Background- I did debate and forensics for 4 years in High School in Kansas. I had some success at tournaments during my career. I went to state during my last season. I graduated from High School in 2017.

Speed- I can flow with whatever speed suits you. Please slow down for taglines and signposts. Slow down on analytical arguments. I will say "Clear" if I have to. If I miss something on the flow because you were not articulate enough, that is on you.

Speaker Presentation- I want a respectful debate round with clash. Please do not be rude. I would take off speaker points if necessary.

Paradigm- I am a Flow Judge. For the most part, I see the debate as a policy-based activity, so policy-making is what I tend to default on for framework. I can be convinced otherwise, but it needs to be appropriate and you have to make the argument for me to see it through a different "lens." I like "impact calc." I also like over and under views. I am okay with new arguments in the 2NC but not in the rebuttals. Use the Neg Block wisely. That's where I think debates are most likely to be won or lost. Explain why you think that your evidence is better than the opponent. Explain why you outweigh. Explain the IMP Calc. When in doubt, explain why your argument is better. Keep time of each other. When you say "End Prep" Do not spend more than 30-60 seconds after that, please. Saying End Prep should basically mean that you are getting ready to hit send. I love clash. I prefer closed CX but I am okay with Open. I will pay attention to CX but not flow CX. I prefer off time road maps.

Disadvantages- I will vote on DAs. Have a full disad. If you are trying to make it a timesuck argument, please at least make it link properly and have a good UQ.

Counterplan- I will vote on a counterplan. Please make the CP NOT topical. CPs saying "Do the plan later" will likely not get my vote.

Kritiks- It is VERY rare that I vote on a kritiks, but that does not mean I won't vote for it at all. The K just has be very good and the ALT has to be solid. Ks are the hardest thing to get me to vote for.

Topicality- I will not vote on it unless it is truly not topical. Do not use this as a time skew argument unless you truly believe the aff is not topical. Be cautious of the neg strat on this

Theory- These are my FAVORITE arguments. I will vote on theory arguments that make sense for the debate. Solvency Advocate Theory was my "bread and butter" in debate. Inherent barrier theory is also one that I will consider voting. I will vote for almost any theory. I will say that the least likely theory that I vote on is disclosure theory.

Feel free to ask me any questions. Have fun, be respectful, and learn. Please include me in email chains. My email is wiahmad14@gmail.com.

I really do not care what you read, but I'm more than glad to chat about the round and give you constructive criticism.

Debate at Blue Valley West, read primarily Racial-Cap, Warren, and some random imagination aff senior year. I have zero information about the topic.

Debate is ultimately a game, we play it to win, and so read arguments that make you as competitive as you can possibly be in the round -- with the limits of not making personal attacks on people, don't do that.

Would prefer that you don't read some 2 min OV of your random K in the 2NR, but hey, you do you, like I said above.

Feel free to ask any questions before the round as well.

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

Currently a 3rd-year debater at Blue Valley West High School. Feel free to run any arguments - I have no preference.

Please add me to the email chain: nbadkul@bluevalleyk12.net

Debated 4 years at Blue Valley West High School | Current 1st year at KU (not debating)

Add me to the email chain : nsbinshtok@gmail.com | Feel free to email me before/after the round with questions.

General :

1 — I primarily debated Open/KDC, and mainly ran policy arguments.

2 — I'm unfamiliar with what is being run in current high school topics, and haven't judged yet this season.

3 — I'm okay with speed as long as it is clear. You should not be reading your analytics, tags, and signposts at full speed, or you might lose speaks. I will have a much easier time following along the more you include in your speech docs, analytics included.

4 — Tech > Truth, I will only evaluate what is on my flow at the end of the round. If you want a higher chance of your arguments coming out on top, ensure that you are clearly extending your evidence throughout the round. I love seeing good clash within a debate round, and expect you to directly address specific arguments and evidence that have been read by your opponents in your line-by-line. Dropped arguments are important, but you still need to articulate what effect it should have on the flow.

