Hello my name is Nabaa I am a third year debater and excited to hear your perspectives. I want you to run what you know and respond to the other team as best as possible. One thing I will say is that Respecting each other is at utmost importance despite technically being each others opponents. So be nice please.

GENERAL

Topicality is a good argument if the debater can provide reasons as to why the opponent is truly not within the bound lines of the topic. However if it is a general topicality and is not very strong then please note that it may not be a round winner.

Advantages: Running an advantage you must prove to me as to why your plan is beneficial and why your impact is important.

Disadvantage: Running a disadvantage you must prove why this plan causes this effect and why the impact outweighs in comparison to the plan.

The point of this debate is to prove why you as a competitor are better than the other opponents this means that make sure you are not dropping arguments and signify what argument goes where. I will be flowing so please be mindful of this.

also please follow the novice packet

Hi! I'm Jacinta, and I'm a 4th year debater. I don't have a ton of "likes/dislikes" as far as my judging goes. I'm open to anything (K's, T, CP's, etc.) but I will say I'm very big on running things CORRECTLY. Example: If you run T, I need all 4 parts. If it's not ran correctly I will toss it and explain why I did so in your comments. I'm a Game Theorist. Nothing is too "absurd" for me if you can very adequately convey (with evidence) the substantiveness of the argument. I do not default to the Aff. I vote based on quality of arguments, whatever side they may be on.

Take everything written in your comments as constructive criticism! I'm not mean, but I can be blunt (as most debaters are.) Good luck! 

Debate-

I did Debate for all four years of high school so I am comfortable with most types of arguments. My only rules are that you have to be able to explain your arguments well and don't run a bunch of arguments if you plan to drop half of them. Debate is ultimately just something fun so don't take it all that seriously.

DO CONGRESS

They/Them. You can refer to me as Bailey or Baikey.

I debated at Lansing High school for four years. I am at my second semester debating for KCKCC. In high school i did only did lay debate, but in college I do IPDA, Parli, and LD.

Speed: I am very new to speed as I had never really done it in high school. I can keep up for the most part but I will clear you if needed. Do not go super sonic though, I apologize for my lack of experience in this aspect. I really value my flow now so being able to know what's happening in the debate for me is awesome. I also do expect y'all to be sign posting, I see no reason with y'all having cards to not be sign posting. It also just makes your speech sound cleaner for me.

Ks: I am very new to Ks unfortunately but I really love them! When running them I do think that the framework debate is rather important. Feel free to run them though! For K affs I do not mind them but I'm not a big fan unless there is a good reason. On top of that I feel like the framework is super important and would like that to be touched upon.

T: make it make sense, I think going for T is a a good strat. I like it tho

CP: Run them if you like!

Das: Run them, I like em lot. I think they are really important for impact weighing

#1 thing is don't be mean . I will comment on it and it will change my view on you if you are being for real evil.

Run whatever you like at the end of the day and try your best!

bailey.debate18@gmail.com

Max B. Chisham (They/He)

Derby High School

Derby, KS

4 Years of Policy Debate

maxchisham@gmail.com

Do what you want. Do it to the best of your ability. Don't get into a shouting match. Don't be a bigot, your speaks will drop. As a whole just be chill, be a good person, and convince me.

I do believe open CX and disclosure is best, but open CX does not mean talk over your partner.

I flow prompting (ask me to elaborate).

I'm a flow judge.

Also if I'm able to disclose a response I will if you want to. 

Don't run T if you think the plan is topical, same w/ other theory args.

If you have any questions or concerns ask me in/before/after round.

P.S. Email>SpeechDrop. SpeechDrop is not good for debate.

TLDR: As long as the debate is fair and educational, you're doing fine.

Preferences: Topical cases, I find topicality important to the education and structure to debate. I also prefer a even distribution of breadth and depth. I don't have a preference for either. Be sportsman like and professional and it'll be an enjoyable round for us all.

Dislikes: Spreading, when it gets to the point I can no longer hear or keep up with you then the debate is no longer educational. Reading fast is fine, just be clear and understandable. K, Kritik arguments are hard for me to follow, but as long as you explain things it should be fine. I don't expect to see many Kritiks in Novice though.

Politics: I don't really swing right or left so as long as your convincing with your politics argument I'll listen.

Basic Intro: Debated and did forensics for 4 years at Andover HS, have gone to Nationals in extemporaneous speaking and student congress. Currently WSU student in biochemistry.

