Email: vlad.peters24@mcpherson.com

tldr: Game Is Game

For Novice. Just make me laugh and you'll win. For the love of god act like you somewhat want to be here or add any kind of personality. Please make me laugh by adding jokes.

First I'd like to start off by saying don't be jerks or disrespectful to anybody, It can and will become a voting issue. But you probably know that schpeel.

At heart I'm a gameplayer and will vote on whatever you tell me to vote in the round. If one team drops a piece of evidence and the other doesn't but egregiously lies about the evidence (pls dont lie about evidence) I will be forced to pref the wrong interp of the evidence as it is the only one in the round. To simplify my paradigm down it could more easily be "Game is game". Tell me what to vote on.

On topicality args, I am of the belief that you do not have to prove abuse in round for me to vote. If you prove that their plan is not functioning with what the resolution specifies and tell me to vote on it, I will vote on it. For example if a plan this year is deficit spending and you prove that deficit spending is not "fiscal redistribution", I do not care if you have case args too, I will not punish you for being good debaters and doing research. Of course I will also vote on abuse args. But I'm not a stickler about what is topical, if something is reasonably topical and its proven in round I will vote on it. If you can prove something is not resolutional I will probably vote on it.

On CP. CPs are legit and whatnot. I believe that you don't neccesarily need a net benefit if you can prove that your CP solves better than the plan (assuming there is no perm) idc I'll vote for it. Imma be real ill prolly never vote for a states cp, get good. Obviously if its uncontested or really well argued I'll vote on it. Once again, game is game. But usually its such a bad arg.

On DA. DAs are really the meat and potatoes of debate for me. I buy generic links if you convince me of a reason why they should apply. I believe the best way of beating a DA is going straight for a link, so if you prove you don't link nothing else matters on the DA flow. So if you clearly prove you don't link, I straight up no longer care about the rest of any of the args on the DA and you don't have to extend anything else on it if you really don't link. On the flip side if a really awful link is dropped on the DA, even if it doesn't apply I'm not gonna judge kick the link for you. Just extend the args reasonably and don't drop them. For the neg too you gotta extend everything on the DA flow for me to consider it. All things considered, I love me a good DA.

On K. I am not a super buff on Ks, Explain everything clearly on K. Treat me like a C student.That means for both sides. K lit can be very self indulgent and can pontificate for too long upon itself. It doesn't have to be in the 1NC but everywhere else explain all the args on the K and why I should be voting on them, although an explanation in the 1NC would be nice. This is one of the few times where (in a poor debate with no analytics, all debate should have analytics) just reading cards won't cut it on K. I'm not going to say you personally have to believe the K to run it, game is game. I am a big fan of utopia args, a lot of alts are all like "If you vote on this ballot, you'll save the world" I buy that kind of arg when the aff is acting as a policy maker, but not when the neg is using this ballot as a way to save the non post-fiat world. If you are going to say that my ballot will stop capitalism please make your alt actually have some kind of depth and steps that we would take to end capitalism. Not a big fan of "Change the space of debate" kind of alts, because god knows this ballot won't change a damn thing. But I'll still vote on it if argued properly. At heart I believe we should be here to debate the res, and if the best way of ending societal harm is taking down capitalism, so be it. But some Ks just get ridiculous, I'll still vote for them but may err aff when the ENTIRE round comes down to a queer desire K. But once again refer to the quote that has been repeated. Game is game.

On T for K affs. I believe K affs should be somewhat within the space of the resolution to provide predictable ground for the neg, once again debate is a game that should be able to be played by both sides. So if you run T as the neg ofc the aff doesn't have to be traditionally topical like a non K aff. But when you run T give me some kind of DA or impact to the loss of reasonable ground by the neg to be able to play the game of debate on an equal ground with the aff. I do not care how awesome you believe your K aff is, the neg should be able to debate too and blindsiding them with something that has nothing to do with the rez is an arg. Be real, you're not going to change the world with your K aff, I will vote for it, but you won't change the world. So the neg should have ground to debate your aff.

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.

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.