for the first time. In reality, though, there is no such thing as a true tab judge, so I will try to outline some of my preferences:

I believe it is your duty to craft explanations and arguments that would be persuasive to both a lay judge and an experienced debater. Debate, to my mind, should ultimately be an exercise in persuading an audience, whatever its composition.

I really appreciate good sign-posting and organization.

There is no line of argumentation that is completely off the table, so long as it is persuasively presented and defended in good faith. That being said, in policy debate I generally prefer straight-up debates that focus on the merits (or lack thereof) of plans. What I really want to see most is a meaningful exchange of ideas on an issue, not two sides talking past one another. Non-plan strategies (Ks, Theory, etc.) generally have a higher bar to clear with me, but if you are persuasive enough in your presentation and demonstrate a good faith reason for their use, they can be winners.

Topicality is an important burden for plans to meet, and I almost certainly won't move beyond it in my decision making if the burden isn't met. I think of topicality like I would standing in a legal case. Don't run abusive plans orthogonal to the topic if you want my ballot. That being said, I usually prefer the entire debate not to turn into a meta-debate over T. Again, I generally want to see good-faith debating with meaningful exchanges on the merits if possible.

I am okay with a certain level of speed - but I think clarity is a very important part of persuasion and it will be a factor in how I judge. I am probably more of a speech judge than your typical former debater. I do not like to call out "clear" because I believe the burden ought to be on the debater to be clear without any input from the judge.

I generally prefer quality to quantity. Good analysis > More Cards. I'm willing to allow for some dropped args - especially in the face of unpersuasive spreading.

The best debaters to my mind will be those who not only offer the best arguments, but also ultimately explain why they have won the debate in clear and precise language. The easier you make it for me to write my reason for decision, the more likely I probably am to do so in your favor.

I'm currently a Third Year law student. I debated for four years in high school. Did KDC and DCI but did Oration for national tournaments. I'm on my fourth year coaching for Blue Valley.

I'm not picky on the arguments you run I'll vote on whatever you win on the flow.

In electronic debate, I prefer people to be as efficient in transitions as possible to account for technical difficulties and so I usually count prep until teams have pressed send on their documents in exchanging speeches.

General Outlook

Hi there! The following information may or may not be helpful to you, the former is more likely if I am your judge.

When I was a debater, I did policy in the KDC/Open sphere all 4 years, plus Extemp, Congress, and Info when it was forensics time.

To a great extent, I prefer a policy-centered debate. No/unreasonably vague plan text? Wuh-oh. To me, debate is about whatever policy you're proposing is a good idea. Do you have qualified sources supporting your view? Do you impact a significant amount of people? I would like debates as much as possible to focus on impacts. Therefore, if either side wants to win, they must have offense.

Despite that, I will not ignore general conduct within the round. Politeness and Professionalism will always help you.

Things That Make Me Sad

New arguments in the 2NC. Don't. Please. I understand that in many cases it is a "strategy", but it is a very annoying one at best, and abusive at worst. I won't disqualify you for it, but if the Aff runs "no new in the 2" theory, I am more or less guaranteed to vote on it. That said, the one argument I am 100% fine with is T, provided that the Aff dodges a link from the 1NC with something to the effect of "we don't do enough to change that". It doesn't matter to me whether you lost ground because of the violation before or during the round, if the proof is there, go for it.

Any type of Federal Government caused circumvention/repeal. Fiat ensures that the plan happens and durable fiat ensures that it stays in place. We are debating about the effects of the plan, not if it would realistically happen. If it's simpler to think about it this way, I view myself (the judge) as a hypothetical combination of the President, the Supreme Court, and Congress. If I support the Aff, it happens.

Insisting that evidence transfer happen post-speech. I understand that, legally, you are correct. However, this generally means in my eyes that your evidence is poor and would falter under scrutiny.

"My partner will answer that in the next speech". Why? Knowing your arguments is perhaps the most reliable factor in winning a debate.

Abusive CX. Stop.

Things I Like But Do Not Vote On

Flair. Debate is a communication activity after all and speaking ranks are never an afterthought. This especially includes rhetorical questions. I appreciate a good riddle or two.

Specific Argument Stances

Topicality - T in my mind is all about fairness. Lit checks will protect the Aff if it's true. If the Neg really doesn't have anything, then it is a question of competing interpretations. What makes an interpretation good you ask? It needs to be clear (bright-line is a good standard) and it needs to be credible. Government definitions are almost always better.