5 — Argument preferences : You can read whatever you'd like in front of me, just keep in mind that I may not be the best judge for some arguments. On-case debate is vital, there are always arguments that can be made on either side, and the work you do here tends to be applicable throughout the entire round. I love a good DA+CP combo, especially when paired with strong impact calculus and clear articulation of the net benefit. I enjoy theory and topicality, I just feel these debates lack clash at times. Ensure your interpretation is clear, and I believe TVAs are a very underutilized tool. In terms of K debates, I've watched few and participated in even fewer. Take your time explaining your alternative and framework for me.

6 — Speech preferences : Clear signposting and adding emphasis/changing your inflection on important arguments throughout the whole round will help you gain more speaks. CX is underutilized, I will be listening, and I love hearing arguments in speeches based upon what was said in CX. By the end of your rebuttals, you should have more or less written my ballot for me. Distill the round down into the most important arguments, and have a clear idea for how you have won that is emphasized in your speech.

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.

* very out of date ask specifics in round

About Me:

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

Standards/Norms:

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

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

Case:

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

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

DAs:

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

CPs:

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

Ks:

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

Framing/Impacts:

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

T:

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

SPEC/Vagueness:

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

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

OVERALL:

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

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

faizan.khalid@barstowschool.org

I debated and did congress/senate for 4 years at Olathe South. I competed at KDC twice, 4-speaker state, 2-speaker state, regionals, and nationals (2022 and 2023) in senate.

I try to acknowledge that this is your tournament, not mine. Please don't read my paradigm and assume you shouldn't run an argument. This is here so you know how comfortable I am with arguments and my opinions on them. I view myself as a tabula rasa gal but obviously, I have my own personal opinions.

My face is expressive... use this to your advantage. I try to hide it, but often am unsuccessful.

CX: I enjoy CX. Your speaker points will be 60% cross-ex/rebuttal and 40% constructive. I think a good debater has to ask strong questions, have strong responses, and be persuasive, not how fast you could read a screen. Stuttering is normal, I would give a 1 to someone who is legible and stutters with strong and concise points instead of someone who can read fast and smoothly, but needs their partner to hold their hand.

Speed: I'm fine with anything as long as you're not yelling at me. I debated at kdc but did compete in some DCI tournaments. I will not yell "clear" and I should still hear clarity when you're spreading. Spreading doesn't mean mumbling. You have to still enunciate (crazy, right?) If I am listening closely and cannot even understand what you are saying we have an issue. I can keep up with it but you need to slow down on tags, authors, and analytics. I try not to flow off the speech but may refer to it if you are not slowing down on tags. I won't vote against you for it, but I will not be your #1 fan. It also increases the chance that I will miss analytics if you aren't clear.

TOPICALITY: If your aff isn't topical I won't vote against you. I ran borderline topical cases because it was fun. Neg, if you run clash and then hit every single on-case argument I will be annoyed. I don't generally vote on T. There is a fine line between it being a voting issue and you complaining. If you're going to complain, you need to have standards and voters on it.

COUNTERPLAN: I love counter plans. If you run it, please have it formatted properly. I will not vote on anything that isn't developed properly. All plans need to be written down on your 1NC document or else I won't flow it or vote on it. Neg, you have to have specific solvency for their case and I don't bother to flow cp's that are just plan text. My pen ink could be utilized elsewhere.

Kritik: You probably shouldn't. I hated K's when I was debating and didn't spend much time with the literature. If you are extremely excited to run it, sure. I am only "somewhat familiar" with some literature but i'm not very inclined to vote on a k in general. I will listen, but if I am looking at you like I am lost... It means I am lost. Explain it to me like I am 2. I won't be offended. Bonus points if you act it out.

Evidence: Smart debate beats fast debate. When I was debating I realized a lot of debaters lacked the critical thinking skill (ironic). Basically meaning we were all so gulible and believed what the underlined said and did not look at the shrinked part of evidence. If you do the work and use the other teams evidence against them, I will probably vote for you. I don't really like devil advocate cards FYI.

