Dana Hensley Debate Invitational
2021 — Wichita, KS/US
Policy Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Experience: Head coach for 6 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 for 17 years.
Speed: Okay with moderate to quick pace. Spreading okay on evidence BUT you need to be slower and more deliberate with analysis.
Paradigm: I default to policymaker. I will listen to critical arguments but I prefer real world consequences for those criticisms that can easily be weighed against the other side. I weigh topicality roughly equal to other positions in the round.
Novice Rounds: If this is a novice round. I expect to hear case debate. You should avoid arguing a disadvantage or counterplan unless you understand it and have discussed it with your coach.
The root of Debate is to persuade the judge that your argument is the better option. To that end, spreading is not an attempt to persuade but an attempt to overwhelm your opponent. That said, spreading to create greater depth is fine.
Rudeness or condescension toward your competitors is never welcome.
Kritiks are fine, though you'll need to link them to something tangible.
Debate is mostly about education and partly about fun. Try your best but don't take things too seriously as we won't actually implement any of the plans based on how a high school Debate round goes.
I have no issue with counter-plans but they are often easy to defeat.
Feel free to ask me questions for clarity or specifics on any of this.
Keeping track of your time and your opponents' time is your job and part of the challenge of Debate.
Please add me to your email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I did not debate in high school or college, but have served as a debate assistant for several years. I have judged about 10 rounds on this year's topic. I am policy maker or stock issue judge. I appreciate when teams listen to the evidence that the other team is reading and analyze it and check the warrants. I hate just reading blocks without explanation.
The Affirmative has the burden of proof to support the resolution. You will probably do better if you do not speed read to me.
Generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks are fine. Topicality is fine. Specific links are important. Explanation is important.
The last speakers should weight the round.
I will penalize rudeness. Just be nice to each other.
Derby High School
4 Years High School (1980s)
3 Years College - CEDA and NDT (circa 1990s - old guy!)
Coaching: Current head coach of Derby High School and former head coach of Kapaun Mount Carmel High School.
Updated: August 17, 2016
I have been around for a long time and I have remained progressive in my coaching and views on debate. I am fine with theory and/or non-traditional debate strategies, but I will try to outline some predispositions.
I will vote on it and I think it is still an issue. I prefer CI but teams need to explain their interpretation and why it is better. I prefer to see some link that indicates a loss of strategic ground for the negative. I may be persuaded by potential abuse, but prefer some in-round loss of ground or strategic disadvantage.
I honestly think clash is very important. Teams who try to frame the debate in ways in which ground is extremely limited or non-existent for their opponent tend to lose my ballot when this is properly debated. I evaluate this on the flow based on what was presented in the round, not what I think about the position. I am not persuaded by FW that says Ks are bad/illegitimate - they are part of debate get over it!
Not particularly fond of conditions CP or plan + CP positions. Fairly open to anything else, but CP solves better is not a net benefit!
I have read some literature, coached some successful K teams, open to hearing whatever you like, but don't expect me to vote on (or catch) K buzz words and vote because you said something that sounds cool. K teams have a higher threshold for me in establishing a link and point of clash with opponents. Just because someone told you, "say this phrase and you will win" probably won't work with me. However, a solid K position with clear link/impact/relevance will get my ballot if well defended.
I tend to give some risk to even sketch link stories. That works for both aff and neg. Focus on timeframe and magnitude for me.
Again, I tend to give the aff some risk of solvency usually. I expect both teams to do solid impact calc and weigh everything in the round.
Bottom-line - I like debate which for me means clash. Not too concerned about what you are presenting, but I am concerned that a debate happens and I can make a decision based on how arguments are presented and who best explains why they should win. In the few instances where teams have been disappointed with my decision it usually revolves around what they "thought" they said in the round and what I "heard" in the round. I will not do work for you, so explanation trumps reading a ton of cards in most of my decisions. Any more questions, just ask me.
***If you're short on time, just read what's in bold***
Maize High School (China, Education, Immigration, Arm Sales)
Wichita State (Alliances)
Cornell '24 (taking a sabbatical)
Coach for St. Mark's School of Texas, formerly a coach at Maize High School. Call me Connor. they/them
I really don't want to do a SpeechDrop or whatever. Prefered subject line: [Tournament] [round] [aff team] (aff) vs [neg team]. ex. Heritage Hall Rd 4 Little Rock Central GL (aff) v Maize LM
1. Do whatever you're best at and I'll be happy. I used to run Ks in high school, but by senior year I figured out I was way better debating policy. Last season, ~50% of my 2nrs were T; however, I find myself mostly in clash debates. I've voted for both fw and the K roughly equal amounts. Really, do whatever you want.