Counterplans - Advantage counterplans are perfectly fine, but delay counterplans and conditions counterplans are cheating. Frankly, anything plan-inclusive is going to be a stretch.

Kritiks - I don't know the things about the things. However, if you can explain it, feel free to run one. If you don't understand, will I? Not a chance.

Theory - If you can convince me its important, anything is fine. However, the degree of importance is critical. Disclosure Theory? No. Real-world impacts are nice, but not always solid. Please don't say things that are obviously untrue.

Framework - What is framework? Honestly I don't know. Please tell me.

Last Updated: Winter 2021

Assistant Debate Coach for 10 years, 8 of those at Olathe Northwest

Debated at Olathe South – didn’t debate in college

Feel free to e-mail me at jskoglundonw@olatheschools.org with any additional questions!

Overall: I default policymaker and typically prefer debates in that style. Impact work is the way to win my ballot. In general, I believe that the affirmative should provide a resolution-based advocacy, and the negative should support whatever is advocated in the 2NR. Tech>truth, but obviously there’s a line there somewhere. Racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, etc. are unacceptable.

Speed: I can generally keep up with you as long as you slow down for tags / cites / theory (or other things where you want me to flow every word) and give me time between transition points. I’ll give you one “clear” before I stop flowing.

Topicality: I default to competing interpretations, but I’ll accept reasonability if it’s uncontested. For me, most T debates come down to the standards. Reading your “Limits Good” block against their “Limits Bad” block does nothing for me if you don’t actually engage in the debate happening with specificity.

General Theory: I don’t perceive myself to lean Aff or Neg on most theory arguments. Similarly to T, a good theory debate will include work on the standards that is not just embedded clash. If you feel that a theory arg is a reason to reject the team, I need more work than just literally that on my flow.

Framework: I prefer to flow framework on a separate sheet of paper as I want clear explanations / clash for why your framework is better than the other team’s.

Disadvantages / Impact Turns: I’ll listen to any DA, specific or not, though clearly a more specific link story will increase the probability of your argument. I will also listen to any impact scenario and will vote on terminal impacts. DAs / impact turns are generally strategic arguments to run in front of me as your judge.

Counterplans: If you don’t have a CP+DA combo in the 1NC, you’re probably making a strategic mistake in front of me as your judge. I’ll listen to any CP, but I like Advantage CPs in particular. I also enjoy a good perm debate, especially when Aff teams use creative perms.

Kritiks: I am open to hearing any Ks. That said, I'm not familiar with a ton of the lit base or terms of art, so please walk me through the story. While I’ve voted for them in the past, I think “reject the aff” or “do nothing” alts are not particularly persuasive. For me to vote for a K, you need to clearly articulate the alt and spend some time there.

Questions? Just ask!

Assistant Speech and Debate Coach for 11 years.

POLICY:

Please put me on the email chain: mark.skoglund AT gmail.com.

Overall: Tab, default policymaker and policy impact work is generally the most predictable path to my ballot. Tech over truth for the most part though there’s a line somewhere. I often take speech docs to check clipping but I try to not use speech docs for the decision unless there’s no other option. In general I am not a fan of embedded clash; do the work in the round.

Racist/sexist/transphobic/homophobic/ableist rhetoric will lose my ballot.

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I believe that enforcing disclosure with the ballot ends up favoring schools with resources against those without, rather than enforcing any sort of equal playing field. I also will not evaluate “which school has more resources” so I avoid voting on this argument entirely.

Speed: Fine with me, though I don’t judge as much as I used to so help me out on tags. Also if you speed through your theory block at the same rate as card text it’s not likely all going to end up on my flow.

Topicality: Default competing interps. I don’t think I have a particularly high threshold for T, though teams often do one of two things that are bad ideas:

1. Read a “precision bad” block against a “precision good” block and assume embedded clash.

2. Not focusing enough on which interp has better access to the standard and spending all the time on which standard is best.

Other Theory: I’m not likely to vote on blippy theory; do work if you want to win my ballot. Your strategy should not be to read 8 two-line theory arguments hoping the other team drops one.

Disads: I don't care if they're generic, but specific links assist in probability calculus.

Counterplans: If you’re not running a CP you’re probably making a strategic mistake with me. I lean Aff on delay CPs bad and to a lesser extent on consults bad, but I won’t do the work for you of course. I will not judge kick CPs unless clearly told to consider it by a team with justification, and the other team loses the debate re: the legitimacy of judge-kicking.