"NO NEW IN THE 2"/disclosure: Constructives are made for new arguments, please don't run no new in the 2... I was a 1A all four years. I will give grace to the 1AR so no complaining from anyone. I will not weigh that in my decision. I also think disclosure is stupid. It ruins debate. Stop prepping out everyone's aff and 1NC. Learn to debate in round- that will actually benefit you. Don't bring up the wiki either. Some coaches don't let their students on the wiki. I will roll my eyes if you do that. If you're bringing up the wiki, throw a tantrum and roll around on the floor so I atleast have something entertaining me.

Contact Info:

For whatever reason you need to contact me my email is amyclinde@gmail.com

My name is Isabel Lopez! I'm a third-year debater at Olathe Northwest HS. My pronouns are She/Her.

BE RESPECTFUL!!! I will not tolerate any sexism, racism, or homophobia/transphobia. I will report you to your coach.

Truth informs tech

I will be keeping your time, but you should also be keeping your own time. I'm flowing so state your tags and give roadmaps. You should be exchanging evidence, whether that be with flash drives, email chains, or speechdrop. Refusing to do so when asked will get you reported and an automatic vote against you. NO OPEN CX. Make eye contact with the judge and always face me. No spreading please, spreading makes me cry. No personal questions such as asking the opponent for their personal opinion, focus on the topic, not on personal ethics. ABSOLUTELY NO CHARACTER ATTACKS. Please flow your own speech and the other team's speeches. Dropping any arguments will result in an automatic vote against you. I dislike huge impacts like nuclear war/extinction.

AFF

Please clearly state your plan text. I will be flowing so state your cards because that will hurt you in the long run. Your plan should be topical. After 1AC, you should be responding to the neg AND elaborating on your advs.

NEG

IF YOU ARE RUNNING A COUNTERPLAN, CLEARLY STATE THAT IN THE 1NC. Bringing cp up after 1NC is an automatic Aff vote. I'm not too knowledgeable on Ks, so run that at your own risk. Really technical arguments like specific numbers and asking for super detailed mandates are irritating and not useful to the debate, so don't.

Grant McKeever – he/him – ggmdebate@gmail.com (put this on the email chain and feel free to ask questions)

Experience: Current coach for Lincoln Southwest. Current NFA LD debater (1v1 policy) for UNL (elections, nukes) - did DCI/TOC style stuff senior year (water) and was on the trad/KDC circuit in Kansas prior (criminal justice, arms sales, immigration) at Olathe Northwest HS so I’m most likely familiar with whatever style you’re going for

Evidence sharing - yes please. Would prefer to get word docs but would rather have something rather than nothing.

TL;DR: Run what you run best. I’m open to mostly whatever, specifics down below. Default to policymaker. Give me judge instruction, explain arguments, and tell me how to vote because that’s probably how I will. The rest of the paradigm is moreso preferences/defaults/advice than explicit constraints; my job is to flow the round and evaluate what happens in it, and I try to do so as unbiased as possible.

Don’t be disrespectful. Just don’t.

I've noticed a disappointing lack of warrants and impacts from claims coming out of debates - an argument has 3 parts; you will get a MUCH more favorable (or, at the least, less intervention-y) RFD if you go beyond the claim and give me comparative reasons why it is true and how it frames my ballot.

ON EVIDENCE CITATIONS -

My patience is growing thin on a lot of these questions - I have watched blatant violations of the NSDA rules on evidence (sources:https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Evidence-Guide.pdf and https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hq7-DE6ls2ryVtOttxR4BNpRdP7xUbBr0M3SMYefek8/edit#heading=h.nmf14n). I will not hesitate to tank speaks and/or drop the debater for failure to comply with these standards (and it's magnified if your opponent points it out).