2. Disclosure is good. Preferably on the wiki. Plus .2 speaker points if you fully open source the round docs on the wiki (tell me/remind me right after the 2ar. I'm not going to check for you and I'm bad at remembering if you tell me earlier).
3. Please number and label your arguments. Give your off names in the 1nc.
4. Don't be mean or offensive. Please actively try to make the community inclusive. I will not hesitate to dock speaks, drop you, or report you to the tournament directors/your coach if you say or do anything offensive or unethical.
5. I have auditory processing issues. I can struggle with understanding everything you say, so clarity and pen time are extra important. Sending analytics is nice too. I don't flow off the speech doc but I use it as proto-closed captioning + I check for clipping. If online, being able to read your lips is helpful. Facing the mic is helpful. I won't ever dock speeches for not being totally accommodating, but I might miss something you say if you don't.
I'm in Ireland until December so it'll probably be dark when I'm judging you and I might have some technical difficulties. Please be patient with me.
I'm a big fan of posting the roadmap in the chat.
Slow down. It's possible that I might miss things during the round due to tech errors. Most mics are also not great and so it can be harder to understand what you are saying at full speed.
I have a multiple monitor setup so I might be looking around but I promise I'm paying attention.
If my camera is ever off, please get some sort of confirmation from before you begin your speech. It's very awkward to have to ask you to give your speech again bc I was afk.
I think affs should be in the general direction of the topic. That doesn't mean I'm going to outright not vote for you if you're extremely anti-topical, but rather that I'm more likely to buy negative framework arguments.
If you're reading an aff that includes music in someway, I'd greatly appreciate if you turn it down/off while you speak. My auditory processing issues makes it difficult for me to understand what you're saying when there is something playing in the background. I don't have any qualms about this form of argumentation, I just want to understand what you're saying.
Affs need counter interps. I require a greater explanation of what debate looks like under the aff model more than most judges. You should explain how your (counter)interp generates offense/defense to help me conceptualize weighing clash vs your model. I don't think shotgunning a bunch of underdeveloped framework DAs is a good or efficient use of your time. Most of them are usually the same argument anyways, and I'd rather you have 2-3 carded & impacted out disads.
Maize High Debater 2016-2020
Please add me to the email chain - Brynnalese11z@gmail.com
Tech > Truth. I care about evidence quality and appreciate properly formatted cards. If you can be persuasive then I'll vote on anything. I follow along in the speech doc for clipping but I don't flow off of it. If I put my pen down during your speech, you're doing something wrong and should reevaluate your speed/clarity (I do clear first). I'm not super methodical about speaker points but am trying to become more consistent. Generally, I give them based on the quality of the tournament and how your skills match the pool in general. If you're acting excessively rude or just generally being a bad person I will give you terrible speaks regardless of your skills. Egregious offenses are auto losses.
Presumption ballots are underrated. Good case coverage is wonderful. However, card dumping with zero explanation (2nc/1nr) isn't going to get you anywhere.
I love T debates. I default to t as a question of models. I will vote for an extremely untopical aff in rounds where the aff is ahead on the t flow (I fell like this should be a given but I guess not every judge feels that way).
I'm not the biggest fan. I think that most of the time it's a reason to reject the argument and not the team. The exception to this would be condo debates or egregious offenses on other theory debates (this would include if the team answers a theory argument poorly).
I think the link debate is the most important part of winning a disad and, of course, I enjoy specific links. Ptx disads make my heart happy.
The more your counterplan is cheating, the better (sorry 2as). Judge kicking the counterplan is a logical extension of condo but I probably won't default to it unless you tell me to.
Sure, read them. However, they need to be topic directional.
K v K:
K v K rounds are the ones I feel most uncomfortable adjudicating. I will be able to understand the basic aspects of the round but I will be very lost in the nuances so you'll probably need to do some extra explaining. You would be better off reading framework and impact turns but if you want to do this I guess that's fine too.
I'm average in terms of my experience with Ks. I didn't read them very often but when I did it was the generic security, bio politics, and cap stuff. I'm familiar with anti-blackness, fem, set col, anti-blackness, and queer K lit from answering those Ks on the aff. I have judged an aggressively large amount of K debates over the past two years so you're probably good to go no matter what k you are reading.
