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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advice for Debaters:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overview: I competed for Western Kentucky University in NPDA/NPTE Parli and NFA LD until 2010.

Paradigm: I will default policy maker if a voting criteria is not established. Tell me where to vote and how to vote and it should be fairly simple. Furthermore, tell me where to flow your arguments. If you leave it up to me you might not agree with where I decide to flow it.

Speed: I enjoy a fast debate. Make sure your tags are clear and you understand the warrants of your evidence. If there is no change between your tags and card text I'm probably missing some critical arguments, which is bad for you. To me, speed can be a strategic decision that you should utilize as long as you understand how to do it effectively.

The K: Critical debates are fine and I enjoy them when the link is not generic and the framework is specified. I’ve voted on a number of critical/performance debates in the past and view them to be just as legitimate as traditional policy rounds. Understand your literature. If you can’t explain it well outside the evidence, then you shouldn’t be running it.

T: Love me a good T debate. In fact, I love a debate about debate. There are so many ways to run T and I feel like it’s often underutilized. You can (and should) do impact calculus on the standards line by line – otherwise what’s the point? That being said, I really dislike a bad T debate so I suppose run it wisely. I should also note that I don’t think the 2NR has to go all in on T to win the argument.

Miscellaneous:

Cross-X is your time to clarify positions and evidence. I don’t flow it and really don’t even listen to it. It’s not a time to make arguments. Ask your question, and make your argument during your speech time.

Theory: Yes. Use it. I flow it and have voted on it before. See above where I enjoy debates about debate. HOWEVER, tag lines are not arguments. “Perm: Do Both” is not an argument because there is no justification and explanation why it captures the net benefit while avoiding the DA. I also prefer to flow Framework on a separate sheet as it sets the stage for the ballot.

High School Debate/Forensics – Shawnee Heights (2014-2018)

College Policy Debate (NDT/CEDA) – Wichita State (2018-2022)

Previous Assistant Debate and Forensics Coach at W. East and W. Southeast

Current Head Debate/Forensics Coach at Wichita Southeast High School

Email: kaylab222@gmail.com

I like clean, organized, and well thought out debates that focus more on the depth of the arguments. I also value and reward teams that engage in high levels of clash and attack the warrants of the evidence. I am a policy centric judge, that has coached all types of debate styles. That being said, do what you are comfortable with. However, I am best in debates that revolve around some sort of policy or plan. The best way to win my ballot is doing clean line-by-line and explain why the weight of your arguments matter more than that of the opposing team.

When debating on the affirmative, what I look for is a team that can articulate a story about what the plan is, how the plan solves, and what the advantage of the plan is. I am noticing more and more in debate rounds that teams are not extending each part of the AFF, with explanations of all the moving parts. Even if the neg does not respond to a part of the aff, your job as the aff is to still extend that argument if you want to keep it viable.

If you are going to read topicality, there are a few things to consider. First, I am a judge that is a sucker for in round abuse. Even if you have to bait them into giving you the link on your ground/limit’s arguments, it is something that I am willing to vote on.

I love a good CP/Net Ben/DA Debate. This is the debate I am probably the most comfortable in, and the best judge for. The only thing I ask for in this type of debate is for the negative to explain how the CP solves the link on the DA/Net Ben, I am not going to be this gracious and do the work for you.

I don’t have a preference on whether teams go for theory or topicality. The biggest thing I look for in these types of debates are 3 things: 1. Proven in-round abuse, I don’t really care for the hypotheticals of “well this could happen” I want to know why the other team violated the rules so egregiously that it made this debate impossible for you to win. 2. Voters, this is something that is being overlooked and I am not sure why. Tell me how and why I should evaluate this argument in the context of the debate. 3. On topicality, I am more apt to vote for T if there is some version of a TVA – especially if you make an argument as to how the tva solves the advantages.

I don’t have much thought on K Debate, well-articulated links and solvency is what I look for in a K debate. I am not the most familiar with K literature, so please make sure to articulate any complex components of solvency or any buzz words.

Other niche thoughts, be nice to people, don’t steal prep, please signpost, analytics is not a part of a roadmap (what are the analytics about?), and have fun.

Questions? Ask me before the round.

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.

inactive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other things to know

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

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

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

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

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

Paradigm Last Updated – Summer 2023

Coach @ Shawnee Mission South and the University of Kansas.

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

TLDR:

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

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

General:

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

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

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

___________________________________________________________________

Truth over Tech -OR- Tech over Truth

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

Framework

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

Performance + K Affirmatives

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

Kritiks

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

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

Goodluck and have fun!

I debated in high school and college (University of Kansas). I coached high school debate for 8 years and have judged regularly since going back to graduate school. Currently I am a retired university professor of communication studies. I am a co-author of Mastering Competitive Debate and have written many articles about debate. My paradigm is that I will judge whatever you offer me. I can flow most anything, but I really don't like out of control speed with spitting, yelling, and indecipherable words. Debate is a communication activity and there should still be some of that involved and in no other setting would that type of behavior be appropriate (ask my husband who was a trial and appeals court judge for 30+ years and a former HS and college debater). I tend to be more negative-oriented in my judging the past few years and that is not because I naturally favor the negative but because I have heard very few really solid affirmative cases. As a debater and a coach, aff was really my strength (coached the only undefeated aff in 6A 4-person at State the year we won it. So, affirmatives make sure your evidence says what you claim it says, that you have causality and significant advantages. Negatives (and affirmatives) I don't believe you need a piece of evidence on every point of a case if you dismantle the affirmative's evidence and logic. I could say more, but basically make good arguments, support them with evidence and logic and select the voting issues in rebuttals.

Policy Maker Paradigm that also takes T into account. Small town KS former debater and coach, neg arguments I like are DA, CP, T, and solvency. I'll follow anything on the aff side, but if you have a Kritikal Aff you better know how to run it. I expect Impact Calc at the end of the round to pick up the win.

I will fairly evaluate every argument in the round, but I will disregard theory, K, and T arguments if you don't know how to run them.

I debated in high school at Dodge City High from 2000-2004. I prefer moderate to slow rounds with lots of analysis and argument development. I grew up on stock issues debate but lean toward policy making at this point.

Experience: Head coach for 8 years at Wichita Northwest. Assistant coach for 3 years at Topeka High. Debated 4 years in high school. I have judged at nationals in debate/speech events 15+ years.

Speed: Okay with moderate to quick pace. Spreading okay on evidence BUT, I prefer slower and more deliberate pace with analysis.

Paradigm: I default to policymaker. Please tell me how YOU would like me to weigh the round.

Positions: I evaluate Topicality roughly on par with other issues in the round. I am fine with generic DA's as long as the links are explained clearly. CP’s and K’s are acceptable as long as text/links are well explained and maintain competition in the round. I evaluate the round pretty evenly between argumentation and communication skills. You have to have both the winning arguments and the ability to communicate them clearly and persuasively.

Novice Rounds: If this is a novice round, I expect to hear case debate and explanations. Please do more than read evidence. Explain what you are reading, what it relates to in the round, and how it advances your position. You should avoid arguing a disadvantage/counterplan/K if you have never read it before or haven't at least talked to your coach about what it means. Overall, I want to see clash and a debate about substantive issues rather than about how the other side debated. Focus on the arguments not on the opponents themselves.

Tabula Rasa but I'll default policy maker, if I dont have context or why I should vote on something I'm not going to vote on it. That being said I'm ok with most arguments (T, Ks, CPs, etc.) but if it has to be able to make sense. If I can't understand whats being run I can't vote on it, always summarize.

For Counterplans if its not necessary and competitive don't run it. If a debate comes down to evaluating the pros of two plans I'll vote aff.

Line by line, signpost and fully respond to arguments; a well covered point is more effective than a sweeping generalization. I'll vote on generics but you have to prove to me why I should.

Email: bcunningham7373@gmail.com

In addition to doing debate all four years in high school, I'm currently on my fourth year of coaching it. I'm open to anything really, especially if you're able to articulate your points well. That being said, I'm not fantastic with K's. I'm not saying you can't run them, just do so at your own peril. It is greatly appreciated if you explain them. As for speed, you can go fast so long as your clear (especially if I have access to your evidence).

I'm a big fan of T and on case, but like I said, open to anything. I'll also pay close attention to any framing arguments made. I vote on stock issues, that includes things like T and Inherency. A more skilled, more eloquent aff team will lose if they drop or neglect something like that.

Above all else, I love good clash and a friendly, educational debate.

Don't be a jerk (I used to have a different word here, but tabroom has since smited me for my hubris), I will vote you down on it.

hey yall

blm she/her

i coach debate at sms, i'm three years out tho as in i did not debate in college (i mostly coach forensics) went to jdi twice, competed on the state and regional level. junior at ku studying strategic communications, english with a minor in peace and conflict studies. work in politics on congressional and state senatorial campaigns- i consider myself versed on the topic/res.

im tired and have no shame left, don't make me correct your prejudice on the ballot.

but anyways,

speed: im cool fast or slow, did both in high school, respect both kinds of debate. imma say this though, i don't actively think about or practice debate anymore so overestimate me at your own risk. no ones gonna be offended if you slow it down a bit.

conditionality is good

t: typically i defer competing interps. i don't think that critical affs need to have tangible solvency advocates to be considered important and educational debates. but i am also sympathetic to framework debates and edu args as well

disads: they are great, i like case specific link evidence.

k: i feel comfortable evaluating the k, i have voted for alt and no alt critical positions but have also voted against them. i think reps are important and i don't think criticisms are material that should be used only for the purpose of offense. they are important for thought disruption, but idonlike when people pretend that they care about "real world impacts" and lie.

cp: you take youre own risk with this, i honestly never went for counter plans in high school and i understand them at a very remedial level. that being said i am always going to try my best to evaluate the debate to the best of my abilities.

i like critical affs and the res, either way

i have voted on presumption before and would prolly do it again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

email chain: ethan.eitutis@gmail.com

>>If you're not flowing, I'm not flowing.<<

I debated for 4 years for Cindy Burgett at Washburn Rural High School where I graduated in 2017. I coached for Annie Goodson at Blue Valley West for 4 years. I went to KU, studied Political Science, and graduated in 2022.

I will not do any work for you.

You can read fast but don't go 100%. I need to be able to understand your tags and analytical arguments, especially during online debates. I'd much rather you make 3 good, thought out, real arguments than 6 garbage ones. Getting through your T shell in 2.8 seconds is cool I guess but I won't be able to flow it.

If you're not flowing, I'm not flowing.

Extending claims without warrants is not making an argument.

I am familiar with Cap, Security, Abolition, and some SetCol. I'll gladly listen to whatever K you read, but for ones outside of those 4 I will probably just need some explanation.

Stop reading 8 minutes of bad arguments in the 1nc hoping that the 2ac will undercover one and you'll win that way. That's bad for debate and horrible to listen to. I wish aff teams would make args about this in the debate. If your arg is that pqd stops nuisance lawsuits about naval sonar, and naval sonar kills horseshoe crabs which are key to the survival of the human race, perhaps you should lose. Stop it

((I'm not saying affs should make speed bad or condo args, I'm saying affs should make args that pqd -> sonar -> horseshoe crabs -> human extinction is bad for debate))

If you're not flowing, I'm not flowing.

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

Email: benlengle@gmail.com

For LD thoughts look to the bottom of the paradigm.

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

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

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

TLDR

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

Theory

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

DAs

They're great. Evidence comparison is important.

CPs

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

Case

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

T

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

Ks vs Policy Affs

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

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

T vs Non-traditional Affs

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

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

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

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

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

Method vs Method

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

Here are some miscellaneous tips:

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

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

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

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

LD Paradigm

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

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

Debated through high school and for one year at the University of Kansas.

I would say that I'm a hybrid stock issues/policy maker but with a strong policy-maker lean. However, I'm also there to arbitrate your arguments, so if you want me to apply another paradigm, as long as you can cogently argue it and convince me why I should change, I'm flexible and willing to change for the round.

I will accept the K, provided you capably understand it and can demonstrate that understanding to me and translate your understanding to a compelling rationale for voting for it. I tend to flow Kritikal arguments similarly to disads. Seriously. Spoon feed me the K and I will happily vote on it, but you should assume my understanding is, um, "not advanced." Here is where I blatantly steal a line from the paradigm of Jeff Plinsky: My policy maker lens is difficult for me to put down here, so you had better be able to tell me how your advocacy can actually solve something. In a K v K debate, this still applies - you need to prove you actually solve something.

I will accept generic disads, but try to have them link. Specific disads are always better and with what seems like functionally all affs available via wiki, there's no reason not to do the research to find a specific link. In evaluating disads, my natural inclination (which you can overcome) is to prefer realistic impacts even if they are small, to enormous but highly attenuated impacts such as multiple extinction events/cannibalism/nuke wars/etc. I don't like to count who has the highest number of nuclear exchanges at the end of the round, but if I have to, I will.

I am a dinosaur and, as such, value topicality. I will almost certainly not make topicality a "reverse voter" and give the aff a win if the only thing they've accomplished is to beat neg's T arguments. However, I will vote neg on T only, assuming neg wins it. In line with my feelings on T, before you run a PIC, ask if the aff is topical. Please note: I am not telling negative teams that I want them to run topicality. That is your decision. I am just telling you that I will vote on it if you win it.

Speed is fine and I can usually follow and flow very fast debaters. If I am holding a pen, even if I'm not writing at any given moment, I am following you. If I have put down my pen, it means you've lost me and should probably back up or make some other effort to get me back. I greatly prefer closed cross; my view is that you should be able to spend three minutes defending the speech you just delivered. While speed is fine, in my position as a dinosaur, I still value rhetoric and persuasion. If you're a compelling speaker, let that shine. Group the other side's arguments and go slower and compel me to vote for you.