What this means:

1. You MUST provide cut cards with full citations - this means setting up some form of evidence sharing (speech drop, email, flash drive, paper case, etc.) that I have access to for the ENTIRETY of the debate to check for clipping and evidence standards. THE IDEA THAT EVERYONE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE CARDS YOU READ IS SILLY AND MAKES FOR BAD DEBATES. FAILURE TO SHARE YOUR EVIDENCE WITH YOUR OPPONENT AND MYSELF WILL RESULT IN A MAX OF 25 SPEAKER POINTS AND A LOSS IN ELIMS." (stolen from Zach Thornhill). This includes having access to the original source material the card was cut from, and provide : full name of primary author and/or editor, publication date, source, title of article, date accessed for digital evidence, full URL, author qualifications, and page numbers for all cards. In round, you only have to verbally say the name and date, but I need the rest of this information provided in another format. HYPERLINKS ALONE ARE NOT SUFFICIENT - THEY ARE ONE PART OF THE CITATION, AND FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE REST OF THIS INFORMATION IS SUFFICIENT TO VOTE DOWN.
2. I am VERY unlikely to give you much leeway for paraphrased/summarized evidence - this model highly incentivizes debaters misconstruing evidence, and 99% of the time misses out on the warrants as to WHY the claim is true (which means even if it follows evidence rules I am unlikely to give it much weight anyway). In addition, paraphrasing is only used for one small, specific portion of an original source, not summarize pages of information into a sentence to blip out 20 cards. If you are concerned I may misinterpret part of your paraphrased case as violating this and/or are concerned, you should read cut cards that highlight the words from a source read in the debate. If you do paraphrase, you MUST have outlined the specific part of the card paraphrased clearly - failure to do this is an evidence violation.
3. Clipping, even if accidental, is enough to be voted against - I don't care who points it out when it gets pointed out or how - I will be following along, and if I find you clipped I will vote against you. This is non-negotiable.
4. Distortion, nonexistent evidence (in here, point 1), and clipping (point 3) are the only violations in which the round will be stopped - that doesn't mean any other evidence violations will not negatively impact your speaks and the arguments I have on the flow.

I don't want to do this to be mean, but these are necessary to maintain academic integrity and faithful representation - especially at postseason and national-level tournaments, these violations are inexcusable.

Pref Sheet (mainly for LD, but works for policy too)

LARP/Policy - 1

K - 1/2

Theory*** - 1/2

Phil - 3/4

Tricks - 5

Other: probably somewhere throughout the paradigm - or just ask

***depends what theory; I can evaluate it, and if you win it I'll vote, but would much rather have substantive theory arguments with substantive impacts versus tiny violations with marginal impacts and reason to vote (for relative example. they don't disclose that's bad > they don't provide cites for every argument in comic sans on the wiki that's bad) (read theory section below)

General

Debate is a competitive game, and it is my job as a judge to evaluate who wins the game. As competitors, you get to tell me how to evaluate the game outside my defaults and why I should evaluate this way - this takes a lot of different forms with many different reasons, criteria, benefits, and more, but my job is to evaluate this clash to decide a winner (which becomes much easier with judge instruction). However, debate as a game is unique with the educational benefits it provides and have real impacts in the way we think about and view the world - I think debate about what debate should look like are important to framing the game, and can easily be persuaded to find extraneous benefits to the "game" to evaluate/vote on.

Tech>truth, though sticking with the truth usually makes the tech easier

Prep Time - not a big fan of people stealing prep. If it gets bad enough I will start to just dock prep time as you're stealing prep so steal at your own risk. I also give verbal warnings, if I tell you to stop please just stop I don't want to be grumpy. TIMES TO NOT TAKE PREP: while someone is uploading a speech doc, as someone is going up for cross, after your prep time has expired, etc.

Speed – Spreading is fine. Make sure everyone in the round is okay with it though before you do. If you spread make sure it’s clear. If you’re super fast I probably can't understand your top speed, and appreciate going a slower on tags/analytics. I'll yell a few times, but if the keyboard ain't clacking/I'm frantically trying to keep up I'm not recording your arguments.

-Within that, I'm probably not going to verbally call on a panel; I'm going to assume the speed you're going at is to best adapt to the other judges; a lot of the same signals tho will still apply, I just won't be as verbal ab it

Framing – it’s good. Please use it, especially if there’s different impacts in the debate. Impact calc is very good, use it to the best of your ability. I'm a policymaker after all you’ll win the round here.