Total policy rounds judged all time: 114
I am an old school "Get off my lawn" kind of judge. I have been an assistant debate coach for 18 years and I was a high school debater but not college. I prefer real world arguments with normal impacts nuke war and extinction really annoy me. I hate spreading and will stop listening if you word vomit on me. I can handle speed but double clutching and not clearly reading tags will be a problem. I am being forced to do an electronic ballot but that DOES NOT mean I want a flash of your stuff. I HATE KRITIKS but will vote on it if it is the only thing in the round. I prefer nontopical counterplans and will tolerate generic DAs if the links are specific. I like stock issues and policy impact calculus. I like quality analytical arguments. Teams who read good evidence not just camp and wiki stuff will get my vote.
I've been in the debate community for 16 years. Please tell me how I should vote and why. I am open to any judging paradigm.
Clear links, signposting, and substantial impacts are critical. I enjoy good impact calc when weighing the round as a policymaker. If you want me to vote from a stock issues paradigm, please provide an excellent line-by-line debate.
D/A's - I expect clear and direct links to the AFF case when using generic D/A's.
K's - Welcomed if severe and authentic. If it's a joke about us living in the matrix, I will probably not vote for it unless the other team can't answer.
Topicality - I don't care. I understand the strategy of T to cause commitment to an affirmative stance to provide stronger links. If proper T shells exist on both sides, it becomes neutral in my mind unless a team offers an excellent analysis that sells me.
Speed - I support spreading evidence at any pace. I do care about cadence and accuracy during spreading. However, I do prefer your analysis or warrant to be clearly articulated.
Secret Permenter, B.A. in History and Political Science.
I have experience judging different events in Forensics. Do not have much experience with Lincoln-Douglas Debate, but ready to learn and grow! I have knowledge on the subject at hand and I know what is expected in an LD judge, so...
3 years of debate experience. I am typically a Tabula Rasa or policymaker judge, but I am very fluid in my paradigm. If Neg is not presenting a counterplan, I will likely not judge as a policymaker. How you debate will determine how I judge. I am very open-minded in my judging.
Speaking Speed -- I do not mind fast talking/reading in a round, as long as the words are able to be understood. If you are talking so quickly that I cannot understand what you are saying/arguing, then the other team may not as well.
My biggest pet peeve is burden of proof. The AFF has burden of proof. It is up to the AFF team to Prove that their plan is worth winning and that their plan isn't as bad as the Neg team may say it is.
Another pet peeve I have is people who argue who is more credible than another. If your only argument against the other team's evidence is that you have a more credible source, it is not necessarily a strong argument.... Obviously you can argue that point, but it shouldn't be the basis of your entire argument.
Below is some information to help you understand how I feel about certain key components of debate. You are always welcome to ask questions!
Topicality/Theory - I am informed on what the current debate topic is, and I have experience in its relevance to the current world. Aff needs to have plans that are topical. Neg- if you argue topicality, don't just give me definitions because definitions can be argued to no end. Give me reasons as well. Why is your definition the best definition. How does the definition prove non-topicality.
Disads - Every plan, no matter how good, will have disadvantages. If you are upright about disadvantages, it shows me your case has actually looked at more than the positive sides. If you can't fit disads into 1Aff, then 1Aff should be prepared to offer them up in Cross if asked. If you claim to have no disadvantages, then your topic is not as researched as it should be.
Counterplans - I am not for or against counter plans. Counter plans can work well and win, but they need to be executed well. Do not enter the debate with a counterplan as your only course of action, and don't use it as a last resort. Good Neg teams will show that the Aff argument is bad and that there is a better route (i.e. counterplan).
Kritiks -- There is a time and place to do Kritiks and they can be a good argument, but explanations of Kritiks are going to be key. I may not know what K you are talking about, so it is important that you get me and the opposing team on the same page as you. If I as a judge am unable to understand the Kritik, how can I judge based on that?
Personal Stories/analytical arguments -- I do not mind the use of personal experiences in a debate, as long as you use evidence as well. Many personal stories can be supported by statistics and facts and therefore these things should be included. Personal experiences should not be the bulk of your speech or the bulk of an argument, but simply an anecdote to help your argument. Analytical Arguments are typically made when you know a specific set of facts/statistics, but might not necessarily know where you learned said information. These are okay if you have other points that back it up. I am not taking your personal word over the word of evidence found from credible sources.