Again indulging my prerogative: I not only accept, I encourage new in the two. It's called a "constructive" speech for a reason. Go ahead and construct. Similarly, I will accept add-on advantages from the aff and internally inconsistent arguments from the neg as long as they have kicked out of whatever makes them inconsistent and still allows the affirmative a chance to respond by the end of the round. Do not abuse this. If I think that you're purposely spreading them with inconsistent arguments just to force them into a time suck and not running the argument in good faith, I will not be happy about it and you will bear the consequences of my unhappiness. For example: I once watched a team run the thinnest of topicality shells in the 1NC. They basically did little more than say "topicality" and read one definition and that was it. No voters, no standards, no warrants. That forced the aff to answer in the 2AC and left the neg in a position to have forced the timesuck or blow up topicality in the 2NC. That, to me, was faithless argumentation by the neg. Don't do that.

As befitting a Gen X'er, I value courtesy and think you can absolutely hammer someone and not be a d**k about it. Play nice. Being a jerk probably won't earn you the loss, but I will punish you on speaks if your conduct warrants it. This is intended to be a very strong warning against racism, ableism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia. Engaging in those things will get you an L even if you might have otherwise won the round. My politics lean left, but I consciously try to monitor and check my biases. If your best argument is something that I would not support in real life, you can run it and know that I will make every effort to fairly consider the argument, the way you argue it and its merits in the debate.

On vagueness and topicality: I have noticed a trend where the aff's plan text is essentially the text of the resolution but with a specific "whatever" (country, program, etc.,) stated within the "plan." This is not a plan. It is vague and if the aff is not willing to specify what they are or are not doing/curtailing/removing/adding/replacing, then I will absolutely be open to the argument that they are unfairly claiming and denying territory necessary to allow a fair debate. I won't vote on this if no one brings it up, but I think it's fair to expect an affirmative case to actually specify what it will do. Edited to add: I REALLY MEAN THIS ONE. I find it very frustrating when an aff not only doesn't say in the 1AC what it is exactly that they're doing, but then refuse to answer (or not know the answer) when asked about it on cross. Affs should not do this and negs should beat the snot out of any aff that tries this.

Thoughts on the email chain: I do not want to be on it. This is still a verbal activity. If you say something clearly and intelligibly enough for me to hear it, I will hear it and flow it. From time to time I might ask you (during prep, for example) to give me your tag or the name of the person cited. But if you say something so unintelligible that I can't understand it, I won't credit you for having said it and the fact that it might be on the email chain isn't going to change my mind. I might ask you to show me a card or cards at the end of the round so that I can make sure it says what I think it says or what you say it says. But I don't like the notion of crediting a verbal statement because I read it in an email.

Bottom line: I'm the arbiter of your arguments. While the above is a statement of my preferences, I'm more than happy to judge a debate outside those boundaries and you should feel free to argue your best stuff if I'm your only judge. If you find me on your panel, you should consider going for the other judges as I consider myself to be highly adaptable and can judge a round geared for lay judges and I can also judge one geared to impress college judges.

Thank you for allowing me the privilege of watching and judging your debate.

Shawnee Mission East

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!

I have worked with the SM East Debate program for 3 years. You may run any arguments that you want. Be prepared to explain if reading multiple cards. Read at the speed you are comfortable with.

Name: Andrew Halverson

School: Currently, I am not actively coaching, but in recent years I was the Assistant Director of Speech & Debate at Kapaun Mount Carmel High School & Wichita East High School (Wichita, KS). I have moved to work in the real world full-time, but I still keep involved with debate as a Board Member of a local non-profit that promotes debate in the Wichita area - Ad Astra Debate.

Experience: 20+ years. As a competitor, 4 years in high school and 3 years in college @ Fort Hays and Wichita State in the mid-late 90's and early 2000's.

Up to March, I have judged 88 rounds this season - mostly LD and Policy. I only have judged PF at the UK Opener.

**ONLINE DEBATING ADDENDUM - updated 3/4/2022**

In my experience, most tournaments are more than gracious with their prep and tech time leading up the start of a round. Please make sure that all of your tech stuff is sorted before beginning AND that you use pre-round prep for disclosure as well. I'm pretty chill about most things, but these two things are my biggest online debating pet peeves.

ALL Online tournament have pre-round tech time built in. Please be in the room for it. It doesn't take long. If it's something that's no fault of your own that is preventing you from tech time, fair. However, if one of the members of your team isn't in the room during pre-round tech time, it's a 0.5-1 speaker point deduction.

Public Forum Section - Updated as of 3/1/2022

As an FYI, I've coached PFD, but by and large, I'm a Policy and Congress coach. If there is anything that isn't answered in this short section, I advise that you take a look the Policy section of my paradigm or ask questions.

I'm going to assume that I don't know the in and outs of your current topic. Please make sure that you explain concepts that I might not know. I've coached a lot of different debate topics over the years. I know a lot, but I don't know everything.

The typical PF norms for evidence/speech docs sharing are terrible. You must put your evidence/speech docs in the Speech Drop, email chain, or whatever BEFORE your speech starts. Don't do it after your speech or in the chat. Also, don't just put a cite in the chat and tell someone to CTRL+F what they are looking for. This is non-negotiable. Other PFD norms, I'm honestly unfamiliar with. I assume there is disclosure and other things, but I don't know for sure.

I'm probably going to evaluate most debates like I would a Policy debate - without all of the mumbo-jumbo that is usually associated with that activity. In brief, that will probably be an offense/defense paradigm with a heavy dose of policymaking sprinkled in. I like good, smart arguments. Make them and clash with your opponents and you will be at a good place at the end of the day.

Policy/LD Debate Section - Changed as of 6/30/2022

++Since most LD has a policy tilt nowadays, this is a pretty accurate representation on how I would view an LD round. Actual value debate and my thoughts on RVI's, you probably should ask me.

++I do want to add something about the penchant to go for RVI's and other random theory cheap shots in front of me in LD. Just saying something is an RVI or that you get one isn't an argument - it's just describing a thing that you might get access to as an argument. There has to be a reason behind your theory gripe or whatever it is. FYI, usually I have a high threshold for voting on these arguments - unless it's a complete drop (which it won't be the case all of the time). Refer to where I talk about blippy theory debates down below if you want any other insight.

This is the first time in a long time that I have engaged in rewriting my judging paradigm. I thought it was warranted – given that debates and performances will be all done virtually in the immediate future. My last iteration of one of these might have been too long, so I will attempt to be as brief as possible.

Some non-negotiables:

**If you send a PDF as a speech doc, I instantly start docking speaker points. Send a Google doc or nearly anything else but no PDFs.

**I want to be on the email chain (halverson.andrew [at] gmail.com). Don’t send your speech doc after your speech. Do it before (unless there are extra cards read, etc.). There are a few reasons I would like this to happen: a) I'm checking as you are going along if you are clipping; b) since I am reading along, I'm making note of what is said in your evidence to see if it becomes an issue in the debate OR a part of my decision – most tournaments put a heavy premium on quick decisions, so having that to look at before just makes the trains run on-time and that makes the powers that be happy; c) because I'm checking your scholarship, it allows for me to make more specific comments about your evidence and how you are deploying it within a particular debate. If you refuse to email or flash before your speech for me, there will probably be consequences in terms of speaker points and anything else I determine to be relevant - since I'm the ultimate arbiter of my ballot in the debate which I'm judging.

**Send your analytics as much as possible. This platform for debate can sometimes be problematic with technical issues that can or can’t be controlled. I’ve judged some debate where the 2nc is in the middle of giving their speech and then their feed becomes frozen. Of course, we pause the debate until we can resolve the technical issues, but it’s helpful for everyone involved to have a doc to know where the debate stopped so we can pick up at that point once we resume.

**Don’t go super-duper, mega, ultra full speed (unless you are crystal bell clear). Slowing down a bit in this format is more beneficial to you and everyone else involved.

**For all of those Kansas traditional teams, yes to a off-time road map. Don’t make it harder than it needs to be.

**Be nice & have fun. If you don’t be nice, then you probably won’t like how I remedy if you aren’t nice. Racist and sexist language/behavior will not be tolerated. Debate is supposed to be a space where we get to get to test ideas in a safe environment.

**Stealing prep time. Don’t do it. After you send out the doc, you should have an idea of a speech order and be getting set to speak. Don't be super unorganized and take another 2-3 minutes to just stand up there getting stuff together. I don't mind taking a bit to get yourself together, but I find that debaters are abusing that now. When I judge by myself, I'm usually laid back about using the restroom, but I strongly suggest that you consider the other people in a paneled debate - not doing things like stopping prep and then going to the bathroom before you start to speak. I get emergencies, but this practice is really shady. Bottom-line: if you're stealing prep, I'll call you on it out loud and start the timer.

**Disclosure is something I can't stand when it's done wrong. If proper disclosure doesn't happen before a round, I'm way more likely to vote on a disclosure argument in this setting. If you have questions about my views on disclosure, please ask them before the debate occurs - so you know where you stand. Otherwise, I can easily vote on a disclosure argument. This whole “gotcha” thing with arguments that you have already read is so dumb.

**New in the 2nc is bad. What I mean by that is whole new DA's read - old school style - in the 2nc does not foster good debate OR only read off-case in the 1nc and then decide to read all new case arguments in the 2nc. I'm willing to listen to theory arguments on the matter (and have probably become way more AFF leaning on the theory justification of why new in the 2nc is bad), BUT they have to be impacted out. However, that's not the best answer to a NEG attempting this strategy. The best answer is for the 1ar to quickly straight turn whatever that argument is and then move on. Debaters that straight turn will be rewarded. Debaters that do new in the 2nc will either lose because of a theory argument or have their speaks tanked by me.

Now that’s out of the way, here are some insights on how I evaluate debates:

**What kind of argument and general preferences do I have? I will listen to everything and anything from either side of the debate. You can be a critical team or a straight-up team. It doesn’t matter to me. An argument is an argument. Answering arguments with good arguments is probably a good idea, if the competitive aspect of policy debate is important to you at all. If you need some examples: Wipeout? Sure, did it myself. Affirmatives without a plan? Did that too. Spark? You bet. Specific links are great, obviously. Of course, I prefer offense over defense too. I don’t believe that tabula rasa exists, but I do try to not have preconceived notions about arguments. Yet we all know this isn’t possible. If I ultimately have to do so, I will default to policymaker to make my decision easier for me.

**Don't debate off a script. Yes, blocks are nice. I like when debaters have blocks. They make answering arguments easier. HOWEVER, if you just read off your script going for whatever argument, I'm not going to be happy. Typically, this style of debate involves some clash and large portions of just being unresponsive to the other team's claims. More than likely, you are reading some prepared oration at a million miles per hour and expect me to write down every word. Guess what? I can't. In fact, there is not a judge in the world that can accomplish that feat. So use blocks, but be responsive to what's going on in the debate.

**Blippy theory debates really irk me. To paraphrase Mike Harris: if you are going as fast as possible on a theory debate at the end of a page and then start the next page with more theory, I'm going to inevitably miss some of it. Whether I flow on paper or on my computer, it takes a second for me to switch pages and get to the place you want me to be on the flow. Slow down a little bit when you want to go for theory - especially if you think it can be a round-winner. I promise you it'll be worth it for you in the end.

**I’m a decent flow, but I wouldn’t go completely crazy. That being said, I’m one of those critics (and I was the same way as a debater) that will attempt to write down almost everything you say as long as you make a valiant attempt to be clear. Super long overviews that aren't flowable make no sense to me. In other words, make what you say translate into what you want me to write down. I will not say or yell if you aren’t clear. You probably can figure it out – from my non-verbals – if you aren’t clear and if I’m not getting it. I will not say/yell "clear" and the debate will most definitely be impacted adversely for you. If I don’t “get it,” it’s probably your job to articulate/explain it to me.

**I want to make this abundantly clear. I won't do work for you unless the debate is completely messed up and I have to do some things to clean up the debate and write a ballot. So, if you drop a Perm, but have answers elsewhere that would answer it, unless you have made that cross-application I won't apply that for you. The debater answering said Perm needs to make the cross-application/answer(s) on their own.

Contact me if you have any questions. Hope this finds you well and healthy - have a great season!!

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

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

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

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

Please be organized, signpost, provide roadmaps, etc.

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

Disclosure is good

Cut cards ethically

Don't clip (I pay attention)

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

TLDR; I’m a policy maker fLAY judge

If you have any specific questions let me know!

I lean towards the stock issues paradigm (Topicality, Significance of Harm, Inherency, Solvency, Advantage over Disadvantage)

General Experience: Over 15 years of experience in the Debate & Forensics community (competing, judging, and coaching).