I've increasingly noticed that heavily posturing is becoming less persuasive to me; it looks much better to frame the debate through you being ahead on specific arguments (ie evidence/warrant quality, impact weighing, etc.) then posturing about the round writ large. Especially with the way I evaluate debates, the last minute ethos/pathos push is by and far less important than writ large "I'm soooooo far ahead" that can get articulated on the flow to shape my ballot.

Neg

Ks – I probably don’t know all of your lit. As long as you explain I should be fine and am more than willing to vote on them. I'm once again reminding that you should either send your analytics or slow down otherwise else my flow WILL be a mess. Judge instruction is key here - give me ROB and impact stuff out.

Topicality – I love a good T debate. Not a fan of T as a time suck; it's legitimately so good. If the aff is untopical/topical/exists go for it. That being said, I need good violations on T. Slow down a bit on the standards/voters piece of things. I default to competing interps, but can evaluate on reasonability if it's won.

CPs – Swag. Theory is highly underused here, so as long as I can flow them (slow down on them) I'll vote on them. Condo is usually good but I default a bit to reasonability here - especially if the aff points out specific abuse stories. I default to framing this debate as a scale of "if the CP solves ___ much of the aff, what does the risk of the net benefit need to be to outweigh" - so pairing good case defense and net benefit debate is crucial.

DAs – Good. Please just have at least a somewhat reasonable link chain.

Theory – I'm fine with it. I heavily lean towards drop the argument and not the team unless it's egregious/about in-round discriminatory behavior. Still will default to competing interps but would be happy to go for good C/Is under reasonability. Disclosure (for an example): I think disclosure is good and you should disclose, but I am much less likely (not opposed) to reject the team and instead default more towards leaning neg on generic links/args. Condo/Topicality are probably the only ones that I reject the team on. Generally frown on RVIs, the better out is making those articulations under reasonability.

Case – I feel that case debate is highly under-utilized. A strong case debate is just as, if not a slightly more, viable way to my ballot. However, please pair it with some sort of offense; case defense is good but if there's no offense against the aff then I vote aff. Especially with a CP that avoids the deficits heck yeah.

Aff

K Affs – Refer to the K section. Fairness and education are impacts, but the more they are terminalized/specified (to things like participation) the more persuasive your arguments become. Haven't been in enough FW debates to know how I truly lean on that, I'll evaluate it like everything else - impacts are key.

-TVA is better defense than SSD imo but both are defense; they take out aff impacts on the flow, but if you go for these (which u should) pair it with other offense on the page

Extinction Impacts – have a probable link chain and make sure aff is substantial - that's much easier to win and helps u later on.

LD

I'm a policy kid, LD circuit norms and evaluations can fly over my head. I did a couple years on the trad circuit so I know some things but it's not my forte - refer to the policy stuff and ask questions before round. Judge instruction is still CRUCIAL.

I don't know philosophy and I won't pretend to know it. You can run it but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE explain it and how I evaluate it - odds are LD time constraints make it an uphill battle.

Not a fan of tricks. I have low threshold for responses to it and actually considering it in the round. Couple this with the theory section above.

I think LD uses the word "ought" for a reason, and that it's to make it an uphill battle to win PTX/Elections DA/Process CPs/any argument that the link relies on certainty/immediacy of the resolution being bad and not the actual implementation (read all your other DAs/CPs to the rez/their plan/whatev)

-this isn't to say you can't just that it's a bit more uphill - win the definition debate to win these are legitimate

PF

You still should be cutting evidence in PF with good, clear cites.

I still will judge this event like any other - judge instruction and impact calc are key.

Most of my policy section still applies (focus on aff + DA sections - CPs and Ks in PF get wacky and is prob easier w/o them).

Good luck, and have fun!

Last Major Update 5/27/2023

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

My Background and Experience

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

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

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

Policy Debate, Generally

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy Debate – Kansas Novice and Open

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

Public Forum Debate

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

Lincoln-Douglas

[To be provided.]