Debate:

I have arguments that I like and don't like, but I want you to run what you do well. Try to convince me that you have won and deserve to win, but don't be rude in any case I will knock speaker points and if extreme enough lose rounds, but shouldn't be much of an issue. I view policy debate as, well, a debate of policy. I believe it is the affirmative's goal to present an effective measure of public policy within the topic, and the negative's goal to present why the status quo or a viable alternative is a better policy than the opposing team.

How I Judge: I flow, and dropped arguments could cost you. Make sure you keep up with the opposing team and their arguments, everything should get an answer. Neg make sure your arguments adequately connect to the affirmative cases, not the biggest fan of generic links but I'll allow it if you argue well. Topicality is fine with me, I like Counter Plans

Speaker Points: I don't really have a set idea or theory in place for Speaker Points, but it's mostly predicated on your technical efficiency, style and presentation. Being unnecessarily rude, offensive will cost you speaker points.

Forensics:

I generally do not have much theory for my ranking across events. For events such as Exempt and Congress, I value quality of information, arguments, and speaking style. For other oratory events, I generally value the quality of the topic choice, information, flow, and clarity, and I will rank on who did the best in the aggregate of these factors. As stated above for debate, being unnecessarily rude or offensive will cost you points and rank.

She/her - katherinej.halabi@gmail.com

Wichita East ’23, Georgetown ’27 (not debating)

Zero topic experience – please explain!

Tech > truth, but evidence quality shapes the level to which this is true. Tech coming first means none of these predispositions really matter, so this paradigm is pretty irrelevant minus the following absolutes:

Being kind and funny, enjoying debate, giving rebuttals without your laptop, citing the kshsaa handbook, and being unafraid to defend your arguments will earn you high speaks. If you’re overly rude, sexist, racist, homophobic, or otherwise offensive, I’ll drop you and your speaks.

I won’t vote on anything outside of the debate. Interactions are non-falsifiable, and I shouldn’t be evaluating high schoolers’ personal issues.

T –

Competing interps > reasonability. Reasonability is an uphill battle, the neg dropping reasonability isn’t a TKO because you still need offense, and you need to do the work to explain how it shapes the debate.

Ks, generally –

Comfortable with cap, security, antiblackness, set col, and heidegger (unfortunately). I’m very willing to lean aff on neg teams under-explaining their theories.

Explain how winning framework implicates me weighing the aff’s impacts. I am predisposed to weighing the aff and disagreeing with interps that ban Ks.

K affs –

Fairness is an impact, but its importance is shaped by warranted explanation and comparison to competing impacts. I don’t think I have a high threshold for fairness impact explanation, but you still need to do the work as you would in a policy debate.

My experience in these debates is only being neg and being the one extending T, but we went for cap in most of these debates. While I’m down to listen to Ks vs. K affs, I think that the alt defending something material is more strategic and that explanation on the K-fw level should be super explicit.

CPs –

Every CP is legitimate until it’s not. I loveee smart perms that test functional and textual competition. Theory is probably necessary to justify said smart, but maybe questionable, perms.

I won’t judge kick unless you tell me to.

Theory –

Condo bad is an uphill battle. I love conditionality. I think neg teams should be more condo. However, I think condo bad is underused in debates, and if it’s the best option, don’t be afraid to go for theory. The aff needs to delineate its impacts pre-2AR, and imo 2AR blocks are generally bad.

I’ll default to condo being the only reason to reject the team. I’m willing to evaluate other theory args as reasons to reject the team, but you need to justify why I should.

Hi my name is Bennett, I’m a sophomore in college and did debate all four years in highschool. My dad is also a coach and district head so I’ve been around it my whole life. I expect to be included in email chains unless I say otherwise. Feel free to run things like k’s, cp’s, or anything technical. If you run T I expect you to fully run it as a main argument with all necessary components, I will not vote on a half hearted T argument. Finally, let’s have fun! I’m all for embracing the spirit of policy so please feel free to run weird or abstract arguments - I love them!

Oh also don’t be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. I will not tolerate these behaviors - whether In an argument or demonstrated in the behavior of either teams.