Policy Debate: Tabula rasa with policy roots. Negative conditionality good; love counter-plans. Open to K's and K Affs.

they/them

please add me to chain - jamdebate@gmail.com

important stuff not directly related to my opinions about debate:

ceda update:

this is my first year judging college debate and kentucky is the only tournament i've judged at. i have not done any topic research for nukes. i've been out of college debate for a few years, but have been consistently coaching and judging high school debate. i am pretty experienced coaching/judging most different types of arguments, but for the past three years have mostly coached teams going for critical arguments. i used to primarily judge policy debates, but now primarily judge clash and kvk debates

please be honest with yourself about how fast you are going. i need pen time! i don't need you to go dramatically slower than you normally would, but please do not drone monotonously through your blocks as if they are card text or i will likely miss some arguments.

if debating online: go slower than usual, especially on theory

how i decide stuff:

i try my best to decide debates strictly based on what is on my flow. i generally try to intervene as little as possible, but i am not a judge that thinks that any argument is true until disproven in the debate. as much as some consider themselves "flow purists," i think every judge agrees with this to a degree. for example, "genocide good" or "transphobia good" etc. are obviously reprehensible arguments that are harmful to include in debate and i won't entertain. that being the case, i have kind of a hard time distinguishing those "obvious" examples from more commonly accepted ones that are, to me, just as harmful, like first strike counterplans, interventions good, etc. i’m disappointed i have to add this to my paradigm, but i will not vote on “the police are good” or "israel is good"

despite how the above paragraph might be interpreted, i frequently vote for arguments i don't like, including arguments i think are harmful for debate. at the end of the day, unless something i think drastically requires my intervention, i will try to judge the debate as objectively as i can based on my flow

by default i will vote for the team with the most resolved offense. a complete argument is required to generate offense, so i won't vote for an incomplete argument (e.g. "they dropped x" still needs a proper extension of x with a warrant for why it's true). judge instruction is very important for me. if there is an issue in the debate with little guidance from the debaters on how to resolve it, don't be surprised if there is some degree of intervention so i can resolve it. i will also not vote for an argument that i cannot explain

opinions on specific things:

i am willing to vote on arguments about something that happened outside of the debate, but need those arguments to be backed up with evidence/receipts. this is not because i don't/won't believe you otherwise, but because i don't want to be in the position of having to resolve a debate over something impossible for me to substantiate. i know it’s somewhat arbitrary, but it seems like the least arbitrary way for me to approach these debates without writing them off entirely, which is an approach i strongly disagree with. however, if someone i trust tells me that you are a predator or that you knowingly associate with one, i will not vote for you under any circumstances.

plan texts: if yours is written poorly or intentionally vaguely, i will likely be sympathetic to neg arguments about how to interpret what it means/does. neg teams should press this issue more often

planless affs: i enjoy judging debates where the aff does not read a plan. idc if the aff does not "fiat" something as long as it is made clear to me how to resolve the aff's offense. i am very willing to vote on presumption in these debates and i yearn for more case debating

t-usfg/fw: not my favorite debates. voting record in these debates is starting to lean more and more aff, often because the neg does a poor job of convincing me that my ballot cannot resolve the aff's offense and aff teams are getting better at generating uniqueness. i am less interested in descriptive arguments about what debateis (for example, "debate is a game") and more interested in arguments about what debate ought to be. the answer to that can still be "a game" but can just as likely be something else.

k thoughts: not very good for euro pomo stuff (deleuze, bataille, etc) but good for anything else. big fan of the cap k when it's done well (extremely rare), even bigger hater of the cap k when it's done poorly (almost every cap k ever). if reading args about queerness or transness, avoid racism. i don't mind link ev being somewhat generic if it's applied well. obviously the more specific the better, but don't be that worried if you don't have something crazy specific. i think "links of omission" can be persuasive sources of offense. for the aff, saying the text of a perm without explaining how it ameliorates links does not an argument make

theory: please make sure you're giving me pen time here. i am probably more likely than most to vote on theory arguments, but they are almost always a reason to reject the arg and not the team (obvi does not apply to condo). that being said, you need a warrant for "reject the arg not the team" rather than just saying that statement. not weirdly ideological about condo (i will vote on it)

counterplans/competition: a perm text without an explanation of how it disproves the competitiveness of the counterplan is not a complete argument. by default, i will judge kick the cp if the neg loses it and evaluate the squo as well. aff, if you don't want me to do that, tell me not to

lastly, i try to watch for clipping. if you clip, it's an auto-loss. the other team does not have to call you out on it, but i am much more comfortable voting against a team for clipping if the issue is raised by the other team with evidence provided. if i clear you multiple times and the card text you're reading is still incomprehensible, that's clipping. ethics challenges should be avoided at all costs, but if genuine academic misconduct occurs in a debate i will approach the issue seriously and carefully

avoid saying slurs you shouldn't be saying or you'll automatically lose

Hello, this is me, your Judge. Koalten

email: koalten.hornback@gmail.com

Debate Experience:

- Debated competitively 4 years at Nickerson High School

-2 years of debate coaching at Hutchinson High School

TL;DR: I'm a tabula rasa judge who defaults to policy-making when there are no framing arguments made. Good ol' fashioned policy is what I like to see, but I'll roll with anything.

Delivery:

I can keep up with about anything. However, my biggest thing is that clarity is more important than speed. Debate is supposed to be an activity that is accessible to everyone, and spreading cuts down the potential audience of a round. Communicate in a way to educate, not just to win. If you do choose speed, be able to justify it if the other team argues against it knowing my preference. Something that is rarely discussed is the skills policy debate teaches you that you can bring to other aspects of your life, and I have yet to be convinced that reading super fast off of prepared evidence is something you can apply to other areas of your life.

2020 Update: obviously I'll be super understanding with the stuff over virtual, don't worry about this so much, just make sure that I can actually tell what you're saying over zoom and don't rely on an email chain with me

Kritiks:

If you choose to do it, do it well. Be succinct with the alternative and tell me why I should be voting for the alternative over the case. Links need to be specific here. Impact debate is a great way to win me over. I know most of the common K's, but still explain the theory of what you're kritiking and how the alternative will help fix the status quo. BTW I don't buy the "reject the affirmative" alternatives and don't debate the role of the ballot, it's just a way to record data and we assign too much meaning to it. Perms usually get sloppy so make sure to explain what a perm would actually look like in the real world.

CP's:

Go for it, but don't turn it into a theory debate unless there's clearly been some sort of detrimental harm to education. See above on perms too.

Case and Disads:

This is the stuff that I really love to see. Attack case all day long and tell me why they fail. Run DA's and see if they stick. Generic disads are fine - it's the affirmative's job to uphold the resolution and if they can't kill a DA that links to the resolution, they fail to uphold it. I love a good old fashioned policy debate, and I think the educational value in preparing for a case debate is really quite valuable.

Topicality:

I like a smart T argument, especially those that use contextual evidence. I'm open to just about anything on T.

Decision Making:

I'm pretty open when it comes to framing the round and I think that it's a great debate to be had. Having said that, if framing is just not touched on at all, I'll resort to a policy-making paradigm, and weigh the impacts of the plan vs the impacts of the DA's (touching on impact calc would do well for you here if you don't argue for a different framing method).

History: for some reason, a tabroom glitch doesn't display to you my full judging history to you, but rest assured, I have voted almost exactly 50/50 this entire year and past years.

Education:

I am a Wichita State University student with a Bachelors's in English and a minor in Criminal Justice. Currently enrolling in a Fort Hayes State University Master's program for Education.

I'm a former high school Lincoln-Douglas debater who graduated in 2018 after competing in Illinois. It is my firm belief that any LD round comes down to winning two things, the framework debate and the impact debate. As such, I would like to hear frameworks fully fleshed out and explored as well as here why I should select it for the round. All impacts, contentions, linkage depends on which framework wins, and following that which debater's impacts are the most convincing in achieving that framework for the round. I will not listen to arguments if they are spread. Outside of that, any line of argumentation works for me. Good Luck!

andie.keck@gmail.com

Policy maker, not a fan of topicality, not impressed by rudeness in cross-ex, explain your arguments, moderate speed is preferred

Shawnee Mission East Debate & Forensics Coach (2 Years)

Shawnee Mission East Forensics Team (2017-2019)

NSDA DUO Semifinalist (2019)

NCFL DUO Semi, quarterfinalist (2018, 2019)

Racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic rhetoric will not be tolerated at all.

Jan 2024 Update:

Extend your arguments. Extend your arguments. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS! (THIS IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT FOR ME THAN WHAT TYPE OF ARGUMENT YOU READ) Some of the debates I've watched this year have me so frustrated cuz you'll just be absolutely crushing in parts of the debate but just not extend other parts needed to make it relevant. For example, I've seen so many teams going for framework this year where the last rebuttals are 5 minutes of standards and voters and just no extension of an interp that resolves them. Or 2ARs that do so much impact calc and impact-turns-the-DA stuff that they never explain how their aff resolves these impacts so I'm left intervening and extending key warrants for you that OR intervening and voting on a presumption argument that the other team doesn't necessarily make. So err on the side of over extending arguments and take advantage of my high threshold and call out other teams bad argument extension to make me feel less interventionist pulling the trigger on it. What does this mean? Arguments extended should have a claim and a warrant that supports that claim. If your argument extension is just name dropping a lot of authors sited in previous speeches, you're gonna have a bad time during my RFD. The key parts of the "story" of the argument need to be explicitly extended in each speech. For example, if you're going for T in the 2NR then the interp, violation, the standard you're going for, and why it's a voter should be present in every neg speech. Whatever advantage the 2AR is going for should include each part of of the 'story' of aff advantage (uniqueness, solvency, internal link, impact) and I should be able to follow that back on my flow from the 1AR and 2AC. If the 2AR is only impact outweighs and doesn't say anything about how the aff solves it, I'm partial to voting neg on a presumption ballot

Ways to get good speaks in front of me:
-Extend your arguments adequately lol - and callout other teams for insufficient extensions
-Framing the round correctly (identifying the most relevant nexus point of the debate, explain why you're winning it, explain why it wins you the round)
-Doc is sent by the time prep ends
-One partner doesn't dominate every CX
-Send pre-written analytics in your doc
-At least pretend to be having fun lol
-Clash! Your blocks are fine but debates are SOOO much more enjoyable to watch when you get off your blocks and contextualize links/args to the round
-Flow. If you respond to args that were in a doc but weren't actually read, it will hurt your speaks
-Utilize powerful CX moments later in the debate
-If you have a performative component to your kritital argument, explain it's function and utilize it as offense. So many times I see some really cool poetry or something in 1ACs but never get told why poetry is cool and it feels like the aff forgets about it after the 2AC. If it's just in the 1AC to look cool, you were probably better off reading ev or making arguments. If it's there for more than that, USE IT!

WaRu Update 2023: I think debaters think I can flow better than I can. Slowing down on pivotal moments of the debate to really crystalize will make you more consistently happy with my RFDs. If you're going top speed for all of the final rebuttals and don't frame my ballot well, things get messy and my RFDs get worse than I'd like.

Krousekevin1@gmail.com

Background:

I participated in debate for 4 years in High School (policy and LD for Olathe East) and 3 years in College Parli (NPDA/NPTE circuit). This is my 6th year assisting Olathe East debate. I've done very little research on this topic (emerging tech) so please don't assume I know your acronyms or the inner workings of core topic args.

I have no preference on email chain or speechdrop, but it does irritate me when debaters wait until the round is supposed to be started before trying to figure this stuff out.

Speed:

I can keep up for the most part. Some teams in the national circuit are too fast for me but doesn't happen often. If you think you're one of those teams, go like an 8/10. Slow down for interps and nuanced theory blocks. 10 off rounds are not fun to watch but you do you.

Argument preferences:

In high school, I preferred traditional policy debate. In college I read mostly Ks. I studied philosophy but don't assume I know everything about your author or their argument. Something that annoys me in these debates is when teams so caught up in buzzwords that they forget to extend warrants. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. Not just author names, but extend the actual argument. Often teams get so caught up in line by line or responding to the other team that they don't extend their aff or interp or something else necessary for you to win. This will make me sad and you disappointed in the RFD.

I'd rather you debate arguments you enjoy and are comfortable with as opposed to adapting to my preferences. A good debate on my least favorite argument is far more preferable than a bad debate on my favorite argument. I'm open to however you'd like to debate, but you must tell me how to evaluate the round and justify it. Justify your methodology and isolate your offense.

I don't judge kick CPs or Alts, the 2NR should either kick it or go for it. I'm probably not understanding something, but I don't know what "judge kick is the logical extension of condo" means. Condo means you can either go for the advocacy in the 2nr or not. Condo does not mean that the judge will make argumentative selection on your behalf, like judge kicking entails.

K affs- I don't think an affirmative needs to defend the resolution if they can justify their advocacy/methodology appropriately. However I think being in the direction of the resolution makes the debate considerably easier for you. I wish more negs would engage with the substance of the aff or innovated beyond the basic cap/fw/presumption 1nc but I've vote for this plenty too. I have recently been convinced that fairness can be impacted out well, but most time this isn't done so it usually functions as an internal link to education.

I'm of the opinion that one good card can be more effective if utilized and analyzed well than 10 bad/mediocre cards that are just read. At the same time, I think a mediocre card utilized strategically can be more useful than a good card under-analyzed.

Any other questions, feel free to ask before the round.

LD Paradigm:

I've coached progressive and traditional LD teams and am happy to judge either. You do you. I don't think these debates need a value/criterion, but the debates I watch that do have them usually don't utilize them well. I'm of the opinion that High School LD time structure is busted. The 1AR is simply not enough time. The NFA-LD circuit in college fixed this with an extra 2 minutes in the 1AR but I haven't judged a ton on this circuit so how that implicates when arguments get deployed or interacts with nuanced theory arguments isn't something I've spent much time thinking about. To make up for this bad time structure in High School LD, smart affs should have prempts in their 1AC to try and avoid reading new cards in the 1AR. Smart negs will diversify neg offense to be able to collapse and exploit 1AR mistakes. Pretty much everything applies from my policy paradigm but Imma say it in bold again because most people ignore it anyways: EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. Not just author names, but extend the actual claim and warrant. Often teams get so caught up in line by line or responding to the other team that they don't extend their aff or interp or something else necessary for you to win. This will make me sad and you disappointed in the RFD.