Email: lilyren2004@gmail.com

They/she

BVN 23 -> KU 27

Brief summary of my thoughts -

Not very familiar with the topic debate-wise, I have general information because of my political work and research, but don't assume I'll know what you're talking about with buzzwords.

Tech over truth any day. Judges usually always vote on technicalities because debates boil down to that rather than questions of truth. I'm more policy-oriented but I'm open to anything. I'm most familiar with cap K, imperialism, set col as both aff and neg args. I'm more experienced with answering the K than going for it, but don't let that deter you from reading a k. I will only ask for more explanation of methodology and links. I like theory, I like cps, I like das, I like T. Intentional malice = auto loss. I'll + .2 speaks if you make the analogy
"Like a road, it goes both ways". I don't like death good.

Speaks - depends on tournament level and judge pool

Normal Speaks:

27 - 28 = you probably lost but good effort?

28.1 - 28.5 = average I wasn't blown away

28.6 - 28.9 = You're pretty good

29 - 29.5 = OMG go win the tournament

Inflated Speaks

28.5 = baseline

28.6 - 28.9 = average/eh

29.1 - 29.5 = You're pretty good

29.6 - 29.9 = OMG go win the tournament

Top Level - I refuse to go back and read a card in the last rebuttals not only if they're new, but cards that you say to go back and look at with no warrant. Just say the warrant and apply it with "that's X author".

FW - I'm very policy oriented on framework but lean heavily on tech over truth. I'm confident enough to be an unbiased judge and see when a team is clearly ahead. Policy wise, you're better off going for fairness in front of me. Going for the K, you're better off going for education in front of me.

Kritik - I like plan specific links, but I'll still vote for links of omission. If the K is covering literature I haven't listed in the brief summary, I will probably need more explanation (aside from Ks that have to do with a debater's personal experience). I high-key struggle with the old dead french philosopher Ks. I just need explanation and not sound bites. I don't care for the alt unless it's in the 2NR. Framework-y or material, no preference.

Counterplans -I like them, I hate them. Do what you want. I was and am a 2a, so I'm more sympathetic to aff theory args and perms. But once again, tech over truth.

Disads - like them, but if you read a 1 card DA, your speaks are capped at average and will never go higher.

Topicality - Love it, it's fun to watch those debates. I don't mind to a certain extent the quality of the definition but if it get's too silly I won't give good speaks. I don't have much preference on T except for when debating reasonability. I think that aff teams need to explain why their aff is reasonable enough, saying just one more aff ontop of their case list isn't an argument because I think that all the neg arguments of limits/precision answer that.

Theory - I've gone for condo outweighs no inherency twice and won twice, therefore I am a condo god. But otherwise read whatever.

Misc. - Don't be hateful, be nice, I love debate and you love debate therefore we all love debate

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.

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!

Samuel Wang (updated for DCI 1/5/24)

Put me on the Email chain: email - samdubs8@gmail.com

I'm a Boomer - I last debated varsity in 2021 running a k-aff (logistics) and policy. Please spread understandably, my threshold for speed is pretty low - please take a card or two out if you're unsure - I haven't judged since 2022.

Treat me as somewhere between a lay judge and a super technical judge - Please don't spread at top speed!!!

Short version: Do what you need you feel like you need to do to win (I will vote for a cheesy argument), or run your most comfortable arguments. Judge instruction and impact calc are key in the rebuttals and I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on some args if you give a warranted explanation, as long as they're not completely new.

Speaker points: If you make jokes I'll bump your speaks! If you're rude then I'll dock them a little :( Again please spread understandably, I prefer slower and more dramatic speeches.

General stuff:

DAs: Impact calc is key, I love DA turns case args, make sure you don't just blow a DA off if you're aff even if you don't think the DA is that good - I will vote for a dumb DA if you're crushing on it (like warming good or something).

T: Explain VERY well, I have no experience judging this year or even know the resolution. I'm still willing to vote for it though!

Theory: I have a very high threshold for me to reject the team, otherwise it's a reason to reject the argument.

CPs: I'm not familiar at all with the CPs for this year, but I'm still willing to vote for a weird CP.