LHS '23

KU '27

For email chain: michaelim2005@gmail.com

Policy General

Debate is a game that can be more than a game, and the ballot is a tool that can be more than signifying win/loss

Disclosure is good (and something that everyone should be doing), and file share is even better (something that everyone should also be doing)

IMPORTANT: Any amount of intended bigotry will result in 0 speaker points and an immediate L, so don't be a terrible person and we won't have a problem

PLEASE ask questions. If you don't understand what my paradigm is talking about, ask me before round

Speed is only a problem once it becomes unreasonable for your opponent(s) to compete. For me, don't worry about going too fast--that doesn't mean you should go as fast as possible--signposting is important

don't be a terrible person

Theory

I love theory and will weigh it first. That doesn't mean that that will be an easy win. Voters need to be extended and are always a reason to reject the arg (only exception is condo)

condo is the only argument I would consider a viable theory 2ar

T

T is very important and I am easily swayed by standards debate. If I am not directed, I'll default to competing interps and weigh the debate from there

Reasonability isn't being reasonably topical. Reasonability is that the aff causes a reasonable amount of abuse

T is generally not an rvi

DA

I'm chill with linear da's or 2 card da's

DO IMPACT CALC & TURNS--that includes how the internal link chain should factor in impact calc

Brevity is still good and doesn't mean you need a 3 minute o/v

CP

Competition theory is important.Solvency is not an internal net benefit and isn't a reason to vote for the counterplan--that includes impact calc

There is no such thing as a cheating counterplan if the aff doesn't read theory. I don't care how abusive the cp is and I will vote on it given that aff offense is lacking

If you're going for a meme/joke advocacy, run it as a k--that makes it funnier on k proper and framework

K

I love kritiks. They are wonderful and are some of my favorites args, but framework is important. If fmwk is conceded, then I can't vote on the k.

Severance is very persuasive on the perm level. I will understand most arguments and it's more likely than not that I kick the arg because I believe severance happens

I debated set col, psychoanalysis, and cybernetics k debate. Don't assume I'm familiar with the lit. I've researched some wacky k's before (STEM, anthro, hauntology, pearl harbor, deleuze, baudrillard, cioran, todestrieb, matrix, etc.) but that doesn't mean I will automatically understand the k

Kicking the alt is bad unless fmwk permits it

I like rejection alts, but material and educational solvency need to be won (depending on fmwk interps)

K Aff

I've experimented with k affs and run a few, but know this: I love them. I'm not a professional, so I need the aff story to be consistent and have a clear reason and strong offense as to why rejecting a plan text is necessary

The advocacy needs to be clearly articulated and have solvency

T is a generic neg strategy, so please spice things up with unique offense other than debate bad--I won't devalue the args if they're generic--although I do believe k affs are good for debate (but who cares if neg is winning the t flow)

Weighing the aff fmwk vs neg k fmwk is messy and typically devolves to impact calc--do that plus compartmentalize

Case

I'm not a fan of primarily stock issues paradigms, but if the round doesn't provide me anything else, I will become a stock issues judge. Inherency, harms, solvency, and t are important

If the aff is exceptionally bad, case 2nr's are fine, but make sure there's offense to talk about instead of exclusively defense

I think human extinction good is a funny arg, but will only weigh it as a joke and possibly as an rvi if the opposition makes genocide/bigotry turns

BTW, I consider impact calc to have 2 levels: the in round impacts and the imaginary fiat impacts and I weigh in round impacts over fiat impacts

Fun fact, kicking the aff can be strategic (and funny), but prob shouldn't be done

Again, ASK QUESTIONS BEFORE ROUND IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SOMETHING

LD General

I debated LD for 4 years in high school, have gone to nationals and was the 2023 5A state champ, so I have quite a few feelings about the activity

The most valuable part of LD is time: maximize offense and be concise always or you'll lose

I debated pure offense in LD: everyone else's value/criterion is problematic and maximize offense on the contention debates

V/Crit

i believe the value is the primary lens through which the round is voted on and the criterion is the means or thesis the case achieves the value

clash on v/crit is super underrated and makes the debate really easy to win

defense is mid for me because i don't have a clear reason to prefer one or the other without sufficient offense

Contention debate

i interpret the contention debate as your opportunity to meet the criterion by a preponderance of the evidence and will frame impacts as implicit reasons opposing value/criterion structure doesn't work

contentions can take the form of policy speeches or kritiks, but i'd prefer if they were formatted appropriately: don't run policy debate offcase, just read it on case or make it a main contention

topicality is rare, but if the violation is egregious without counter definitions, i'll allow it

Again, ASK QUESTIONS BEFORE ROUND IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SOMETHING

Howdy!

I'm currently a sophomore in College, with debate experience going back all the way to my Freshman year of High School. I went to state and took third in high school, so I would like to think I'm rather knowledgeable when it comes to debate.