I'm a lay judge and new to policy debate. However, I have done debate in the past so I have some understanding of arguments and how they should go. I don't like debates that are overly speedy. I will be primarily judging on arguments that follow facts and make sense. I will listen to almost anything, it just needs to make sense. Explain everything to me, I am a policy maker.

Hello - Is this thing on?

What did the Zen Buddhist say to the hot dog cart vendor?

Make me one with everything.

What do you call the wife of a hippy?

Mississippi

Do you know the last thing my grandfather said before he kicked the bucket?

"Grandson, watch how far I can kick this bucket."

For the person who stole my thesaurus, I have no words to express my anger.

I have been and English teacher for 30 years - I have judged debate (as an assistant Coach) for 6 years. Therefore I like reason and intelligent argument debaters who have researched enough to know what they are talking about.

I prefer actual conversational debate, but speak as fast as you like (as long as I have your speech/evidence in front of me) speechdrop, please

I am basically a TABULA RASA judge. Counterplans, kritiks, disadvantages, topicality - it is all possibly a winning move if it is done well.

I respect debaters who know their evidence well and can concisely clarify during cross-x.

A big plus for actually understanding how government works so that you can formulate a reasonable plan/counterplan - know what the IRS is actually responible for - know the powers ennumerated to the federal government and therefore what is relegated to the states

I generally do not enjoy nuclear annihilation arguments - unless they link clearly. Sometimes it does, but most of the time it does not.

Despite the fact I have never been a debater, nor have I ever coached debate, I have been judging debate for 15 years.

As a judge, I value the following:

A logical stream of arguments that are tied to solid evidence and even stronger analysis.

Respect and professionalism between debaters.

Passion for the art of debate.

Insightfulness

Humility.

I do NOT appreciate the following:

Belittling your opponent

Speed-talking--I must be able to follow the argument.

I debated at Olathe Northwest and am a Senior at KU (not debating). Fourth year assistant coach at Olathe West. My email is matt.michie97@gmail.com

Top-Level: Racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, etc. are unacceptable. Use content warnings before starting speeches and put them in speech docs when applicable. Being mean to your partner is an extremely easy way to lose ranks/quals.

Speed: I think debates are better for everyone when you slow down for tags/cites/theory. Other than that, speak at whatever speed you like while still retaining clarity. Speeding into an incomprehensible slurry in the text of the card will at best dock your speaker points and at worst severely cost you on the flow; I am not going to just flow your speech doc's tags, I am going to flow what you say. I will say clear if necessary. *This is ESPECIALLY true in a virtual debate. If you are reading at the same speed you would in-person, you will be incomprehensible.

Everything below are just my preferences. I don't really care what arguments you read, as long as they're good.

Topicality: I default to Competing Interpretations. I think teams should be topical. If your aff isn't topical, you should tell me why your aff is better for debate than a topical one, rather than why topicality is bad. You should be as specific as possible about your offense, on both sides. Don't bother with your impact turns.

General Theory: I have no particular leaning one way or the other on most theory args, except that conditionality is good. That doesn't mean don't read condo bad if you want to, you just can't read and barely extend your block shell and expect me to have any interest in voting on it. Your argument should make a broader statement on debate rather than a specific objection to something in-round.

Disadvantages and Impact Turns: The link debate is probably more important than anything else in a DA. I mostly read/went for disadvantages/impact turns in High School, so this kind of debate is what I am most versed in.

Counterplans: I don't necessarily have a problem with any particular type of counterplan, but Aff teams should probably be reading a lot more CP theory than I usually see. I wish I saw more teams make more perms than just "do both," and I especially wish more teams actually utilized their perms effectively past the block.

Kritiks: Don't assume that I'm familiar with all terms of art/authors. I think “reject the aff” or “do nothing” alternatives are not very compelling but that doesn’t mean I won’t vote for one. I feel like most K debates I see are incredibly weak on the Alt debate on both sides. Links of omission are not links. Evidence here matters immensely. I feel like teams take each other's K cards at face-value way too often. A lot of these cards on both sides of any K are total gibberish, you should be pointing that out to me.

Framework: I generally don't like extremely generic/limiting framework interps. I default to believing the Aff's role is to endorse an inherent resolution-based advocacy that solves for significant harms, and the Negative's role is to dispute the Aff on the basis of any of those terms, or by expressing the significant harms of the Aff. I feel like many of my decisions end up coming down to the fact that teams let each other get away with way too much here. Framework is not an opportunity for you to read your cool interp block your squad wrote 7 years ago and call it a day. Your framework lays the foundation for how I'm supposed to evaluate the round. Don't let the other team do that for you.

Currently Head Coach at Campbell Hall (CA)

Formerly Head Coach of Fairmont Prep (CA), Ransom Everglades (FL) & Pembroke Hill (MO), and Assistant Coach for Washburn Rural (KS), and Lake Highland (FL).

Coached for 20 years – Have coached all events. Have coached both national circuit policy & PF. Also I have a J.D., so if you are going to try to play junior Supreme Court Justice, please be reasonably accurate in your legal interpretations.

Address for the email chain: millerdo@campbellhall.org

Scroll down for Policy or Parli Paradigm

Public Forum Paradigm

Short Version

1. If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in every speech, beginning with the 2nd Rebuttal. That includes defensive case attacks, as well as unanswered link chains and impacts that you want to extend from your own case. Just frontlining without extending the link and impact stories from constructives means you have dropped those links and impacts.
2. Absent any other framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm.
3. Send speech docs in a timely fashion BEFORE you give any speech in which you introduce new evidence. If you don't, I will be sad, any time you take finding ev will be free prep for your opponents, and the max speaks you will be able to earn from me will be 28. If you do send docs I will be happy and the lowest speaks you will earn will be 28. This only applies to varsity teams.
4. Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. This should start in the 2nd Rebuttal.
5. No new cards in 2nd Summary. No new cards in 1st Summary unless directly in response to new 2nd Rebuttal arguments.
6. I'm OK w/ theory - IF IT IS DONE WELL. Read below for specific types of arguments.

Long Version

1. Summary extension

If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in the summary. Yes, that includes defense & turns from the rebuttal. Yes, that includes unanswered link chains and impacts. And that doesn't just mean "extend my links and impacts." That doesn't do it. You need to explicitly extend each of the cards/args you will need to make a cohesive narrative at the end of the round. If you want to go for it in the FF, make sure your partner knows to extend it. Even if it is the best argument I’ve ever heard, failure to at least mention it in the summary will result in me giving the argument zero weight in my decision. Basically, too many 2nd speakers just ignore their partner’s summary speech. Attempting to extend things that were clearly dropped in the Summary will result in a lowering of speaker points for the 2nd speaker. This is # 1 on my list for a reason. It plays a major factor in more than half of my decisions. Ignore this advice at your own peril.

1A. 2nd Rebuttal Rebuild

Everything I just said about Summary also goes for 2nd Rebuttal. Anything you want me to evaluate at any later point in the round needs to be mentioned/extended in 2nd Rebuttal. That includes extending / rebuilding the portions of your case you want me to weigh at the end, even those that were not addressed by your opponents in the first Rebuttal. For example: 1st Rebuttal just answers your links on C1. You not only need to rebuild whatever C1 links you want me to evaluate at the end of the round, but you also need to explicitly extend your impacts you are claiming those links link to in at least a minimum of detail. Just saying" extend my impacts" will be unlikely to cut it. At least try to reference both the argument and the card you want me to extend. And, yes, I know this means you won't be able to cover as much in 2nd Rebuttal. Make choices. That's what this event is all about.

2. Offense defense

Absent any other framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm. Just going for defensive response to the the opposing case in FF won’t be persuasive in front of me. Additionally, I am open to non-traditional framing arguments (e.g. rights, ontology, etc), but you will need to have some pretty clear warrants as to why I should disregard a traditional net offensive advantage for the other team when making my decision.

3. Send Speech Docs with the cut cards your are about to read before your speech

This is the expected norm in both Policy and LD, and it is time for PF to grow up as well. I am tired of wasting 15+ min per round while kids look for cards that they should have ready as part of their blocks and/or cases to share, and just paraphrasing stuff without the cut card readily available. To combat these bad practices, I choose to adopt two incentives in varsity rounds to have debaters use speech docs like every other legitimate form of debate.

First, if you do not send a speech doc w/ all the cards you are about to read in that next speech to the email chain in a timely fashion (less than a minute or two) before you begin any speech in which you read cards, I will cap your speaker points at 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 27. If you do send a speech doc with the cut cards you are about to read in order, I will guarantee that the lowest speaks you receive will be a 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 29. If you don't have this ready before the round, or can't get it ready in a minute or so before each speech, don't waste time trying. It defeats the part of the purpose aimed to speed up rounds and prevent tournaments from running behind because kids can't find their evidence. Just accept that your speaks will be capped, learn from it, and put together your cases and blocks more ethically for next time. Two caveats to this general rule: 1) the obvious allowance for accidentally missing the occasional card due to honest error, 2) if you engage in offensive behavior/language/etc that would otherwise justify something lower than a 25, providing a speech doc will not exempt you from such a score.

Second, I will utilize the approach that has been used in the past at the TOC, where teams are free to prep while the other team is searching for the evidence that they have been requested to share and should already have available, and that time will NOT count against the requesting team's 3:00 of prep. If you read this and can figure out how to use it to your advantage, more power to you.

Basically, I won't require you to provide speech docs, but I will use these two measures to incentivize their use in the strongest possible way I feel I reasonably can. This hopefully will both speed up rounds and simultaneously encourage more transparency and better overall evidence quality. If you don't like this, strike me.

4. Narrow the round

It would be in your best interest to narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key turns on your opponents’ case, and then spend most of your time doing impact comparisons on those issues. Going for all 3 contentions and every turn you read in rebuttal is a great way to lose my ballot. If you just extend everything, you leave it up to me to evaluate the relative important of each of your arguments. This opens the door for judge intervention, and you may not like how I evaluate those impacts. I would much rather you do that thought process for me. I routinely find myself voting for the team that goes all in on EFFECTIVE impact framing on the issue or two they are winning over the team that tries to extend all of their offensive arguments (even if they are winning most of them) at the expense of doing effective impact framing. Strategic choices matter. Not making any choices is a choice in itself, and is usually a bad one.

5. No new cards in Summary, unless they are in direct response to a new argument brought up in the immediately prior speech.

1st Summary: If you need to read cards to answer arguments first introduced in opponents case, those needed to be read in 1st Rebuttal, not 1st Summary. Only if 2nd Rebuttal introduces new arguments—for example a new impact turn on your case—will I evaluate new cards in the 1st Sum, and only to specifically answer that new 2nd Rebuttal turn. Just please flag that your are reading a new card, and ID exactly what new 2nd Rebuttal argument you are using it to answer.

2nd Summary: Very rarely, 2nd summary will need to address something that was brought up new in 1st summary. For example, as mentioned above, 2nd Rebuttal puts offense on case. 1st Summary might choose to address that 2nd Rebuttal offense with a new carded link turn. Only in a case like that will I evaluate new evidence introduced into 2nd Summary. If you need to take this route, as above in 1st Summary, please flag exactly what argument you say was new in the 1st Summary you are attempting to answer before reading the new card.

In either case, unless the prior speech opened the door for you, I will treat any new cards in Summary just like extending things straight into FF & ignoring the summary—I won’t evaluate them and your speaker points will take a hit. However, new cross-applications of cards previously introduced into the round ARE still OK at this point.

5A. No new cross-applications or big-picture weighing in Final Focus.

Put the pieces together before GCF - at least a little bit. This includes weighing analysis. The additional time allotted to teams in Summary makes it easier to make these connections and big-picture comparisons earlier in the round. Basically, the other team should at least have the opportunity to ask you about it in a CF of some type. You don't have to do the most complete job of cross-applying or weighing before FF, but I should at least be able to trace its seed back to some earlier point in the round.

6. Theory

I will, and am often eager to, vote on debate theory arguments. But proceed with caution. Debaters in PF rarely, if ever, know how to debate theory well enough to justify voting on it. But I have seen one or two rounds recently that give me some hope for the future.

Regarding practices, there is a strategic utility for reading theory even if you are not going for it. I get that part of the game of debate, and am here for it. But if you think you want me to actually vote on it, and it isn't just a time suck, I would strongly encourage that you collapse down to just theory in the 2nd Rebuttal/1st Summary in a similar fashion that I would think advisable in choosing which of your substance-based impact scenarios to go for. Theory isn't the most intuitive argument, and is done poorly when it is blippy. If it is a bad practice that truly justifies my disregarding substantive arguments, then treat it like one. Pick a standard and an impact story and really develop it in both speeches AND IN GCF in the similar way you should develop a link story and impact from your substantive contention. Failing to collapse down will more than likely leave you without sufficient time to explain your abuse story and voter analysis in such a way that it is compelling enough for me to pull the trigger. If you are going to do it (and I'm good with it if you do), do it well. Otherwise, just stick to the substance.