Ks: I'm familiar w/ most (except for high theory Ks), but I need a link that actually makes sense that makes sense in the context of the round or the aff - I have experience with Set Col, Afro Pess, cap and security. Framework is super important for me, and I'm willing to vote on a K without the alt if you explain it well.

K-affs: I'm will vote for them, but you need to have a role of the ballot arg that explains why the ballot is key to solve. I have a low threshold for voting on the cap k and heg vs K-affs.

Any questions just shoot me an email - it's above :)

he/him, freshman at Columbia studying polisci, debated exclusively policy 4 yrs at Blue Valley West at both KDC and DCI/NatCir level

call me Kevin/judge, idrc

add to email chain: kevin.xu@columbia.edu

T/L:

Please be nice (to me, the other team, and actually your partner), have fun, and talk about stuff you're passionate about

• This activity can be toxic but we'll all have a more enjoyable time if this round isn't

• I'm fine evaluating any arg as long as it's not racist, homophobic, sexist, otherwise offensive — you will lose if it is

Haven't judged or done any research about this year's topic or its "norms" (most I can say is probably, as ashamed as I am now, I read Andrew Yang's UBI book when it first came out)

If you use some funny analogy or joke, I might boost your speaks

Not gonna go into too much detail but please ask about anything you might be curious abt

Biggest debate influence/inspo: Brandon Yao (he made me write this)

General:

Please do clear signposting (love numbered arguments for some reason), line by line, and judge instruction

Feel free to spread BUT clarity and efficiency > speed, please don't become an incomprehensible spreading mess or clip

• It'll be better for both of us if you slow down for analytics, tags, anything you want to emphasize

• Haven't watched a debate in like a year so do with that info what you will (and be extra clear and explain plz)

• Grouping and cross-applying arguments is strategic and something I will make note of when giving speaks

Make sure to actually properly extend args to carry them throughout a round — I've always disliked when teams don't do this and will reward you if you do

• Don't just say "extend 1AC 1" or "extend Blessing 22", please extend warrants too or else your evidence loses some value

• From experience, you can win a lot of debates against a lot of really good teams by mentioning a failure to do this

Policy:

Was mostly a policy debater

I find T to be underused by the neg, especially because I've witnessed so many 1ARs just completely fumble on it if the neg spends even a couple minutes on it in the block

• I'm coming in with no idea what the "consensus" about topical affs has become

• Please don't just re-read your same blocks over and over, these debates still need progression, clash, impacts, etc

Link chains are super important obviously

• Ev quality > quantity (when explained well), esp when it comes to disads (where link chains are often suspicious)

Rare massive ptx disad fan

• Plz don't rely only on months old UQ cards from camp

• I think smart, informed analytics can go a long way (e.g.: just analytically naming a bunch of thumpers)

• Will always appreciate some interesting or unique DAs — I cut a lot of uncommon PTX DAs and hated when judges would be skeptical of them

Impact calc/sufficiency framing analysis!!!!!

• Impact turns, DA O/W and turns case, case O/W and turns DA, etc, love that stuff

Do I believe presumption/absolute defense is a thing? Probably, but you might have a harder time convincing me of 0 risk than others

Can go either way on judge kick if instructed

Not the most proficient theory judge, warrant out reject arg vs reject team

• I will say I find the aff defending like 2 condo and neg defending like 3 condo slightly silly and arbitrary but do what you gotta do

K:

Have I debated against and for kritical args ((racial) cap, imperialism, taoism, Nietzsche, etc) and read critical lit? yeah. Do I want you to treat me like I have? Not really.

I'm going to know a lot more than a lay judge but I don't want to misevaluate the contents of a kritical argument after not understanding it due to a lack of explanation, especially on the alt level

Don't really care what you run for the most part, just explain it and how it interacts with the aff

I think I tend to be more swayed by args about root cause/alts or links turning case than "you link you lose", but either way can win depending on what happens

With all that being said, big fan, found myself loving K debates more and more throughout high school and ran one basically every neg round senior year