Kritiks: I’m fine with Ks, though you’ll be far more familiar with the lit base than I am, so help me out. In particular, if you’re going for the alt and I don’t understand what it is well enough, I can’t vote for it. “Reject the aff” is generally a weak alt unless it’s a discourse K or otherwise uniquely justified, but it wins often enough anyway.

Discourse/Reps Ks sidenote: I vote for discourse Ks fairly often when a team has said something exclusionary and do believe there is value in rejecting teams to correct that action in future. That said, there’s plenty of debate that can be had in this area.

***

Congressional Debate -

Experience: I have been coaching this event since 2007. My primary experience is with NSDA.

-Bigotry of any kind is not tolerated.

-Early foundational speeches can be just as important as later responsive speeches.

-When possible, direct clash is important. A late speech on legislation that does not cite/respond to anyone else is almost never very strong.

-When responding to/citing others, try to make it productive. An offhand mention just to prove you're following the debate is fine but doesn't do much to advance the debate forward; work in a response or distinguish someone else's point.

-If you are retreading ground someone else covered, you should clearly distinguish your analysis. Simply repeating past claims indicates someone is either not tracking the debate or is not well-researched and is penalized.

-Crystallization speeches are good when done well but you need to be adding value, typically at the impact weighing/framework level.

-Extending questioning periods is almost never productive (certainly not as productive as the speech we may have been able to have) and if the same competitor is repeatedly making that motion, the ranks may reflect that.

-Being a good, professional, and organized presiding officer is rewarded.

-I believe it is critically important for judges to consider whether a criticism would apply equally regardless of gender. For one obvious example, women are often penalized for the same focused aggression that men are rewarded for. The primary way to combat this is judges being conscious of implicit bias, and I try to ensure that I am fairly applying criticism.

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.

Hi, I’m Will Soper. He/him/his. Wsoper03@gmail.com.

I did NDT/CEDA debate for four years at the University of Kansas. I'm currently coaching for Blue Valley North. I worked with a lab at Michigan for a little while this summer and judged a lot of practice debates.

Grumpy stuff. Do not ask for a marked document. If the number of cards marked in a speech is excessive, I will ask for a marked document. Asking what cards were read is either CX time or prep time. Prompting needs to stop. Past the first time, I will not flow the things your partner prompts you to say. Send the email before you stop prep.

I dislike bad arguments. I think most debaters understand what these are: hidden aspec in the 1NC, reading paradoxes as solvency arguments, counterplans which assassinate anyone, etc. If your ideal negative strategy involves more nonsense than specific discussions of the affirmative, we probably don't think about debate the same way.

Presumption/Vagueness. I am willing to (and have) voted negative on vagueness and that the affirmative has not met its stock issues burdens. Similarly, if the negative is reading a CP with an internal net benefit and doesn't have evidence demonstrating that the inclusion of the plan prevents the net benefit, I am willing to vote on "perm do both" even if the aff doesn't have a deficit to the CP. I am willing to dismiss advantage CP planks which are overly vague or not describing a policy.

Evidence matters a lot. Debaters should strive to connect the claims and warrants they make to pieces of qualified evidence. If one team is reading qualified evidence on an issue and the other team is not, I'll almost certainly conclude the team reading evidence is correct. I care about author qualifications/funding/bias more than most judges and I'm willing to disregard evidence if a team raises valid criticisms of it.

Kritiks. The links are the most important part of the kritik. If I have a hard time explaining back exactly what bad thing the 1AC did or assumed, I will have a hard time voting for you. Here are some things to increase your win percentage in front of me if you're extending a kritik. 1. Make link arguments that are specific to the affirmative. If debaters spent even 5 minutes before the debate reading through the 1AC, identifying themes or premises that are kritik-able, and made those into link arguments, their win percentage in front of me would skyrocket. 2. Rehighlight aff evidence to make these arguments. 3. Tell me how your link arguments disprove the case or make affirmative advantages irrelevant. I cannot remember the last time an "ontology" argument was relevant to my decision.

Planless affs. I basically always vote for the team that slows down and starts comparing their impact to the other team's first. The more a team reads blocks into their computer, the less likely I am to vote for them. I am a poor judge for fairness/clash/debate bad.

Topicality against plans. I am more willing than other judges to take a "you know it when you see it" approach to topicality. Overly limiting interpretations that most affs at the tournament would violate are not very persuasive to me. For example, I have voted that adopting medicare for all is not Social Security. I have not, however, heard a compelling reason aff's can't deficit spend. I'm not immovable on either issue, but your debating should be as aff-specific as possible.