There are a few criteria I take into consideration when giving speaker points:
1. Whether or not you speak fluidly in a way that is both easy to hear and easy to understand. (Mumbling, speaking too quickly or too slow, and speaking too quietly can have negative impacts on speaker points)
2. How kind you are. I have been in debates where my partner and I received the highest speaker points because the other team was being rude, disrespectful, and yelling at us in Cross. I will not give high points to those who are disrespectful and rude in their cross, speeches, or otherwise. We are here to talk facts, not to belittle our opponents. I penalize rudeness toward other teams, toward eachother, etc.
3. Using your time. If you have 8 minutes to talk, I expect you use up as much of it as you can. Reiterate points I may not have caught the first time. Aff -- Sell your plan more. If you have finished counterarguing, make your plan look great. Neg -- explain your points, have more than one.
4 and final. Whether or not you have explanations. Both AFF and NEG need to read evidence AND explain how it applies to your argument/counterargument.
(1/14/22 State Update) - Even with as many rounds as I've judged, if it's a very topic specific acronym or something...just explain it. Also, I have not updated my actual paradigm for like 5 years now, but most of it is still accurate. The wearing of masks has also made it where my upper half of my face is very expressive...sorry. I am also a tired teacher currently. Also, I have ADHD - I promise I'm paying attention/listening even if I'm not making eye contact or look like I'm doing something else/staring off in space.
Debated 4 years at Emporia High School (Transportation - Surveillance). Debated primarily DCI circuit my senior year if high school, went to NSDA nats and placed top 25. I did not debate in college.
Currently in my fifth year of coaching at Emporia High School. I also am in my 2nd year of teaching at EHS, but I did not coach the 2020-2021 season due to us taking a year off for COVID.
I tried to be as precise as possible in this, ask me any clarification questions if need be.
If it's an email chain, add caylieratz [at] gmail [dot] com to it...but please use speechdrop at this point if possible.
General Comments: I'm not extremely familiar with everything on this topic, so if it's something uncommon please try to explain the acronyms or other things to me. Please try to have clash in a round. Don't make me do the work for you. Extend your arguments with warrants or I won't count them as still existing in the round. Tell me why you're winning the round. Write my ballot for me if you have to. Don't be rude. Don't be sexist. Don't be racist. Flashing is off-time unless you take a bunch of time doing it and hands-off prep while it's happening. If you clip you lose.
Cross-Ex: CX was one of my favorite parts of debate. Please use this to grill your opponents about the nitty-gritty of their ev and their arguments. If it's open CX, I expect the two people who are doing the CX to do most of the talking unless it's a couple of questions being asked, or if it is a clarification answer. Don't be rude in CX. You can interrupt your opponents if it's warranted, but not to just be rude. Don't talk over one another and don't turn it into a shouting match. I think you all can really win arguments in CX, but you have to do it respectfully - but with clash.
Speed: Speed in fine but please ease me into it. SLOW DOWN on your tags and analytics, so I can understand them. Make sure you emphasize the tags and the things you want me to listen to, and please make sure you emphasize when you're going to the next card or flow.
Disadvantages: Disadvantages are completely fine with me. I think they should probably link, but you do you. I prefer real-world impacts, but if you have to run a NoKo or Nuke War impact then that's fine, just make sure you do the impact calc debate and/or analytics on it.
Counterplans: Counterplans are fine, but conditionality is probably a voter if you run more than one. They should probably be advantageous to the aff. Make sure your counterplan can actually solve the aff.
Kritiks: I am unfamiliar with most K literatures, as it was not what I debated in high school besides neoliberalism and biopower. I will listen to a K, but you need to be able to explain it to me super well and cut the jargon out of it. Don't just spread a K at me and expect me to understand - if I look confused, I'm probably confused. I also think the alt should probably solve unless you can convince me otherwise, but I lean heavily on whether or not the alt can solve.
T/FW: Topicality is important, but make sure you explain the violation/standards well. I probably lean toward reasonability more than competing interpretations, but the debate it yours to get me to sway either way. On other theory, conditionality, multiple worlds, and perfcon are something I look into when it comes to rounds only if the argument is made by the team. I don't believe in disclosure theory unless you're going to run a super squirrelly aff. On FW with a K, see the above note on K's for that you need to explain it to me fairly well, and you should probably have a ROB.