My leanings on specific types of theory arguments:

Fiat – For policy resolutions, until the “no plans” rule is changed, PF is essentially a whole-resolution debate, no matter how much teams would like for it to be policy. That means the resolution is is the plan text. Thus, if teams want to exclusively advocate a specific subset(s) of the resolution, they need to provide some warrants as to why their specific subset(s) of the resolution is the MOST LIKELY form the resolution would take if it were adopted. Trying to specify and only defend a hyper-specific example(s) of the resolution that is unlikely to occur without your fiat is ridiculously abusive without reading a plan text, and makes you a moving target – especially when you clarify your position later in the round to spike out of answers. Plan texts are necessary to fiat something that is unlikely to happen in the status quo in order to create a stable advocacy. Basically, in my mind, “no plans” = “no fiat of subsets of the resolution.” Also, please don't try to fiat things in a fact-based resolution (hint, it's probably not a policy resolution if it doesn't look like "Actor X should do Thing Y").

Multiple conditional advocacies – Improbable fiated advocacies are bad enough, but when teams read multiple such advocacies and then decide “we’re not going for that one” when the opposing team puts offense on it is the zenith of in-round abuse. Teams debating in front of me should continue to go for their unanswered offensive turns against these “kicked” arguments – I will weigh them in the round, and am somewhat inclined to view such practices as a voter if substantial abuse is demonstrated by the offended team. If you start out with a 3-prong fiated advocacy, then you darn well better end with it. Severance is bad. If teams are going to choose to kick out of part of their advocacy mid-round, they need to effectively answer any offense on the "to-be-kicked" parts first.

Paraphrasing - I tend to come down strongly on the side of having cut cards available. This doesn't mean I will automatically vote for paraphrasing theory, as I think there is room for a conceivably viable counter-interp of having the cards attached to blocks/cases or something similar. But blatant, unethical, and lazy paraphrasing has, at times, really threatened the integrity of this activity, and it needs to stop. This is the way to do that.

Trigger Warning - I am not your guy for this. I'm not saying I won't vote on it, but it would be an uphill battle.

Disclosure - Disclosure is good. My teams do it, and I think you should too. It makes for better debates, and the Wiki is an invaluable tool for small squads with limited resources and coaching. I speak from experience, having coached those types of small squads in policy against many of the juggernaut programs with armies of assistants cutting cards. Arguments about how it is somehow unfair to small teams make little sense to me. That being said, I don't think the lack of disclosure is as serious of a threat to the integrity of PF as the bad paraphrasing that at one point was rampant in the activity. Disclosure is more of a strongly suggested improvement, as opposed to an ethical necessity. But if the theory arg is run WELL, I will certainly vote on it.

7. Crossfire

If you want me to evaluate an argument or card, it needs to be in a speech. Just mentioning it in CF is not sufficient. You can refer to what was said in CF in the next speech, and that will be far more efficient, but it doesn’t exist in my mind until I hear it in a speech. Honestly, I'm probably writing comments during CF anyway, and am only halfway listening. That being said, I am NOT here for just not doing cross (usually GCF) and instead taking prep. Until the powers that be get rid of it, we are still doing GCF. Instead of just not wanting to do it, get better at it. Make it something that I should listen to.

8. Evidence citations

You should probably read the citations according to whatever the NSDA says, but I’m not likely to vote on any irregularities (e.g. no date of access) unless the abuses are proven to be especially egregious and substantive in the round.

9. Speaker points

See my policy on Speech Docs. If I were not making the choice to institute that policy, the following reflects my normal approach to speaks, and will still apply to how I evaluate within the 25-28 non-speech doc range, and within the 28-30 speech doc range. My normal reference point for “average” is 27.5. That’s where most everyone starts. My default is to evaluate on a scale with steps of 0.1, as opposed to steps of 0.5. Below a 25 means you did something offensive. A true 30.0 in HS debate (on a 0.1 scale) doesn’t exist. It is literally perfect. I can only think of 3 times I have ever given out a 29.6 or higher, and each of them were because of this next thing. My points are almost exclusively based on what you say, not how you say it. I strongly value making good, strategic choices, and those few exceptional scores I’ve given were all because of knowing what was important and going for it / impact framing it, and dumping the unnecessary stuff in the last half of the round.

10. Ask for additional thoughts on the topic

Even if you’ve read this whole thing, still ask me beforehand. I may have some specific thoughts relating to the topic at hand that could be useful.

11. Speed

Notice how I didn't say anything about that above, even though it's the first questions like half of kids ask? Basically, yes, I can handle your blazing speed. But it would still probably be a good idea to slow it down a little, Speed Racer. Quality > quantity. However, if you try to go fast and don't give a speech doc with cut cards before you start speaking, I will be very, VERY unhappy. The reason why policy teams can go as fast as they do is that they read a tag, which we as the audience can mentally process and flow, and then while they are reading the cite/text of the card, we have time to finish flowing the tag and listen for key warrants. The body of the card gives us a beat or two to collect ourself before we have to figure out what to write next. Just blitzing through blippily paraphrased cards without a tag (e.g. "Smith '22 warrants...") doesn't give us that tag to process first, and thus we have to actively search for what to flow. By the time we get it down, we have likely already missed your next "card." So, if you are going to try to go faster than a broadly acceptable PF pace, please have tags, non-paraphrased cards, and speech docs. And if you try to speed through a bunch of blippy paraphrased "cards" without a doc, don't be surprised when we miss several of your turns. Basically, there is a way to do it right. Please do it that way, if you are going to try to go fast.

________________________

Policy Paradigm

________________________

I debated for 4 years in high school (super old-school, talk-pretty policy), didn't debate in college, and have coached at the HS level for 20 years. I am currently the Head Coach at Campbell Hall in Los Angeles, and previously was an Assistant Coach at Washburn Rural in KS, and head coach at Fairmont Prep in Anaheim, CA, Ransom Everglades School, in Miami, and The Pembroke Hill School in KCMO. However, I don't judge too many policy rounds these days, so take that into account.

Overview:

Generally, do what you do, as long as you do it well, and I'll be happy. I prefer big-picture impact framing where you do the comparative work for me. In general, I will tend to default to such analysis, because I want you to do the thinking in the round, not me. My better policy teams in the past where I was Head Coach read a great deal of ontology-based Ks (cap, Heidegger, etc), and they often make some level of sense to me, but I'm far from steeped in the literature. I'm happy to evaluate most of the normal disads & cps, but the three general classes of arguments that I usually find less persuasive are identity-based strategies that eschew the topic, politics disads, and to a lesser degree, performance-based arguments. But if any of those are your thing, I would in general prefer you do your thing well than try and do something else that you just aren't comfortable with. I'll go with the quality argument, even if it isn't my personal favorite. I'm not a fan of over-reliance on embedded clash, especially in overviews. I'd rather you put it on the line-by-line. I'm more likely to get it down on my flow and know how to apply it that way, and that's the type of debating I'll reward with higher speaks. Please be sure to be clear on your tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks. Hard numbering/”And’s” are appreciated, and if you need to, go a little slower on those tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks to be sure they are clear, distinct, and I get them. Again, effort to do so will be rewarded with higher speaks.

Topicality:

I generally think affs should have to defend the topic, and actually have some sort of plan text / identifiable statement of advocacy. There are very few "rules" of debate, thus allowing tons of leeway for debaters to choose arguments. But debating the topic is usually a pretty good idea in my mind, as most issues, even those relating to the practices and nature of our activity and inclusion therein, can usually still be discussed in the context of the topic. I rather strongly default to competing interpretations. I like to see T debates come down to specific abuse stories, how expanding or contracting limits functionally impacts competitive equity, and exactly what types of ground/args are lost/gained by competing interps (case lists are good for this in front of me). I usually buy the most important impact to T as fairness. T is an a priori issue for me, and K-ing T is a less than ideal strategy with me as your judge.

Theory:

If you are going to go for it, go for it. I am unlikely to vote either way on theory via a blippy cheap-shot, unless the entire argument was conceded. But sometimes, for example, condo bad is the right strategic move for the 2AR. If it's done well, I won't hesitate to decide a round on it. Not a fan of multiple conditional worlds. With the notable exception of usually giving epistemology / ontology-based affs some flexibility on framework needing to come before particulars of implementation, I will vote Neg on reasonable SPEC arguments against policy affs. Affs should be able to articulate what their plan does, and how it works. (Read that you probably ought to have a plan into that prior statement, even if you are a K team.) For that reason, I also give Neg a fair amount of theoretical ground when it comes to process CPs against those affs. Severance is generally bad in my mind. Intrinsicness, less so.

CPs:

Personally, I think a lot of the standard CPs are, in any type of real world sense, ridiculous. The 50 states have never worked together in the way envisioned by the CP. A constitutional convention to increase funding for whatever is laughable. An XO to create a major policy change is just silly (although over the last two administrations, that has become less so). All that being said, these are all legit arguments in the debate world, and I evaluate and vote on them all the time. I guess I just wish Affs were smart enough to realize how dumb and unlikely these args actually are, and would make more legit arguments based on pointing that out. However, I do like PICs, and enjoy a well thought out and deployed advantage CP.

Disads:

Most topic-related disads are fine with me. Pretty standard on that. Just be sure to not leave gaping holes / assumptions in your link chains, and I'm OK. However, I generally don't like the politics disad. I would much rather hear a good senator specific politics scenario instead of the standard “President needs pol cap, plan’s unpopular” stuff, but even then, I'm not a fan. I'll still vote for it if that's what is winning the round, but I may not enjoy doing so. Just as a hint, it would be very easy to convince me that fiat solves for most politics link stories (and, yes, I understand this places me in the very small minority of judges), and I don't see nearly as much quality ground lost from the intrinsic perm against politics as most. Elections disads, though, don't have those same fiat-related issues, and are totally OK by me.

Criticisms:

I don’t read the lit much, but in spite of that, I really kind of like most of the more "traditional" ontological Ks (cap, security, Heidegger, etc). To me, Ks are about the idea behind the argument, as opposed to pure technical proficiency & card dumping. Thus, the big picture explanation of why the K is "true," even if that is at the expense of reading a few more cards, would be valuable. Bringing through traditional line-by-line case attacks in the 2NR to directly mitigate some of the Aff advantages is probably pretty smart. I think Negs set an artificially high burden for themselves when they completely drop case and only go for the K in the 2NR, as this means that they have to win 100% access to their “Alt solves the case” or framework args in order for the K to outweigh some super-sketchy and ridiculous, but functionally conceded, extinction scenario from the 1AC. K's based in a framework strategy tend to be more compelling in front of me than K's that rely on the alt to actually solve something (because, let's be honest here - they rarely do). Identity-related arguments are usually not the most compelling in front of me, and I tend to buy strategic attacks against them from the left as more persuasive than attacks from the right.

Random:

I understand that some teams are unbalanced in terms of skill/experience, and that's just the way it goes sometimes. I've coached many teams like that. But I do like to see if both debaters actually know what they are talking about. Thus, your speaks will probably go down if your partner is answering all of your cross-ex questions for you. It won’t impact my decision (I just want to know the answers), but it will impact speaks. Same goes for oral prompting. That being said, I am inclined to give a moderate boost to the person doing the heavy lifting in those cases, as long as they do it respectfully.

________________________

Parli Paradigm

________________________

Parli is not my primary debate background, so I likely have an atypical paradigm for a parli judge that is influenced by my experiences coaching policy and circuit PF. Please adapt accordingly if you want to win my ballot.

First, I honestly don't care how you sound. I care about the arguments you make. Please, don't read that as an immediate excuse to engage in policy-style spreading (that level of speed doesn't translate super well to an event that is entirely analytics and doesn't have cards), but I will likely be more accustomed to and be able to handle debates that are faster than most of the HS parli rounds I have seen to date.

Two general things that I find annoying and unnecessary: 1) Introducing yourself at the top of each speech. I know who you are. Your name is on the ballot. That's all I need. This just seems to be an unnecessary practice designed to turn an 8 minute speech into a 7:30 speech. Forget the formalities, and just give me the content, please. 2) I don't need a countdown for when you start. We aren't launching a rocket into space or playing Mario Kart. Just start. I am a sentient enough of a being to figure out to hit the button on my timer when you begin talking.

I'll go speech by speech.

1st Gov: Spending the first minute or so explaining the background of the topic might be time well spent, just to ensure that everyone is on the same page. Please, if you have a contention-level argument, make sure it has some kind of terminal impact. If it isn't something that I can weigh at the end of the round, then why are you making the argument?

1st Opp: Same as above re: terminal impacts in case. Any refutations to the Aff case you would like me to evaluate at the end of the round need to be in this speech, or at least be able to be traced back to something in this speech. That means you probably shouldn't get to the Aff case with only a minute or two left in the speech. If your partner attempts to make new refutations to the Aff case in the 2nd Opp, I won't evaluate them.

2nd Gov: Similar to the 1st Opp, any parts of your case that you want me to consider when making my decisions need to be explicitly extended in this speech. That includes all essential parts of an argument - link, internal link, and impact. Just saying "extend my Contention 2" is insufficient to accomplish this task. You will actually need to spend at least a modicum of time on each, in order for me to flow it through, in addition to answering any refutations that Opp has made on it in the prior speech. Considering that you will also need to spend some time refuting the Neg's newly introduced case, this means that you will likely NOT have time to extend all of your contentions. That's fine. Make a choice. Not all contentions are equally good. If you try to go for everything, you will likely not do anything well enough to make a compelling argument. Instead, pick your best one (or maybe two) and extend, rebuild, and impact it. Prioritizing arguments and making choices is an essential analytical skill this activity should teach. Making decisions in this fashion will be rewarded in both my decision-making at the end of the round, as well as in speaker points.