Things which will make your speaker points higher: exceptional clarity, numbering your arguments, good cross-x moments which make it into a speech, specific and well-researched strategies, developing and improving arguments over the course of a season, slowing down and making a connection with me to emphasize an important argument, not being a jerk to a team with much less skill/experience than you. I decide speaker points.

You're welcome to post-round or email me if you have questions or concerns about my decision.

Arguments I am a very good judge for (this is a continuously growing list):
The security K
Vagueness
Stock issues
"Permutation do both" against process CPs

Policy Maker - former high school debater 4 years. Current assistant coach.

I've judged a lot of rounds at various levels of competition. These stem from local tournaments to KDC to Nationals.

Your speed is your speed. If you go so fast no one can understand you then you should consider slowing down. I'll let you know if that's the case.

I'll listen to your generic D/A's but I won't give you the if you can't defend it. Get your impact calc out early, and use it throughout the debate.

T is not your best argument. However, it matters especially if the abuse is clearly defined.

K's are acceptable. Give me a realistic alternative that isn't "think different."

I'll default to the best policy every time. This means that either the SQUO, the CP, or the aff is where the vote will end up. Make that clear.

Please, PLEASE, don't make me place arguments for you.

Overview:

I enjoy a good debate. I dislike unnecessary rudeness (sometimes rudeness is called for) and I dislike lazy argumentation. Run whatever makes you feel comfortable and I’ll evaluate it in the context of the round to the best of my ability and not the context of my own personal preferences. Of course, removing all implicit bias is impossible but I encourage all forms of effective argumentation. As long as you are persuasive and educational, you’ve got a fair shot. That being said, I do enjoy a nice critical debate, just make sure you’re not lazy with it and clearly articulate the arguments. Otherwise, I love to see folks having a good time in a round. Don’t be so uptight! We gotta spend at least an hour with each other in a little room. If we’re not all relaxed it’s gonna be painful.

Arguments:

T- I never ran this so I don’t have much experience on the argument just like anything else flesh it out and articulate all areas like the definition, violation, voters etc. Overall, not something I default to reasonability unless you convince me otherwise.

DAs- Dope arguments, depending on how they’re framed can be super devastating or just ok.

CPs- Fine with me all the way.

K’s- Love ‘em but don’t be lazy just cuz you think you can win me over with one.

Condo- Up to the round, tell me what’s up and I’ll evaluate accordingly. However, if your strategy involves running a K and a traditional FW arg, then you're digging a deep hole for yourself.

Framework- I have a high threshold for a traditional FW argument. You really gotta go all in and be way better than your opponent to convince me that they should have stuck to traditional policy structure.

Experience: I debated for 4 years at Sumner Academy and have debated a few years at KCKCC. I believe that debate is a dope activity through which people can shape their own realities.

Please add me to the chain: oli.debate@gmail.com

I do my best to evaluate the round without intervening personal ideals. I enjoy how different arguments take different strategic developments and want to see you develop whatever argument you are best at because that will be the most fun for all of us. Speed is fine but slow down when you are trying to emphasize an issue or when debating theory/dense portions of the flow (proper signposting helps tons here). I wont follow you on the doc, I want them for reference but will attempt to decide with as little reading as possible. If I can't flow you then i will set my pen down and clearly not be flowing.

Be nice to each other.

- Do not waste time by running a Topicality or a Kritik merely for the sake of argument. Make sure it actually applies.

- Be sure to explain the real-world implications of the policies you are advocating for. Do not simply read cards.

- I strongly value Offense/Disadvantages and Solvency. However, nix the WW3 arguments. Come up with a better impact that is not far fetched.

- I am not opposed to Counterplans, but make sure you know the necessary components and are able to demonstrate them properly.

Cliff notes: I am a closeted K-Hack (meaning they aren’t my fav, but a well poised one is nice) posing as a policy maker. On that note, spreading for the purpose of outspreading the other team is no different than word vomit. I am okay with speed if args (and your tags) are EXTREMELY clear and well developed, I am not okay with speed when it is solely for out-reading the other team. Tell me where to flow, how to vote, and why it is important. If you’re going so fast I can’t flow, I won’t.

For Email chains: kutt@usd266.com, however, I prefer the tabroom created doc drops to keep rounds moving. It wastes so much time waiting for emails.

PSA: Preflow means you flow before you get into round. I should not have to wait to start the round because you need to flow your own case. Even in PFD. You should have several preflowed copies of your pro and con cases so you're prepared for either side.