Extra things: Drop a joke and make me laugh. I am fairly expressive in my facial reactions - whoops - when it comes to listening to things. Ignore that I probably won't make lots of eye contact with you, but I will look up every now and then. If I'm not flowing and you're saying something important or you're on a K/FW you're probably going too fast. I like Hamilton references.
Hi! My name is Prakriti, she/her. Senior at Wichita State University.
I debated 4 years at Wichita East High School (2015-2019) mostly KDC/Open.
Add me to the chain: email@example.com. I'm also fine with SpeechDrop.
I'd prefer it if your docs weren't PDFs or google docs, and that your evidence is formatted using verbatim.
I follow along the doc - if I see you clipping its an automatic L.
I'll vote for anything. Tech over truth. You should be well-versed in your arguments. Nothing annoys me more when debaters stand up for speeches after the 2ac and just read cards/analytics straight down without interacting with your opponents' arguments.
More familiar with policy args, as far as K's, I'm familiar with Cap and Fem. Other than that you should over-explain.
I'll be flowing, and I expect you to do it as well. I like good cross-ex.
If you have any other questions about specific arguments please ask before the round.
But seriously, I'm a forensics coach first, so I wanna hear your fancy speaker skills at a REASONABLE pace!
I like to flow arguments on a spreadsheet. That means I want to hear you give CLEAR tags when you move to a new piece of evidence. And those tags need to be ACCURATE (i.e. NO powertagging)!
Also... CLASH!!! Answer the arguments! If you're the 1NC, and you give me T and 2 DAs but don't at least ADDRESS any of their On-Case, I'm not gonna be a happy judge. Same on the 2AC when you want to extend your On-Case. ADDRESS their Off-Case! And EXPLAIN your cards!
(e.g. "So judge, in a nutshell this is how their plan's solvency ultimately makes climate change worse for us all...">
Likewise, Give. Me. Roadmaps. I want to know WHERE you're going with the arguments, and SIGNPOST when you move from point to point (e.g. "Now let's address their Solvency..." "Okay, moving on to the Link in the BioTerrorism DA...") Letting me know WHERE your argument is on the flow is ESSENTIAL! If I have to look all over the place to guess where you are on the flow, then I'm missing the argument that you're making.
In rebuttals, I'm all about the Impact Calc. GET OFF THE CARDS. Let me hear your analysis of your argument. If you're still reading new evidence after the 2NC, you'd better have an awfully good reason for it. And definitely don't ignore the impact calc entirely. Talk to me!
And honestly, you don't need to wait until rebuttals to start your Impact Calc. Explain how your cards and your arguments defeat theirs in the constructives!
Finally, I want the debate round to be FUN. I would like to come away from that round with stories about how clever your argument was or how creative your analysis was.
Tell some jokes.
Drop some geeky, pop culture references.
Make me laugh.
Make me clap.
Give me a reason to look forward to judging another round.
I use she/her pronouns.
I am a debate coach, so you don't have to explain to me your terminology, but I expect you to clearly explain your arguments.
Include me in the evidence sharing chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I like a fair and educated debate. Please share your evidence (preferably - right away, certainly - upon request). Teams should refrain from insulting each other, using not-PC language, yelling and intimidating opponents, and make racist and sexist arguments.
Speed and Flowing:
I don't like spreading; reasonable speech is fine, but be aware that I am an auditory person and I need to hear what you have to say, so I need to understand what you are saying.
Organize, label, and signpost clearly. Give me a roadmap.
I will vote for Aff or Neg that convinces me that the other side lacks evidence or logic.
I will vote on any of the stock issues, including inherency.
I like sound Ts, but they must be structured and justified. Aff must answer Ts properly, no matter how outlandish they are, or I will vote Neg.
I will vote on a CP if it is advantageous, but I will gladly weigh a justified Perm.
I will vote on DAs if Aff is unable to answer them. I prefer probable DAs, but you can run whatever is your best shot, as long as it's properly linked.
I detest tempered evidence: misleading tags and unfair cutting. I love to hear evidence analysis. If a team questions the quality of evidence, be specific and purposeful. I don't care if their card is from 1957 and yours is from yesterday unless you'll tell me why it's a problem.
I will vote on Ks if you can understand and explain them. I will not vote on dehumanizing Ks or those that Neg cannot clearly articulate.
Your rule of thumb with me: show me your strength and run what you know how to do well. I will vote for a more educated and better-prepared team, provided that they do not abuse the merits of this activity.
Congratulations on making it to the state tournament! It is an honor to represent your school and yourselves. I wish you the best of luck this weekend.