TL/DR:I'm more of a Policymaker judge, but obviously I hold stock issues to a high level of importance. I really enjoy arguments that are tackled from a policymaker's perspective, but please don't ignore the importance of stock issues (or how to handle them, I suppose).

In terms of more specifics:

AFF Cases - You must defend an advocacy, and prove that action must be done. Otherwise, your plan does nothing. I strongly prefer policy cases, and I am not a fan of K AFFs, but if it's run well, I'll consider it like any other.

On-Case and Impacts - I love on-case arguments and weigh them highly. Impact calc. is always appreciated. My favorite stock issue is inherency.

T - Topicality is a stock issue I'm not a huge fan of; I see it as a time suck in most cases. However, if you can convince me that the AFFs plan is irrefutably non-topical, and you support it well, that'll be real good. (AFF, I don't mind effect plans, so long as you explain the abuse story well).

CPs - CPs are also something I'm not a huge fan of, because they're often not run correctly. Make sure you have every part of it down, and make sure to convince me of the net benefits of the CP over the AFF. (basically, just run it right, and I'm fine with it!)

Ks / Theory - These are probably my least favorite, but I'll weigh it the same if you can convince me to accept the world of the alt, and not the squo.

DAs - Make sure you provide a link for your DA, otherwise it's not really a DA and more a generic argument. If you provide a link and a harm with it though, you're golden.

Delivery - I'm fine with any speed level you're comfortable with, but please make sure you're understandable while talking. (I'm fine with you talking really fast, so long as you're not tripping over your words)

Ultimately, provide good public speaking with clash, understand I tend to judge like a Policymaker, and we'll all have a good time!

Hi! I'm Reeya (she/her) and I'm a fourth-year debater at East. Make sure to focus on clash in round, and be as clear and logical as possible when speaking! Email me with any questions you have about ballots: rkamath863@gmail.com. Thanks and good luck! :)

Hai, my name is Zainab and I'm a fourth-year debater at East. I'm okay with some speed if you're going too fast I'll clear you. Focus on making ur arguments solid and being able to explain the point you are trying to make. Be good to those around you and have fun:) if you have any questions let me know! [quality of args over quantity]

esther (she/her)

policy at wichita east for four years, first year at Texas

please put me on the chain: eliu.debate@gmail.com

I will judge whatever arguments made in round but I do know that everyone has argumentative ideologies that may unintentionally affect the decision. So, here are my thoughts:

T -- I went and still go for T a lot. Competing interps is probably best. Caselists are helpful and so is describing what your world of debate looks like vs the aff's and why it's better.

CP -- "Cheating" counterplans are legitimate until brought up for debate. Condo is good.

DA -- Specific links are great and impact calc can take you far.

K -- I am the most experienced with Cap, Antiblackness, SetCol, and Fem IR. Regardless, debate as if I don't know the technicalities of your critical theory. Links to the plan are more persuasive than links to reps.

K-Aff -- I have only ever been neg in these debates. I find ones that are in the direction of the topic most convincing.

In a method debate, I am the most experienced with Cap.

Misc:

Please leave pen/typing time, spreading through analytics at top speed means I will inevitably drop arguments. Assume I am not following the speech doc.

Read re-highlightings instead of inserting them in the doc.

Note for econ topic: It'd be helpful if acronyms and certain terms were spelled out and explained earlier on in the debate.

I have been an assistant coach for Andover for 15+ years and did debate in HS. I am fine with speed if you are very clear. Ks are fine, but you better make it relevant somehow. Otherwise, policy maker is my default.

If you run T, make it good. It is everything in a round and yes, grammar matters. Make it a voter and don’t drop it.

Have specific links to generic disads. If I start hearing the exact same DAs run over and over with literally zero changes from the last round, I know your arg has alt causes and I can't ignore that. Counterplans can be topical but don't have to be; also you must convince me that you absolutely cannot effectively perm. The more generic the counterplan, the less I will give it weight in the round. Convince me that this CP is actually the best alternative for the specific harms that Aff addresses.

Don’t try to run nonsense “rule violations” that aren’t actually violations, as a strat. And if you try to tell me that the other team is “violating the rules of debate” be prepared for me to ask if you actually want to bring a formal complaint and stop the round.

Lastly, as a policy maker, I will take a very, very, hard look at the plan text (yes, including grammar and word choice). I don’t expect you to have answers for every single nuanced thing, but at least have basics covered (specific AoA, answers to funding, timeframe…etc.).

lay - thank you

Austin Rea

WSU '24

Email: austin.rea34@gmail.com

Hey everyone, feel free to ask questions before the round if anything is not clear in my paradigm. Additionally, if you find some of this information vague or confusing reading Tim Ellis's paradigm or Sean Duff's will give you plenty of insight into how I view debate.