Experience: I debated for four years and have coached for three years at Olathe South.

I view myself as a policy-maker, whoever leaves the world a better place is who I will vote for.

Topicality: I'm a big fan of topicality and think weighing whether or not the aff is a part of the resolution is a big part of the round. I believe the resolution was written to try and create the most educational environment for debaters and if cases fall outside of that I don't think the event is educational.

Counterplans: I'm fine with counterplans. I think they are an interesting way to test whether or not the aff is the best way to solve the issues they present.

K's: I'm fine with listening to K's as long as you actually understand what you are running. If you don't understand it, then I won't understand it. If I don't understand it, I don't vote for you.

Last of all, don't be rude. This event is about learning and discussing ways to change the world. Being mean has no place in that.

About me: I debated for 4 years at Mill Valley (2014-18) and I am now an assistant coach at Blue Valley West. I'm currently in my first year of OT school if that matters to anyone.

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

Top level:

*Pre-KSHSAA state update:* I have not judged a lot of debates on the water topic, but I would say I am pretty familiar with the core of the topic from coaching.

I will evaluate anything you read to the very best of my ability. I try my best to leave any biases at the door and make a fair decision no matter what. However, my background and most experience is in policy-oriented arguments and therefore I will be best judging those debates.

Tech > truth, but warrants of arguments should still always be extended and explained. Evidence quality is still important to me, but I won't make arguments for you based on the ev that weren't made in the round.

Please tell me how to evaluate arguments in rebuttals so that I am not left to figure it out myself. I always try to intervene as little as possible when making my decisions and only vote on arguments based on what was said in the round. I try not to read evidence when writing my RFD unless it was an extremely important card to the outcome of the round and/or I can't resolve the debate without reading it. If you want me to read a piece of evidence, tell me that in the 2NR/2AR.

Please be kind. Debate is hard; there's no reason to make it even harder for others.

Kritiks/K affs/FW

I don't have a lot of background knowledge in critical literature and therefore I will require more explanation of these arguments than some other judges. If I can't reasonably explain an argument myself or explain to a team in an RFD, I won't vote for it. This does not mean that I need to have a super high understanding of the literature or argument, but that you spent enough time on it in the debate for me to feel comfortable voting on it.

Literature I am more familiar with: security, neolib/cap, set col. Assume that I am unfamiliar with anything else. Please slow down on tags and analytics (especially important things like perms) and don't use buzzwords. Good line-by-line and impact comparison is very important to me in making my decision. Long overviews are not a good idea.

Ks on the neg: Explain clearly what the alt does and how it solves for the impacts you're claiming. I often find myself confused as to what I am voting for at the end of the round, so a robust explanation of the alternative will help you immensely. I don't think that links of omission are links and links that are very specific to the plan are most persuasive. I will let the affirmative weigh the case unless I'm given a convincing reason not to do so.

Framework vs. K affs:

I think that affirmatives should probably defend a plan, and if not, they should be grounded in the resolution in some way. I am usually pretty persuaded by the TVA if it's done well, so the aff needs to explain why the TVA can't access the same impacts as they can. Neg teams need actually engage the aff and do impact explanation and comparison vs. reading blocks without ever contextualizing it to the aff.

I am increasingly starting to think that fairness isn't a terminal impact but rather an internal link, but I can be persuaded otherwise. I think a lot of neg teams don't really explain why these impacts matter, they just say 'key to fairness,' 'key to clash,' etc. but miss the explanation of the implications of those impacts.

I am not a good judge for a K v. K debate.

Counterplans

The more aff-specific, the better. I will reward you/give more leeway on creative counterplans and ones with recut 1AC ev. They need to be competitive and should probably have a solvency advocate - if it doesn't have one I'll have a much lower threshold for voting aff on solvency deficits. I default to judge kick unless I am told otherwise.

Even though I think condo is generally good, I think it's definitely underutilized by aff teams, especially when neg teams read 3+ advocacies, kick planks, etc. I would say I generally lean neg-ish on most counterplan theory arguments if debated equally.

Topicality

I am not a fan of T on the water topic. I get sometimes it's the most strategic option, but just know it might be more of an uphill battle with me than other arguments would be.

Make the flow clean, explain your impacts, and be clear on what your interp includes and excludes and why that is a good thing. Case lists are a good idea on both sides.

I default to competing interps. I'm generally not a big fan of reasonability and think it's usually a waste of time unless you give convincing reasons as to why I should vote on it.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Good luck and have fun!