Opp Block: If you want me to evaluate any arguments in the these speeches, I need to be able to trace the responses/arguments back to the 1st Opp, except if they are new answers to case responses that could only have been made in the the 2nd Gov. For example, 2nd Gov makes refutations to the Opp's case. New responses to these arguments will be evaluated. However, to reiterate, I will absolutely NOT evaluate new refutations to Gov case in these speeches. Just as with the 2nd Gov, I also strongly advocate collapsing down to one contention-level impact story from your case and making it the crux of your narrative about how the debate should be decided. Trying to go for all three contentions you read in the 1st Gov is a great way to not develop any of those arguments well, and to leave me to pick whatever I happen to like best. I don't like judge intervention, which is why I want you to make those decisions for me by identifying the most important impact/argument on your side and focusing your time at the end of the round on it. Do my thinking for me. If you let me think, you may not like my decision.

Both Rebuttals: Listing a bunch of voters is a terrible way to debate. You are literally just giving me a menu of things I could vote on and hoping that I pick the one you want. You would be much better served in these speeches to focus in on one key impact story, and do extensive weighing analysis - either how it outweighs any/all of the other side's impacts, or if it is a value round, how it best meets the value framing of the debate. As I stated in the Opp Block section, please, do my thinking for me. Show that you can evaluate the relative worth of different arguments and make a decision based upon that evaluation. Refusing to do so tells me you have no idea which of your arguments is superior to the others, and thus you do not have a firm grasp on what is really happening in the round. Be brave. Make a choice. You will likely be rewarded for it. Also, there is very little reason to POO in these speeches. I keep a good enough flow to know when someone is introducing new arguments. If it is new, I won't evaluate it. I don't need you to call it out. I largely find it annoying.

I straddle between the policymaker and stock issue paradigms. I am somewhat sympathetic to tabula rasa, but I usually go either policymaker or stock issues.

I dislike spreading speed. Otherwise, I am open to following and flowing your round as you deliver it. If you can persuade me that your particular strategy is advantageous for implementing or defending your policy position, you have liberty to use it. I prefer straightforward debate rather than hairsplitting the rules; topicality fights are the main reason I am not a pureplay stock issues judge; but I have had very occasional rounds where topicality indeed decided the ballot. I strongly dislike generic DAs. I am lukewarm about Ks and counterplans, but I have occasionally voted for teams employing them. Whatever your strategy, persuade me that it makes sense, with logic and documentation.

I debated three years in high school, and I have judged approximately 20 topic-years since high school. I have judged at three NCFL national tournaments, one day each during the first-day prelim rounds.

Policy Maker Judge

- Weigh the advantages versus the disadvatanges. Impact calculus is a GREAT way to frame the round. Stock issue debate is still important, but my decision will likely be made on impacts (if it is solid and well defended).

- Strong communication and clearly articulated points will win the round. A winning team will adapt to the judges preferences and make it obvious as to why their position is superior.

- That being said, I will do my best to provide quality feedback for the rounds. Good luck, and I'm super excited to hear your ideas and speeches!

I am the head debate coach at Lyndon High School in Kansas. I was an assistant coach at Washburn Rural High School for 23 years. However, I didn’t coach the varsity teams. I mainly worked with the open teams. I have not listened to a round at speed for over four years. So I would not decide to pick it up any more than just a moderate competition speed. I don’t listen to K’s. Mainly because I am not current on the literature. So I wouldn’t suggest taking that risk. I will vote on a good T argument. However, if it is frivolous I can be convinced to vote against you. Generic DA’s are ok with specific link analysis. Finally, I default to a Policymaker paradigm. Good luck and have fun.

macp@usd383.org

I debated for 4 years in Spring Hill High School in Spring Hill, KS. Now a coach for Manhattan HS (2017-Present)

Top Level: I am definitely a policymaker and will vote for the side/scenario that does the most good while causing the least amount of harm. My view of Policy maker does leave room for in-round impacts. Impact calc in the rebuttals will go a long way with me. An overview is always appreciated. I, like many judges, can get lost in high-speed rounds. Don't just assume I know things or will do any work for you. I default to tech over truth but don't push it. If your evidence is bad, I can't vote on it. I can't pretend like Russia didn't invade The Ukraine.

Speed: I'll keep up alright in higher speed rounds, but always run the risk of getting lost. I'll flow off of the speech doc, but I need slow and clear analytics. Doing your job breaking down the round in the 2NR/AR benefits me.

Kritiks: I am relatively comfortable with the basics of the K, but my lit knowledge base is quite low. I am not receptive to Kritiks of Rhetoric if you can't give me a clear link to the AFF. Don't just say "their security rhetoric is problematic" if you can't highlight that rhetoric for me.

K-AFFs: I'll vote for a K-AFF, but you'll have to do enough work to prove that the ballot of a random Debate judge matters to your aff. A strong understanding of how the debate ecosystem functions will help you here. There are opportunities for a Perf Con debate that I haven't been seeing with enough teams.

Identity-centric Kritiks: Don't use black and brown narratives as just a route to the ballot. Cheapening these narratives because you know you can beat a policy team causes real-world harm. Seeing that you are carrying your advocacy in and out of the round that I am watching matters to me.

Topicality: Topicality violations have to be generally pretty blatant for me. There are fairly standard responses an Aff can make that will generally sway me on Topicality. If the Aff doesn't do some simple work, then I am forced to vote Neg. I default to competing interpretations and will evaluate the standards in a way to determine which interpretation best upholds an equitable debate experience. I have a hard time voting for a potential for abuse. In round abuse (like the aff linking out of everything) will weigh more heavily on my ballot.

Counter plans: I'll listen to a good counter-plan debate, but I have a hard time voting for a Consult CP. They are messy debates.

Politics DA's: I'll evaluate a politics DA, but I always want some great uniqueness evidence and a strong link. Many politics DA's I have been seeing lack the latter. Generic Politics DA answers will often win me over. I don't love the Politics DA

Don't be an awful person. I'll vote you down. Keeping this activity healthy for all students is important to me.

Please feel free to ask me questions. You all knowing my preferences benefit me just as much as it benefits you all. Don't be afraid to ask for additional feedback. If I have time, I'll chat with you :)

Hi,

I’m Alina. My pronouns are she/her. I was mostly a block boy when I debated but I do prefer judging lay style debate rounds. I’m fine with Ks and like open cross x and all that stuff whatever you want to do I just think the most important thing is to have fun.

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.

About me/ Preference things-

I debated at Lawrence High School for 4 years and debated in college at the University of Kansas. I have been an assistant debate coach for Shawnee Mission South High School for 4 years.

** Please add me to the email chain rose.haylee2000@gmail.com

LD

I evaluate LD traditionally with emphasis on the V and VC level. However, it is important that you are winning some offense both on the V and VC as well as the contention level debate. Winning top level offense on the V and VC and and describing how that effects the contention level debate is the easiest way to win my ballot.

TL:DR

As for how I evaluate debates, I cannot say that I have a bunch of things that I am for or against so I will just go down the list.

Make arguments to the best of your ability but please just be a good human. As far as how many rounds I have judged I did not judge or teach at a camp this summer so I am a little behind.

T- I debated and went for T quite often in debates but I won't vote for it unless its 5 min in the 2NR and you gotta have a case list and reason why your interpretation is good, what does the aff's model of debate mean for the debate community?

Theory- its fine, be persuasive and tell me why the aff/negs justification for reading a particular argument/set of arguments is bad. I can/will vote for abuse on condo or other theory but getting there may be hard, I think condo is good and it needs to be excessive abuse. Continuing on theory, you as the person reading theory need to be able to prove why their interp is bad and why that hurts you in the round, not just the debate community writ large.

DA's- I enjoy them a lot, you will need to explain each individual part of the DA debate and its implications for the argument overall I won't extend cards when you say "extend my link".

CP's- I like Cp's that are competitive. I also am a firm believer that the CP must have a NB that is not we solve better than the aff. Not a huge fan of "cheating" counterplans but you gotta do what you gotta do to win.

K's- I read and went for the cap k, I am not a K hack or know all of the things that you are talking about. I really enjoy k debates but I will need you to explain things to me and why they matter/ what you win because of each individual part of the K debate. I like techy K debates.

READ ME:

I really enjoy this activity but there are some things about it that I am not too fond of,

1. Charging the Mound, it makes me uncomfortable and probably also makes your opponents uncomfortable as well. If you have questions or do not understand my decision please ask or email me but you are not going to convince me I made the wrong decision, and if you do why does that matter my ballot is already submitted. Let's have a productive conversation about debate

2. Personal attacks at your opponent, there is a line between being sassy and making others feel bad about themselves.

3. Sexist, Ablest, Transphobic, Racist (and other isms) language and behaviors, please be good human.

4. Stealing prep, it's just a pet peeve of mine

Feel free to ask me questions about my judging paradigm before the round starts, and email me if you have any remaining questions after the debate is over. I will always be more than happy to help you all get better at this activity!

update for post LHS tournament:

If I judged you at the LHS tournament and told you you could reach out to me for questions about taxes and run DA's and counterplans past me to see if they make sense, please feel free to email me at amyjsand @ gmail.com

Please introduce yourselves and tell me your school and speaker positions but let's skip the handshakes and fist bumps, k? :)

Debate paradigm:

• I feel like this season, I should disclose I’m an enrolled agent (certified by the IRS) and prepare business and personal taxes for a living. I know a lot about taxes. :-)

First of all, I'm what I'd consider an experienced lay judge, so if you speak too fast and lose me, you're in trouble. My daughter debated 4 years at Lawrence High and is now on the Kansas State debate team, so I'm not completely inexperienced, but I'm not an expert by any means. I try to flow as best I can so be clear and signpost and give me your analytics. I'm a Truth over Tech judge.

Please add me to your email chain: amyjsand @ gmail.com (or if you do speech drop please give me the code)

I like soft left impacts I can understand like racism, but since I work as an accountant... I really like policy impact, especially economic. Give me some good impact calc!

If you think you are winning an argument, explain to me WHY you are winning. It's especially helpful if you can explain things to me in an innovative way, it shows me that you really understand and believe in your argument.

The main thing for me? Don't be rude. I enjoy judging debate and I like hearing a good argument. Convince me you're right, make me think, and make my decision difficult. Good luck and most of all have fun!

Basic practice preferences

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

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

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

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

Argument breakdown

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

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

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

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

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

BOTTOM LINE

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

Hello!

I've judged Debate for about 6 years, and have been an assistant Debate coach for the last 3 seasons. Although I did not Debate in high school, I consider myself a fairly experienced judge.

I prefer to judge based on Policy Making (the Legislative Model). In other words, I weigh the affirmative and negative arguments against each other and make my decision based on the comparison of pros and cons presented in the round. Common solvency arguments (impracticability, insufficiency, counterproductivity, etc.) dis-ads, and inherency arguments all play a role in this comparison.

In evaluating topicality, the impact calculus of the round plays a large factor in my decision, but can be overruled by debatability and fairness. In other words, if you are providing an argument that does not give the opposing team a fair opportunity to debate and reap the educational rewards of the round, it will count against you in my ballot.

In terms of speed, I am comfortable with rapid speech, but (and I cannot stress this enough) it MUST BE COMPREHENSIBLE. If you are spreading so fast that you're stumbling over words, mumbling, not enunciating clearly, or anything else that does not allow me to understand your argument, it will certainly count against you in the ballot.

I am not comfortable giving oral feedback at the end of rounds or revealing the results of a round. All feedback will be included in my ballots.

If you have any other questions about my paradigm or require any clarification, you are more than welcome to ask me before the start of the round. Good luck, and most importantly, have fun!

Lauren Carter, Assistant Coach at Olathe East High School

lncarter@olatheschools.org

I debated for three years in high school (two years as a policy debater and one year in public forum debate) at Liberty High School in Missouri. I didn't debate in college, but I have been coaching and judging since 2017.

General debate preferences:

Please be polite to each other! Being rude is not a good look if you want good speaker points.

I do my best to flow all arguments made in the round. That being said, if your argument isn't clear and/or I don't know where to flow it because you're jumping between points and aren't clearly sign-posting, it may not make it on my flow. Please stick to your roadmap as much as possible if you give one.

I'm not a huge fan of scripted/pre-typed speeches, aside from the first speech of the round. Going off-script shows me that you have a good handle of your arguments and will reflect well on the ballot. Being a good reader and a good debater are not one and the same.

I'm not comfortable giving oral critiques or round disclosure after the debate. I will put comments on my ballot.

Policy: I'm okay with some speed (not your top speed) but would prefer that you slow it down a bit during analytics and explanations of arguments/cards.

I learned a more traditional, stock issue oriented style of policy when I debated, so that is what I have the most experience with. However, you are the debaters and know which arguments work best for you. If you can teach me something new while in your round, go for it!

I especially love to hear good disads, but I also think that CPs and T are effective when argued well.

I don't mind kritiks and theory, but I don't have the background to follow them well without very clear explanations. Please don't throw around technical terms and arguments and assume that I know what you are talking about.

While you should respond to all arguments, I do believe that quality over quantity often comes into play when it comes to reading a bunch of evidence. A card isn't an argument, so please don't give me a laundry list of cards and taglines without taking some time to justify their purpose in the round.

I generally don't spend a lot of time looking at your speech docs. If I open your doc, I'll mostly look at it as a quick reference to help me keep track of my flow. If I have to continuously look at your doc to follow you, you aren't being clear or sign-posting enough. If a card is called into question I will look at it, but I don't take evidence credibility or inconsistencies with cards into consideration unless you as the debaters bring it up.

LD: I prefer a more traditional style of debate for LD and like to see rounds that bring out the distinct style of debate that represents LD. I would prefer to see debates centered on your case values, philosophy and logic.