Debate Experience: First year judging debate. Have 20+ years of internal auditing experience and basketball refereeing experience, so I am familiar with evaluating situations from multiple perspectives, listening to arguments and making decisions.
Please introduce yourselves and what school you are from and please enunciate clearly. This speaks to the confidence and pride you carry yourselves with. Similarly, speak slowly enough and clearly enough when presenting your case. If I can’t understand what you’re saying, I can’t possibly judge for your side. I also ask that you present your case, rather than read it. Suggest making the most of your prep time to familiarize yourself with the material so you can summarize it rather than read it.
Just as I would evaluate a basketball play or internal audit finding, I listen and observe the cases being made by each side. I am very open-minded in my judging and do not rush to judgment, rather wait to see how well you present your case, rebuttals and answer questions. I am not inherently for or against counterplans, kritiks or topicality, just ask that whatever you do, do it well and make a strong case for it. Being an auditor, I am more persuaded by logos, with ethos being a close second and pathos being a distant third. (Interpretation: presentation is important, but you can’t charm your way out of a weak case)
Last but certainly not least, Sportsmanship is of the utmost importance. Compete like crazy and be kind while doing it.
Cliff notes: I am a closeted K-Hack posing as a stock issues judge. On that note, spreading for the purpose of outspreading the other team is no different than word vomit. I am okay with speed if args are clear and well developed, I am not okay with speed when it is solely for out-reading the other team.
For Email chains: email@example.com
4-year policy debater/forensian @ Lansing HS (light congress) 2001-2005
4-year assistant debate/forensics @ Lansing HS 2006-2011
7 years head coaching debate/forensics (1 Leavenworth 2010-2011, 5 Salina-Sacred Heart 2012-2018, 1 Hutchinson 2018-2019)
3 years assistant debate/forensics @ McPherson HS 2020-pres
I like T that links, DAs and affirmative advantages should have real-world feasible impacts, and I am only in favor of K debate if the framework has equal ground for both teams to earn a ballot (don't run K's that are impossible for the aff to meet the alt). CPs must be competitive to be viable. Tell me why you win and what to vote for.
I believe the negative has to have a coherent position. I don't buy the "multiple worlds" theory of negative debate.
I am fine with open CX, but I am immensely against open speeches. Never feed your colleague lines in a speech. I don't care if they parrot your words exactly, it is not your speech to give.
I like deep discussions on interactions between the value and its criterion, especially when values and criterion are cross-applied between competing sides. I see LD as competing frameworks and will prefer the debater that does a better job framing the resolution in terms of the value and its criterion (or criteria).
I have no idea how this format works. I will vote on the team that gives the most compelling reasons to prefer.
I prefer speechdrop but do what you must.
Head Coach Nickerson HS since 2019
Assistant Coach @ Salina South 2017-2018
College: 4 Years Parli Debate, NFA-LD, and Limited Prep @ Kansas Wesleyan University from 2014-2018.
High School: 4 Years Debate/Forensics at El Dorado HS (2010-2014). Did pretty much everything.
I am a huge advocate in you doing you. I will list my preferences, but know that I do find myself open to nearly any argument/strategy/style within reason. Please do not feel like my paradigm below should constrain you from doing arguments that you believe in.
• Be respectful and debate with integrity. Overt rudeness and exclusionary/offensive language and/or rhetoric will lose you my ballot.
• Substantive arguments and clear clash/organization is a must. I will not vote for unethical arguments (e.g. racism good). Please weigh arguments clearly and have a nice technical debate. Clean flows make happy ballots.
• Tech first, but not only tech. Immoral arguments will not win my ballot even if they are won 'on the flow'. Please provide a FW for weighing and evaluating the round. Don't make me have to decide why you won - you may or may not agree with my process.
• I am receptive to framework and theory. I do not usually vote on procedural arguments on violations alone - extend and weigh your impacts on the procedural if you go for it in the 2R
• Kritikal arguments are good. Explain your alt to me. RotB arguments take a second for my brain to process because I am a big ol' dummy, so I will want clear warrants for how and why the claim is true that my ballot does something.
• Alternative approaches (Performative Affs, K Affs) are okay but I am in all honesty less familiar with these approaches. Please explain to me the reasoning/justification for your methodology in plain-ish language if you go this route.
• Run whatever traditional off-case you want. I will want a clear explanation for why your CP is competitive if challenged.
• Please be clear on the flow