Experience: I debated for 3 years at Washburn Rural High School. I'm the prototypical WARU debater in that I only ran policy affs and typically only read straight forward Kritiks when competing. I am currently a senior at Wichita State University studying Economics and History.

Technology/Speed: I'm fine with any speed typically, if you aren't clear I'll clear you once.

Preferences: The strategies most likely to win my ballot are policy oriented. Ideally, my favorite types of debates are relatively straight forward fast debates with lots of warranted analysis. On the affirmative, I'm a big fan of well put together and defensible aff's. However, I enjoy straight turning DA's and kicking the aff, if you have the chance take it. I think the most compelling neg strategy in debate is usually DA and case or DA and CP. That being said obviously theory/kritiks are viable ways to win but they are typically less enjoyable unless they include intelligient in round debate and not just blocks.

Framework: I think fairness is extremely important in debate. Plan-less affirmatives are more compelling to me if they are in the direction of topic and allow for substantial neg ground. Aff should focus on their impacts and how they engage with education in the round and why that outweighs fairness or why fairness doesn't matter. Case debate even without specific evidence is helpful in these rounds when it comes to understanding the desirability of the aff. I would say plan-less aff vs kritik rounds are likely be a jumbled mess and confuse me unless it is contextualized well and is fairly straight forward.

Topicality/Theory: Typically, I believe T is a question of competing interpretations. When evaluating interpretations I tend to lean towards models of debate that provide fairly equitable neg and aff ground. Also, when going for a terminal impact on T, I think fairness tends to be the most persuasive IF there is further explanation about why fairness matters in regards to education. On most theory arguments I default to reject the arg not the team but it is possible to win my ballot on conditionality. Spec debates are exceptionally lame. Reasonability is not a real argument.

Kritiks: I am fairly familiar with most Kritik's, however I am not as familiar with what I'll call identity Kritik's. This does not mean you should never go for one of these arguments. Kritik literature often fascinates me but I don't think its very often both sides are able to have a meaningful debate on it. If you are able to intelligently discuss the merits of the Kritik beyond the tag lines I will be much more receptive. I think alts are under utilized in many kritik debates and I tend to enjoy the debate more if the neg goes for the alt instead of just framework and a link. However, if you do go for the alt its important I get an explanation how the alt resolves at least portions of the aff and also the mechanisms of how the alt functions. Contextualized specific links are extremely important to me in this style of debate. Link of omission=no link

DA/CP/Case: This is the style of debate I prefer, the rebuttals should clearly outline the impacts of the DA vs the impacts of the aff. If no impact analysis is done I will not be happy. Never underestimate the value of case arguments, going for solvency or focusing on internal links of the aff is more persuasive than generic impact defense. Counter plans are an essential aspect of debate that challenge the desirability of the aff. Conditions counter plans are kind of up in the air I can be persuaded either way. Consult counter plans I think are almost always cheating, you definitely need to focus on how the CP textually and/or functionally competes if you're going for this kind of CP. Delay CP's are cheating and if that fact is identified by the other team I will not vote on it. Please keep in mind there are multiple parts of a DA required to win a round. Without uniqueness, link, internal link, and an impact I cannot vote on your DA even if it is dropped most likely.

***My suggestion for you is to do what you are good at or what is fun. Too often in rebuttals negative teams will go for what the aff has done the worst on instead of what the neg has done the best on. This is a mistake. Keep in mind you are playing to win, not playing to watch the other team lose.***

Lastly, be nice and have fun. If you have more experience than the team across from you trust me I'll know, there is no need to be mean and make the round less enjoyable for everyone. I don't want to hear you talking during your opponents speeches. Probably the most annoying thing for me to see in debate are when debaters are overly emotional or condescending with body language during opponents speeches.

4 years of highschool speech and debate,

current competitor on the college circuit

policy judge

Novice:

For novice rounds I'm open to hearing any arguments DAs, CPs, Ts, On Case, etc. However the one stipulation here with novices is if you run a K, I expect it to be well explained and easy to understand, for the benefit of the other team and yourself. I love hearing any analytics or line by line from novices especially in the rebuttals. I'll judge mainly on flow, policy, and whether or not you've structured your speeches and arguments correctly.