Public Forum: I've judged PFD at local tournaments and prelim rounds at nationals.

You don't have to speak super slow for me but I don't enjoy hearing spreading during PF rounds. In this style of debate, I appreciate debaters who use their time well and know when to develop and expand on arguments and when to narrow the focus. You have longer speeches at the beginning so use this time wisely early on, especially for you second speakers.

Big Questions Debate Paradigm

For Big Questions, it is hard to put a paradigm into words (unlike with my policy paradigm, which is below if you are interested). Because you cannot run the K (thank you Jesus!) this is about clash, argumentation, and evidence. This is what debate should be about in my opinion. So, present your arguments, provide some evidence, and listen to your opposition and try and prove your case is the better option than theirs. I know this is not much, and this sounds simple, but this is what good, real-life applicable debate is all about.

If you have more questions, ask before the round and I can clarify things further (well, hopefully).

CX Debate Paradigm

I am an old man. I am angry. I generally hate the K. instead, why don’t we talk about the resolution and throw an actually somewhat serious plan out there. Then, maybe the Neg could run a DA or two, and maybe an off-case item or two, all which have some basis in reality. I realize The Butterfly Effect sounds really cool and all, but a gnat farting in Florida should not provide enough impetus to launch a global thermonuclear war. I do not mind speed, but please be clear. If you cannot be understood, it does not really count as an argument. Also, I will also note that I hate open cross-ex. Both members of your team should know your case or arguments and be able to defend or expand upon them.

Final, fun note. I flow on paper. It means I will not take your document/data dump like the other team. It also means that I will give you the benefit of the doubt for reading the contents of a card if you do not actually do so. What is actually said in the round during a speech is what I judge upon. Nothing else. In addition, do not argue over a card the other team never read that somehow got mixed into a speech transfer by accident (I have watched this and I still do not understand it to this day).

I hope this helps.

For PA and Limited Prep: Clear Structure, projection, and is the speaker's voice their own.

For Interp: Character Development is number 1 for me. Next is does the interper follow dramatic structure. In humor # 1 thing is: does it make me laugh? Second, does the story make sense?

For Debate: Emphasize impacts. Delivery before speed. If arguments are clear and logical, then speed works for me, but speed isn't an end in itself; it's purpose is to get more arguments in, i.e. if you aren't giving more arguments for the opponent to refute, then why talk incredibly fast? Also your arguments need to be grounded in reality because I am well versed in logical fallacies.

Email chain: lfsdebate@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Last update September 2023 in an attempt to majorly condense down to what you actually want to know.

Yes email chain (I like Speechdrop or Tabroom Share even better but will defer to what y'all want) - eskoglund@gmail.com

POLICY DEBATE

Background

Olathe South 2001, 1 year at KU

Head coach, Olathe Northwest HS, Kansas (assistant 2006-2016, head 2016-present)

90%+ of my judging is on a local circuit with varying norms for speed, argumentation, etc.

1) My most confident decisions happen in policymaker-framed rounds. I will do my best to follow you to other places where the debate takes us.

2) If your aff doesn't advocate a topical plan text, the burden is on you to ensure that I understand your advocacy and framework. If you don't make at least an attempt to relate to the resolution, it's going to be very hard for you.

3) I flow what I hear but I will follow speech docs to watch for clipping. Egregious clipping will lead me to decide the round even if a formal challenge is not filed.

4) Whether you've got a plan, an advocacy statement, or whatever - much of the work coming out of camps is so vague as to be pointless. You don't need a six plank plan or a minute of clarification, but a plan should be more than the resolution plus a three word mission statement. I will err neg on most questions of links and/or theory when affirmatives ignore this.

5) I don't judge kick unless given explicit instruction to that effect. Conditional 2NRs are gross.

6) Flow the debate, not the speech doc.

7) Anytime you're saying words you want on my flow, those need to not be at 400 wpm please.

8) On T, I primarily look for a competing interpretation framework. "Reasonability" to me just means that I can find more than one interpretation acceptable, not that you don't have to meet an interp. My understanding of T is more "old school" than a lot of the rest of arguments; a T debate that talks a lot about offense/defense and not a lot about interpretations/violations is less likely to be something I comprehend in the way you want.

9) Long pre-written overviews in rebuttals are neither helpful nor persuasive.

10) I will not lie to your coach about the argumentation that is presented in the round. I will not tolerate the debate space being used to bully, insult, or harass fellow competitors. I will not evaluate personal disputes between debaters.

11) I think disclosure probably ought to be reciprocal. If you mined the aff's case from the wiki then I certainly hope you are disclosing negative positions. My expectations for disclosure are dependent on the division and tournament, and can be subject to theory which is argued in the round. DCI debaters in Kansas should be participating in robust disclosure, at a minimum after arguments have been presented in any round of a tournament.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

First and foremost, this is a debate event. Any speech after the authorship/sponsorship speech should be making direct, meaningful reference to prior speakers in the debate. Simply repeating or rehashing old points is not an effective use of your, or my, time. Several speeches in a row on the same side is almost always bad debate, so you should be prepared to speak on both sides of most legislation.

The fastest path to standing out in most chambers is to make it clear that you're debating the actual content of the legislation, not just some vague idea of the title. Could I get your speech by just Googling a couple of words in the topic, or have you actually gotten into the specific components of the legislation before you?

I come from the policy debate planet originally but that doesn't mean I want you to speed. We have different events for a reason.

Role playing is generally good, particularly if we're at a circuit or national tournament where your constituents might be different from others in your chamber.

I notice and appreciate effective presiding officers who know the rules and work efficiently, and will rank you highly if your performance is exemplary.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE

Speed is fine but I will not clear you (see longer discussion in policy below). I come from a fairly traditional LD circuit, so while I can understand policy type argumentation, my decision calculus may be a bit unpredictable if you just make this a 1 on 1 CX round with too-short speech times.

I am watching for clipping and will directly intervene against you if you clip cards in a way that I judge to be egregious, even if the issue is not raised in the round.

My default way of evaluating an LD round is to compare the impacts presented by both sides through the lens of each side's value and criterion, if presented. If you want me to do something different please run a clear role of the ballot or framework argument and proactively defend why your approach is predictable enough to create fair debate.

Your last 1-2 minutes, at least, should be spent on the big picture writing my reason for decision. Typically the debater who does this more clearly and effectively will win my ballot.

PUBLIC FORUM

Clash is super important to all forms of debate and is most often lacking in PF. You need to be comparing arguments and helping me weigh impacts.

Pointing at evidence is not incorporating it into the round. If you don't actually read evidence I won't give it any more weight than if you had just asserted the claim yourself. Smaller quotations are fine, but the practice of "this is true and we say this from Source X, Source Y, and the Source Z study" is anti-educational.

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.

Last Updated: Summer 2022

Assistant Speech Coach for 4 years at Lawrence High

Debated at Olathe Northwest for 2 years and Speech all 4 years.

Undergraduate at University of Kansas

Please email me with further questions: easvetlak@gmail.com

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

Experience: I competed in this event from 2014-2018. Have been coaching this event for 4 years.

What I look for:

- Early speeches should both provide general pros/cons for the bill while referencing the bill and what each section is changing.

- Direct clash is very very important to making Congressional debate, debate. However, when referencing speeches, make it meaningful and add something new to the argument. If you are adding to an argument, make it clear why your addition was necessary.

- Presiding over a chamber can be just as important as giving speeches

- Knowing the rules of the chamber and tournament, even when not the PO, is important.

- Discrimination or bigotry of any kind will not be tolerated. It will show up on your ballot and when necessary, be reported.

POLICY

Overall: This is a working paradigm that will and should change with each round and new arguments I see. If you have any questions I would love for you to ask them to me before the round. For most arguments- if you don't understand what you are reading and can't explain it to me clearly, I will not take the time to figure it out myself (understand what you read!!) With that said- I am fine with most basic arguments and as long as you ACTUALLY do the work to explain whatever link, impact, etc. I should be voting on.

Speed: I didn't spread in high school but if you give me the speech docs I can keep up for the most part. Don't be crazy.

T: I really don't care if you run T and don't go for it if it makes at least a little sense. I will vote on T with a violation of the resolution but it needs to be apparent and both teams need to be doing the work and engaging in the debate to tell me what standards I should evaluate.

Theory/Framework: For theory and framework you can run the basics but it would need a walk through. I mean tell me where and why I'm voting.

DA's: Great in front of me long as you can explain to me why their aff links to a DA you can run in every round I have no problem voting on it. I like specific DA's too. With any DA make sure to explain to me the link (or many links) to the aff and do impact work in explaining why the DA is the worst case scenario. I will vote on terminal impacts. And impact turns can be very strategic if done right. This would be a good strategy in front of me.

K's: If you're going to make this argument you have to be going very slow and walk me through it. Probably not the best strategy in front of me but if its important to you and you do it well go for it.

CP's: I like all most CP's. Again, if its complicated walk me through it. If you are going to run a CP as an off case, make sure to explain the net benefit to me (now the NB doesn't have to be a whole new DA, if you can articulate to me a creative NB I will consider it.) Aff- Arguments like no solvency work well for me on CP's.

Other notes:

Open cross is fine but don't be rude.

Don't be Racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

Rude comments about the other teams are also NEVER okay. Like that will show up on your ballot.

I would like the speech docs if you're doing an email chain or in out rounds.

Email: debate.swafford@gmail.com

Experience: Competed in HS (policy debate only), current Shawnee Mission West Speech and Debate assistant coach

Pronouns: He/Him

Non-Policy Notes:

LD: I'm open to just about anything in LD, but I do tend to expect a traditional values debate. If you want to get real philosophical or fun with it, that's fine, just explain your stuff. See if you can glean anything from my policy notes, but as long as you aren't a jerk you're going to be fine. I will always view high school debate as an educational activity - this means I value good, proper argumentation over everything. The basis or motivation of that argumentation is totally up to you.

PF: I straight up just weigh contentions. My ballot will list my decision on each contention and how much I weigh it in the context of the round. Fully winning a single impactful contention will sway my vote more than winning a bunch of less important ones. I don't love having more than 2 or 3 contentions, less is always more. Please don't be chaotic during grand crossfire, some of y'all need to chill.

Policy Notes:

Don't be rude or condescending to me or your opponent. Don't use problematic language. Be nice, have fun, live, laugh, love.

I fundamentally believe this to be an educational activity more than a competitive one, so I tend to lean truth over tech. I'm big on communication skills and proper argumentation. Logical fallacies, bad-faith arguments, lack of warrants, and blatant misuse of data or statistics (I teach math) make me sad. I will almost always prioritize probability when weighing impacts. Clear analysis is key. I always follow along in docs, but will not be doing any additional reading - I've gotten more and more comfortable doing less and less work in a round.

I'm fine with speed (like 7/10) with appropriate signposting and a clear structure. If you spread through absolutely everything and I can't reasonably comprehend something, I won't vote on it. Judge instruction and having good rebuttals can help cover you. I'm not the judge for you if you're just trying to win by out-speeding your opponent. That's boring and, in my opinion, antithetical to the point of the activity. I'm also not the best judge for a highly technical round - I don't have a lot of high level varsity experience and can struggle with processing all the jargon when going fast (think closer to 5/10 on speed for heavy theory). I find theory debates boring at best and inscrutable at worst. The team that can actually explain why I should care (in plain language) will get my ballot. Other than that, I really don't have any opinion or preference on what you run.

Assume I know nothing when reading philosophy, because I likely know very little about whoever you are talking about. I'm comfortable with most standard kritiks, but I don't read (or generally care) about philosophy, so you'll need to help me out there. I do enjoy a good K debate. You do you! All this said, don't be performative. Really think about what you are saying. Running a K just to win a debate is, oftentimes, high-key problematic.

Things I find annoying:

- Wasting time with tech issues (speech drop, email, computer, etc.); always have a back-up plan. In the words of the poet T.A. Swift, "If you fail to plan, you plan to fail."

- Interrupting your opponent during cross ex and then later saying they didn't answer your question.

- Overuse of jargon or abbreviations. Until something is clearly established in a round, I don't want to hear a slang term. Be better communicators.

- No attempt to offer a roadmap, signposts, or any semblance of structure to your speeches.

- Just reading card after card after card without actually saying anything substantive.

- No clash in a round. What are we even doing here?

- Bad rebuttals. At least outline why I should vote for you. I'm lazy, write my RFD for me. Give me some specific cards I should reference in my decision.

- Stealing prep time. You can't "stop prep" and then spend 5 minutes uploading a document. If you are truly that bad at technology, you need to go old school and be a paper debater.

- Don't roll your eyes at the other team, that's such an unnecessarily mean thing to do and being mean is loser behavior.

- Extinction/nuke war outweighing on magnitude is nothing if you can't definitively prove probability. It's hard to do that, of course, so maybe you should all stop escalating everything all of the time and have a reasonable debate instead.

- One thing I think about a lot: all you varsity kids spend so much time pouring over each other's stuff, you can't get upset at judges who miss something when we only get ONE shot to follow arguments live. Debate isn't my life and I'm going to miss stuff. I promise you I will give you my full attention, but you have to have realistic expectations.

- Asking for feedback from me after a round; it'll be on the ballot. (I need time to process my thoughts and don't want to say something mean/unhelpful to you on the spot). If I feel like there is something necessary to immediately share, I will. I will usually update my RFD/notes throughout the tournament, so check back at the end for the most detailed feedback. (Note: if the tournament is doing verbal RFD's, feel free to ask questions, don't expect eloquent answers though.)