Open/Varsity:

gen: I'm not against speed, however I will always prefer a normal speaking pace. in the event you have to spread I ask for moderate spreading speed, in addition if you spread I will absolutely have to have your evidence in front of me.

I expect to see analytics and line by line, the more the better, also stress impact calc. and voters near the end of the debate

DAs: I like DAs fairly well, if you run one I just ask you have all the parts and understand your harm's

CP: again I like them well enough, if you run one make sure your Uniqueness is strong and clear

T: I generally prefer that you don't run Ts, I find using them as a time waster on your opponent to be somewhat harmful to debate, so unless their violation is clearly egregious, I probably wouldn't recommend running one for this judge

K: I love Ks when well run, as long as you have all the parts and can understand what you're arguing for I'm down to hear almost anything, I also believe you should be able to explain your k in a very basic manner as I've encountered scenarios where explaining something simply made the debate overall better than just using complicated jargon

to wrap up JUST BE RESPECTFUL I wont tolerate any kind of hate speech, such as racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, xenophobia, etc. or any unsportsmanlike behavior.

Other than that I cant wait to be your judge, ask me if you have any questions or concerns, and let me know if you need anything!

See you in round!

Third year debater at Andover High.

Make sure to be respectful in round. I understand that things get heated in round and that's fine, just have self control of what you say.

Make sure that the discussion is topical. I am a firm believer that the negative should have even ground when starting a debate. If negative can prove affirmative is not topical, will most likely vote negative. Everything should connect to plan and topic.

If you make an analytic, please support with evidence or else I won't count it as an actual argument or response. Try to flow as best as you can, if you point out other teams dropping arguments, you will gain ground in the debate.

I appreciate eye contact, good handshakes and good manners.

General

Speed: Go as fast as you want, but speed matters little to me if you're not signposting or constantly tripping over your words.

CX: I don't like open cx because it usually leads to one partner talking over the other I want to know you both understand the case. Also, this goes for both questioner and questionee don't be rude. Be respectful, answer the questions, and don't use patronizing language or ask insignificant questions.

Stock Issues: I probably won't just vote on solvency but you should still defend your plan solves throughout the debate. Inherency really isn't a big deal to me but I'd like to hear at least a card on it.

T: For neg make sure you do all the pieces of the argument ie. standards, voting issue, interpretation. If you put out just an interpretation I'll disregard it, BUT the aff should still answer it.

DA: Neg I definitely want to hear more than one DA if possible and really try and sell me on the link and internal link. If the aff can prove one part of the DA chain doesn't link I'll disregard the DA.

FW: I won't only go for framing I want the aff to have an adv or two. And neg if you're impact is extinction you better be able to convince me the entire planet will die off. Both teams I want to hear you weigh out how your impact is more substantial. Tell me why I should vote for your case.

CP: If anything the CP should have a net benefit. Neg explain how the CP solves better. Aff defend your solvency and if you run perm don't just say "perm do both", explain it.

Overall

Just please be respectful and courteous towards your opponents. I won't tolerate any explicit language whatsoever. This is debate and we're all here to have fun and learn. With that said go, fight, win, debate!

I'm Ashlee Seaton and I am a fourth year debater at Andover. I've qualified to the NSDA tournament in policy and competed in outrounds.

The most important thing in any debate is framework. I am a policy maker judge; you need to tell me why I should vote for you.

I will be flowing, so keep your arguments and your flows in order and give a roadmap. Please don’t jump back and forth and all around on your flows during your speech. Signposting is key.

T - I will vote on topicality as long as it is an argument with all four components. Your topicality must include a definition, a violation, standards, and voters issues. If you are responding to topicality, you must respond completely. I will not be voting on topicality if it is not run correctly.

DA - I’m fine with generic disadvantages, though I would prefer case specific. Impact them out all the way. Do an impact calc.

CP - I will listen to counterplans. Have solvency with them and be sure to explain the net benefit. You must win on the perm and prove your cp is competitive and the better option in order to win the debate on the cp. Open to whatever status you please, and I will listen to theory.

K - I have no issue with a k. Be sure to explain it well.

A few other things to note:

Moderate speed is alright, but you need to be clear.

Good clash is always appreciated

Stay clear and organized

Debaters are responsible for keeping their own time.

MOST IMPORTANTLY: Respect your opponents. Do not be rude or disrespectful especially during a debate. It’s fine if you need to cut someone off during cx in the interest of time, but I expect a civil debate.

anjali singh - she her

wichita east '22

fourth-year debater

have fun and try your best!

add me to the email chain anjalizsingh17@gmail.com

Fine with whatever you want to run. Clear speed is fine, rarely vote on T.

4 years of debate (KDC/OPEN) at Lansing High

add me on the email chain gagethompsondebategang@gmail.com however I'd prefer speechdrop.net its overall faster

Top Level: I've learned as I've began judging more that I don't necessarily like certain arguments over others just how the arguments are ran and extended. Right now I'm big into the K in pretty much every way. That doesnt mean you dont have to explain anything to me in fact I believe that the kritik is the argument that will always require the most explaining but basically I'm cool with whatever you'll do just make sure to explain the argument and respond to what the other team says against it extend the voter and do impact calc and youll basically win my ballot. And dont be racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/or overall a dick it's prolly the fastest way to not only get speaker points docked but also to lose my ballot. Overall this activity should be fun and inclusive for all lets make it be that way.

More in depth version of how I evaluate

Judge intervention freaking sucks dont make me do it please that means extend voters/read voters and do impact calc/extend impacts. After getting screwed in a semifinals round because of judges intervening the idea of voting on something that never comes out of your mouth genuinely makes me like the worst human in the world.

T: On topicality I'll default to competing Interps unless you give me a reason to favor reasonability. I think competitive equity and education are the best impacts to run on T. IE: Its not necessarily about the ground you lose but the ground they gain bc lets be honest the aff already gets Infinite prep First and Last speech so they prolly shouldn't be getting another leg up on the neg. For the aff tho I find that "we meet" arguments are very convincing and if its pretty obvious you meet you dont have to win a counter interp for that. Also a lot of aff teams will read that Lit checks abuse ( I do this all the time LOL) but its not a good arg and is easily beaten with this line "Lit exists for everything just because the lit exists doesnt make what youre doing good for the activity" also if your neg focus on the impacts we see if affs can read untopical plans and win every aff round. Ie: they make being the neg impossible which means lower novice participation and lower rates of people coming into the activity. That's prolly the fastest way to win my ballot NGL because hey guess what if that happens I lose my job and the activity I love goes into the grave.

CP: ah yes this part of the paradigm oh boy put on your seat belt for this one... I like CP's I think that theyre a good test of the affirmative however too many people end up reading these and they develop into super complex theory debates super fast like lighting mcqueen fast. So lets break it down

Condo: Condo is good if the neg reads one cp i feel like they should be able to kick it and go for something else but if they read like 3 cp's come on G dont be like that please only read 1 cp so that way we all dont get confused.

PICS: haha PICS are super bad if you read one youre prolly gonna lose the round so dont theyre one of the most abusive args you can read.

50 states: easily permable unless you read tix IG even still dont know how i feel about 50 actor fiat so the aff could maybe snag you on that but it also depends on the topic. the framers lowkey never like to give neg ground on domestic topics so 50 states and like federalism/tix is all you got so im chill with them then just explain how they do the same thing as the aff or are better and that they avoid the NB

net ben: please please please for everything thats good in the world read a net ben with your CP otherwise i have no reason to vote for your CP

Consult CP's: I view these similarly to PICS because thats what they are change my mind

Delay CP's : Same exact thing as consult cp's and PICS because its a PIC

DA's: Not a whole lot to say here tbh Da's are pretty straight forward um make sure to tell me that they outweigh case if your neg and if youre aff prove that theyre either non unique/ turn the DA's link/ Turn the Impact and um given the neg doesnt answer that youll win id say. also if youre aff tell me why your case outweighs i dont just want to hear the words i also want to hear why. overall tho I want to hear debate in each level as you condense the round.

Spec: I have an interesting love hate relationship lowkey spec args are one of the nit pickiest things in the book and are older than a dinosaur. but I also love them for that reason exactly. make sure like a DA or ig more like T provide an interp, violation, standards, and a voter/MPX. ill vote on spec given that you actually go for it fully in the 2nr. it can be an effective strat tho if you read a spec/vagueness arg in order to protect the links to a politics DA or to some like agent specific DA.

K: This part of my paradigm used to be super vague but now is not :) ya boi got some experience with the kritik finally. Alright so as the aff the things I think you need to do to in round is one respond to every link including links of omission if not they have proof that you cause the impact to happen. second weigh the impact of the aff against the impact of the Alt. Third, perm the Kritik unless the perm would create a link of omission then be careful. Fourth challenge Alt solvency if the alt cant solve for the root cause of its problem it means I shouldnt vote for it. thats prolly the easiest way to tell you how to answer. you can also give me a ROB arg which tells me how i need to frame the debate round IE: h=whoever has the best durable solvency or whoever prevents the biggest impact in terms of magnitude. or whatever you wish it to be. and on the negative be able to defend everything above and any sketchy things the aff might do.