- Trying to shake my hand (I'm sure you're nice, but, gross).

TL/DR:

- be nice, truth over tech, clear analytics, explain your kritiks, rebuttals are key, don't shake my hand

(LD Paradigm below Policy paradigm)

I'm a pretty traditional judge.

I am willing to be persuaded based upon quality of argument/evidence. I do not give wins to quantity of evidence over quality of evidence.

There are no arguments to which I am automatically opposed---save for 2 caveats

1-I don't like fiat carried to Harry Potter/"magical" levels. There has to be some solid grounding in reality for me. Taken too far it gets into "how many angels can dance in the head of a pin?" territory. Most of the topics deal with serious issues that have serious real-world ramifications and they deserve being treated with due seriousness.

2-Having personally spent years arguing that literally nearly everything leads to nuclear war/global death/genocide/extinction etc. etc. , I will not flow said augments. I will NOT-I Repeat WILL NOT punish anyone for making them, as I said, I have done so myself. I simply will not flow such arguments.

Again, quality of argument matters more to me than quantity.

I'm ok with whatever speed debaters want to use. But if you really can out-speed my flow---well, if I can't flow it, then it makes it hard for you to win.

I am not a "blank slate" judge, I will not pretend that I don't know things.

I prefer clash on substantive points. I prefer dealing directly with the topic at hand. I often find highly technical "small ball" debates about debate itself to be unpersuasive.

I also greatly dislike it when debaters miss frame, take out of context or otherwise distort/spin/ etc. their evidence.

Any other question debaters might have, please ask.

LD Paradigm

I am "Old School" when it comes to LD Debate.

Pretty straightforward when it comes to LD--and other styles of debate

The only thing of note would be a deep disappointment with people that attempt to make LD into something like Policy Debates "little brother" or Policy Debates "mini-me."

LD is its own style of debate--it has it own rules, structure, methodology, delivery etc. etc

It is no more appropriate to try and crush Policy Debate methods/arguments/terms/delivery into an LD round than it would be to try and pass off ones Poetry selection as an Extemp speech. You CAN force round pegs into square holes---if you pound hard enough----but it tends to mangle things pretty thoroughly, an unappealing result.

Spreading and cranking up the speed (in general) despite being currently in-fashion, in places, is not really appropriate in LD where Delivery counts. Nor consistent with its historical context and purpose.

Plus if everything is essentially/effectively Policy Debate then there is really no reason at all for any other formats/styles etc. of debate.

Different events require different approaches, methodologies, styles and delivery. Inability or refusal to adapt ones case and methodology to fit the event or the paradigm IMO leads to poor quality debate.

I am not a "blank slate" Judge and as such I will not pretend that I don't know things. Attempts to get things "past" ones opponent that are not factually or logically correct will be noted.

Sincerely sorry if that sounds harsh but being able to adapt ones case/methods to fit the event and judging paradigms is a crucial skill for any competitor--esp. a debater.

I am a judge that only watches a few rounds of debate per year.

As a layjudge, an off time roadmap and clear sign posting is very helpful.

Rate of delivery can be rapid as long as there is articulation and clear points.

Several arguments will help win a round, but not without a firm connection to the case.

Communication is slightly more important than resolution of issues. I need to be able to follow the arguments and match them to the case in order for me to vote on the information presented.

I’m not fond of spending a lot of time on topicality arguments but if one is presented it needs to be defended.

Counterplans need to have a clear advantage over the aff and not contradict other neg arguments.

Generic disadvantages are fine as long as they are tied back to the original case.

Like other types of evidence, kritiks need clear links. Extended argument on the theory of debate detracts from having an actual debate.

I am a community member judge with no personal debate experience beyond that as the parent of a debater. I know how much time and effort goes into these debate tournaments, and I am honored to get to listen.

Please talk slowly enough that I can hear and comprehend. I really want to be able to understand your arguments, and I can't do that if you're racing through material.

I don't have preferences on the type of arguments made, but please clearly explain your arguments so that I understand why they are meaningful and relevant to the overall debate.

Finally, please be respectful, and remember to have fun! I am excited to hear you debate!

I've evolved as a judge which has unfortunately been interpreted as I'm inconsistent or unpredictable. As an assistant coach I understand that creates frustration, which I want to avoid, so if there is anything below that is not 100% clear, please ask me prior to the round. I would much rather have a brief discussion and give you some sense of understanding my thought process than you walk away from the round thinking you don't know what you could have done to win my ballot. I assure you, there have been people who have asked and learned how I evaluate, and those individuals found me to be consistent even if it wasn't always in their favor (though it often was).

Let's start with the foundation. Once upon a time I would give myself the label of "games player" because I appreciated good strategy. I still evaluate if I think a team is being strategic or clever, but I am strongly TRUTH OVER TECH. If you tell me that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and your opposition does not respond, that DOES NOT mean I accept something that is not true. I think it is especially critical in an environment of "fake news" or "relative facts" that we champion the truth above spin. So you will find that if your argument is only theoretically plausible, it is going to be much less persuasive than if you stick to simple truths.

This leads me to two conclusions you should be able to draw about how I evaluate a round. 1st, magnitude does NOT overwhelm probability. In fact magnitude rarely plays any part in my decision. I have listened to the same authors for 25+ years predict the next war will be over water or food or that we're all going to starve or that terrorists are moments away from having nuclear weapons. Empirically all of these authors are wrong. The have no credibility with me. Which means I give zero weight to an impact that I have zero probability of believing it will happen. You hear judges say all the time that they are tired of nuke war impacts. You want to know why? Because I have lived my entire life with the doomsday clock at least 7 minutes to midnight. The "experts" have cried wolf for far to long to be believed. The only chance you have to win on magnitude is if you extend very detailed warrants about why this time is different and the facts your author has looked at to draw the conclusions. If you don't know what facts the author looked at, don't bother.

2nd, links and link stories matter much more than uniqueness. I believe students like to debate uniqueness because it is easy. It is eacy to try to find evidence about the current state of the world. What is hard is predicting the consequences of taking any action. This is why solvency and link turns on case are extremely effective as well as indicting internal links on a D.A. to make it go away. I will assign 0% solvency or 0% risk of a link so defense can make an entire flow seemingly go away. This is especially apparent on politics scenarios! Pundits who try to predict elections or votes on legislation are less accurate than the weatherman! I will not assume that just because the Affirmative plan is topical that it will lead to any consequence other than the ones that are by fiat. I have listened to debaters who were incredibly informed on specific congressional leaders and how certain pieces of legislation are being used as a political football, and those debaters were persuasive. If you just aren't that debater, there is no shame in that, but you will find your politics scenario just isn't persuasive.

Let's shift gears and talk a little about topicality. Here is my single belief: the affirmative team must affirm the resolution. When I write affirmative on the ballot that means the affirmative team has successfully convinced me the resolution is true. The affirmative plan is an example of the possible reasons the resolution is true. The affirmative doesn't have to prove all instances of the resolution are true, but at least the affirmative plan should be adopted and if the affirmative plan is an example what could be under the resolution, then the resolution is true. This view of the resolution is nearly non-negotiable (we'll talk about K's in a minute). This means the affirmative plan is a proof of the resolution or it isn't. Period. I don't evaluate if it is fair because that is subjective. There will be an interpretation that I either believe or don't believe, it is always all or nothing. When it comes to competing interpretations, I will walk into the round with an interpretation in my mind (no one is a blank slate) and that will be my default. I can be persuaded that there is a different interpretation, but the reason must be more compelling than an appeal to emotion and warranted in facts. I will admit, topicality is the one place that I will suspend the truth until it is argued. There are countless rounds in which the foundation of an affirmative plan hasn't been established, it isn't prima facia topical, and I don't get to pull the trigger because the negative is silent. That frustrates me because I don't get to vote on what I see is the truth. That doesn't mean run topicality no matter what, because you hurt your credibility by running the wrong violation or running it to run it. It's not a strategic time suck. Both the affirmative and negative need to ask themselves if they would vote on if the affirmative is topical and make their best case. It probably goes without saying, but I believe the plan text must be topical, not the solvency of the plan. I believe the plan text must be sufficient to justify the resolution. If you need to do something in addition to the resolution to show the plan should be adopted, then you have shown the resolution should not be affirmed because it is insufficient.

I said I'd talk about K's, so lets get it over with. For years I said I didn't like them or worst wouldn't even listen to them. I'm much more open minded now, but here is the truth. You have 26 minutes to convince me of some philosophical position that I might not agree with. That is ridiculously hard when I've studied most of these positions for entire semesters, or life long, and have true biases. Flat out, I believe in Capitalism. I've studied Marx, and I happily participate in a Capitalist society. I have voted on Cap Bad because the round called for it, but my default is Cap Good. I could go through several popular K's, but you get the point. You will either 1. have to get lucky and preach to the choir on something I already believe or 2. knock me off my preconceived notion about the world. That's either luck or quite difficult. And I will caveat all of this with one big factor. If you are making a social criticism, you better walk the walk. You cannot be a hypocrite. If you performatively contradict your position, your link to the K will be far stronger than anything you say for your opponents because you should have known better. For example if you say animal suffering is always immoral and you are wearing leather shoes, you better be able to prove the cow died of natural causes! I LOVE to vote against the team who presents a K and link back into it. Speaking of K links, I will not assume the K links, you need to have a story (see my take on D.A.'s). And your alt must actually solve (see my take on solvency).

From K's to their cousins the CP. I am old and still believe that a counterplan must be an opportunity cost to the affirmative plan. We can't do the CP and the Aff (mutually exclusive) and the CP is better than the Aff (competitive) so we should do the CP instead of the affirmative. Futhermore the CP must be non-topical or else the affirmative gets to simply say the counterplan is one more example of why the resolution is true. See, the affirmative could present 2 or more plans to prove the resolution is a good idea. They don't do that because it puts them more at risk because they must advocate for everything they present, but they can just freely have the CP if the CP is topical. This is a strong belief of mine so theory to tell me otherwise is not persuasive. This isn't to say PIC's are off limits, it just means the PIC must be extra topical (see my take on why extra T doesn't justify the resolution). There are plenty of strategic CP's that work with this paradigm, but ultimately it needs to be an opportunity cost to the affirmative. CP's can be permed, thus they are not mutually exclusive and therefor not an opportunity cost to the affirmative plan. A CP can link to a D.A. so it isn't competitive. I appreciate counterplans and their usage, but they need to be that opportunity cost to the resolution.

The rest of theory type stuff is a coin flip and situational. I've voted on condo good and bad. I'm willing to pull the trigger on something, but you need to explain it and warrant it. I don't fill in the gaps for blips.

To be clear, I don't fill in anything. Just saying a couple of key words like "perm do both" or "pull the impacts" may not be sufficient. If I understood what you said earlier, perhaps, but I'm not going to insert what I think you mean by shouting out debate jargon. This leads to the overused question of speed. This is a verbal activity. I almost never read cards because I want to evaluate what I heard. If I hear the warrants in a card, great. If I'm not able to process the warrants then all you've done is make a claim in your tag. Speed is very rarely the issue, it is a matter of clarity. And it is unusually pretty obvious if I've given up on flowing. The only time I usually ask for evidence is when I personally am questioning myself on what I heard and I think it is my fault I'm unsure. As far as I'm concerned the authors are there to lend credibility, you are making the arguments, so I'm not going to evaluate what your author said, I'm going to evaluate what you said. If you author lacks credibility, you might as well just say things in your own words. Which honestly is often not a bad thing. I think debaters are way too dependent on quoting an author and treating it like a fact. If your author makes a claim but doesn't warrant it, just because they are an author doesn't make it true. This is more common in K debates where quoting a philosopher is treated like an absolute truth, but it can happen anywhere in the debate. Again, I want the truth over tech, so facts with logical analysis will outweigh a card in most situations.

Finally, I am human. I am biased. I have emotions. Why is this relevant? Because my bias and my emotions can make somethings seem more persuasive than others. Your credibility matters. If you destroy your credibility, you might say you won on the flow, but I'm not believing you so what is on the flow carries no weight. Treating your opponents poorly lowers your credibility. "Put away your impact defense, my card beats them all" is insulting because it shows that you care more about what your opponents think about how cool you are than persuading me that your argument is actually sound. Tag team cross ex tells me through your actions that "I don't trust my partner. My partner is stupid so I'll speak out of turn. What I have to say is more important." That is pretty damning to your partners credibility and frankly makes you a jerk. Prompting arguments says the same thing. Prompting "slower" shows you are trying to assist with something they might not realize in the moment but giving an argument and having them parrot it word for word so it "counts" is about the worst ways to attempt to persuade me. If you cause logistical issues such as being late to the round because what your assistant coach had to say was more important than my time, or stealing prep time while you fiddle with your computer, or take significant time to pass evidence, all of these things I notice and leaves an impression on me. You might be shocked by this, but humans like to reward people they like and punish those they don't like. That isn't to say I'll immediately vote against you because you rearranged the entire room so you could plug in your laptop, but it makes your job harder if I'm rooting against you. Just don't give me a reason to want to vote against you and we'll be fine.

Oh, and I don't shake hands. I'm not as adverse as Howie Mandel, but I prefer not to physically touch strangers. I just don't see any reason to do it. I know you respect me as a human and I respect you as a human without our hands touching.

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.

As a former forensics competitor and coach, I pay a good deal of attention to delivery (you need to speak at a rate such that I can understand you!). Just rattling off info without emphasis or proper inflection damages your credibility for me. Logical arguments are important. Finally, professional and courteous conduct is always appreciated!