Speed: im okay with speed but beware if its not on the doc slow down and sign post otherwise i will lose track and wont get it on my flow and whatever i flow is king IE: if i dont catch it i wont use it in my RFD

4 year debater WEHS and NWHS, debated DCI/TOC for first 3 years, and chilled for the 4th year.

Email chain always: war.camden@gmail.com

Tabula Rasa - Tech>Truth - Policy Maker (unless you con).

Speed good

My 3 favorite things: Theory, Impact Calc, and Evidence Clash

K's/K-aff's:

- Will always listen to it, even better if I can experience a performance

- Trix are for kids, and also policy debaters! Feel free to be tricky or strategically drop parts of the K so long as you're clear about what you're doing.

Theory:
- Love it, go for it.

- 5 minutes of theory in rebuttals is dope, just don't beat around the bush.

- Theory that comes up mid-round due to circumstance is cool, just make sure to touch on procedurals and give clear impacts

Things that will dock you speaks:
- Being mean in round

- Inappropriate or inconsiderate behavior in round

- Incomprehensible spreading

- Over-aggressive CX and yelling over your opponent

More paradigm = Click here - (ctrl+click)

yes chain: ashleywrightdb8@gmail.com (she/her)

Maize High '19-23 (arms sales, CJR, water, NATO)

George Mason '23-present

T/L

tech + truth > tech > truth

clarity + speed > clarity > speed

do whatever you are best at and I will adapt. my only exception is anything bigoted/harmful.

judge instruction is incredibly important for me in all debates - tell me why you are winning specific arguments and what it means in context of the overall debate if you win them

read re-highlightings (either in cx or in your speech) don't just insert them

obviously, my predispositions here don't mean I won't vote for an argument if you're winning it. they are just my preferences.

I will read evidence out of interest during the round, but it wont impact my decision unless debaters make it matter. This means telling me how I should evaluate evidence and then naming authors that are important in the round. Analytics can hold similar weight to evidence if it's warranted out and smart!

FW

fairness is an impact that I am more than willing to vote on, however, I prefer clash

if you are going for ground you should be prepared to tell me what ground you lost in the debate

competing interps are good - affs should tell me what their model of debate looks like and why that's good.

K Affs

Judge instruction is really important. Affs need a clear theory of power and should explain to me what voting aff endorses and why their model is uniquely better than whatever the neg proposes. Consistency is really important to me.

neg teams should engage with case more---especially in the 2nr, even if it is just presumption or telling me how fw engages with the case page and why it should come first.

K's on the neg

i think that teams are getting kind of lazy on the link level - teams should do a better job of explaining the direct effect of the aff (pulling lines from evidence and other things of that sort). I also think that the neg should explain how the alt overcomes these links - a solid link story gives you a better chance of winning without the alt. and on the aff if the neg doesnt have a solid link and kicks the alt your chances of winning are significantly higher

fw should function as an advantage of the k's impacts but also have clear parameters for what the aff has to do to get weighed. at the end of the day I usually end up thinking that affs get to weigh their impacts but the neg gets links to scholarship/discource/etc,

on perms---i think more teams should explain why the perm doesnt work in context of specific alt solvency while also explaining why links mean they dont get a perm. On the aff, teams should have a net ben to the perm and explain how it resolves links, disads, etc.

CPs

Neg leaning on CP theory. However, I am more than open to teams winning that they are bad. Aff teams should punish the neg for being cheaty more often.

The aff should be able to prove why the cp can't solve the aff and/or why the perm is better

you have to tell me to judge kick

Case

i loveeee case debates however teams have gotten kinda lazy when it comes to this part of debating :(

aff solvency advocates are horrible a lot of the time, call this out.

impact turns are fun and silly and my favorite type of debates to judge

DAs

I love a good disad. However, I've noticed a lot recently that the link debate seems to be overlooked. A low risk of a link = low risk of me voting for it.

crappy internal link chains make me sad.

T

I prefer limits over ground but can be persuaded by either. I think predictability arguments are convincing (on either side) especially when it is in terms of research burdens. Competing interps are good. Case lists are good. Reasonability is meh.

I'm probably forgetting some other stuff so please feel free to ask questions before round --- I will be happy to answer :)