Please add me to the email chain: changwen919@gmail.com

I've competed at multiple TOC tournaments and know this topic fairly well.

Overview

Speed is cool with me, but i have to be able to understand you. Don't go so fast that you sacrifice clarity.

Being racist, sexist, and whatnot to anyone in the round will result in a loss for that team.

Haven't gone for many K's, so if you want to go for it, then you have to explain what your K does and tell me why it outweighs the aff.

Please don't read like 9-10 off, it's not as good as you think I promise

Love impact calc

This is your debate round, read what you think is the best. Just have fun, I'm open to new ideas and will vote on them.

Speaker points - Clarity will get you the most speaker points. Consistent roadmaps and judge instructions will also award you with more speaker points.

Specifics

DA - Go for them. Love these, but make sure you have a clear story of what exactly happens when the aff passes.

CP - Love them as well. But just keep in mind that I think anything more than 3 condos is pushing it.

T - Love them. Go for it if you think you're winning on this flow. I will vote on it if you can explain how the aff violates it and why that's bad.

K - Like I said above, I'm not well versed in K lit, other than Cap and Abolish K. But if you want to read a new K, go for it, but you have to explain what your alt does and why that outweighs the aff. That really goes for any of the K's you read, you have to explain them well.

Theory - I'll vote on them, but I'm not a huge fan. If there is truly an absurd amount of abuse (like 8 condo or something) I'll probably sympathize with the aff.

4th-year debater at Wichita East High

I’m rocking with K’s, T, CP’s, and DA’s

Roadmaps please

Please add me on the email chain

Extra speaks if you're chill

If you make a radiohead reference insta 30

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

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

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

Current Head Debate/Forensics Coach at Wichita Southeast High School

Email: kaylab222@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions? Ask me before the round.

Email Chain?

Definitely, eli.glaghassi@gmail.com

Little about me, I attend Andover Central High School (KS) , did policy for 1 years, LD and congress for one year.

Side Notes:

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.

I am fine with all arguments that can be presented within a debate. If it is a Kritik I would like some more explanation of it. I prefer that all arguments that are not theory or T have an impact card. Pure analytics is fine for an argument as long as it is either on the T or theory flow, but at least in the 2A and Neg block I would like to see a card per argument if it on the case flow or the DA, CP or K. Other than that as long as you can explain your argument well you can theoretically run anything in front of me. (Card extensions are more than welcome)

Other things

Speed: Go as fast as you want- be clear though.

Please have impact calc

Framing in the debate is always nice

Offtime roadmaps are always welcome

Dont be scared and have fun with the debate - maybe read some troll args that are still winnable - just make sure to have a good time.

Also I hate K affs. Just read it on the neg. We are here to debate a policy and being able to read the K on the neg is more than enough.

Jayden Island

Experience: Debated for 4 years in HS; 2x NCFL competitor and finalist in policy; 2022 NSDA competitor in policy and 2023 competitor in IX

Email: naomi.derby19@gmail.com

Things you should know:

Speed: Feel free to go as fast as you see fit; however, please make sure that you are signposting and that you are at least somewhat coherent. Will say clear if absolutely necessary.

CX: Please be cordial during this time and I don't care whether you use open or closed tbh

T: No specific preferences, but at least make sure that you are doing all of the work i.e standards & voters instead of just throwing out an interpretation with no context

DA: I really enjoy the work done on econ disadvantages, especially when there is a strong link. Any disads are fine, again, as long as you clearly explain the story and don't just provide buzzwords like "O/W & Turns case," etc. I really don't love politics disadvantage as I feel that the links are very weak, but I will evaluate them regardless granted that you do sufficient line-by-line explanations.

CP: Please provide a net benefit. On Aff, explain how the perm can solve for the CP and why your plan has greater solvency. For Neg, do the same work on solvency, and please extend your CP into the block as 9/10 times, it's not as bad as you think it is.

K: You will have to explain each of your FW arguments in order for me to buy the story- if you do not provide a competitive alternative I will likely not vote on the K, but feel free to go for the Link and ! if you would like to drop the alt after the block (but be sure to do all of the work to answer alt defense before doing so). I have gone for afro-pessimism, cap, and set-col so I am most familiar with that literature, though I am open to evaluating any critical arguments read throughout the debate.

please give me good song recommendations- will give extra speaker points if they're actually good XOXO.

Debate Experience:

4 years at Derby High School

currently at KU but not debating & I have not judged any rounds on this years topic

Email: cejohnson2022@gmail.com

General Notes:

Speed: go as fast as you want, as long as you are clear.

CX: please don't be rude during cx. I think that making your point is good, but being rude to your opponents or interrupting your partner will decrease your speaks.

T

Most likely to default to competing interps, but you have to do the work for this. Extend standards and voters, but also clash.

DA

Politics DAs are awesome! I love DA debate, make sure to do the work on the i/l and impact level. Neg, explain how the DA o/w and turns the case, don't just say those words. The more specific the link, the better. If you have a crafty DA then make sure to have a really strong link explanation.

CP

The CP needs a net benefit and explain how it doesn't link. Aff, make solvency deficits and explain how the perm solves. POST the CP. Offense is important. Neg, explain how the CP solves the aff and their advantages.

K

I've gone for Queer Theory, Fem & Cap, but don't let that deter you from running what you want. Just make sure to explain your alt.

K Aff/ FW

f/w - clash and impacts are important. TVAs are cool. Make sure to answer all the little DAs aff will put on f/w.

K Aff - explain to me what your aff does and how it solves, I feel that a lot of K aff teams just say words and no one else really knows what they mean.

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.

assistant director of debate, wichita east high school

nsda Degree of Outstanding Distinction certificate holder

he/him

say lets get this bread before cross-x for bonus points

lots of clash in your speech is always great, i think?

try your best

all good for open CX

if you use speachdrop, i will leave the round and submit the ballot in the other teams favor, i don't have time for this nonsense
just kidding (kind of), just use what's most convenient for you and the other team

incorporating any of these phrases into your speech will result in an increase of speaker points:

"devious licks, bruh moment, according to the KSHAA handbook..., perm do neither"

CONGRESS is the TRUE form of DEBATE ????

accomplishments:
parker benjamin mitchell's favorite student: 2021-2023

Name: Tony Nation

School – Kapaun Mt. Carmel HS, Wichita, KS – Assistant Coach

Debated at Emporia State and Wichita State – Been coaching pretty much ever since.

Email: antonynation@gmail.com – add me to the chain

If you’re looking for LD specific, it’s at the bottom. I’d still suggest reading the whole thing.

Prep time ends when you remove the flash drive, stand up and start approaching the other team. Once they have the files, you should be ready to speak. Speech time starts after you have given me the roadmap and begin the actual speech.

I would consider myself a pretty decent flow since I use my laptop, but don’t go crazy. If you’re not clear or I’m behind I’ll let you know. The only thing that confuses me is when you don’t tell me where you are and/or are giving some super long overview and haven’t told me that’s what’s going on. So, if you’re giving an overview up top, tell me that’s what you’re going to do.

As far as argument types and preferences, I really don’t care what you run as long as you’re not advocating something offensive (racism/sexism). Spark, wipeout, de-dev, etc. are all ok. Generally, I’m looking for offense. I can’t remember one time I’ve voted for someone with only defensive arguments. I’m generally not going to agree that your defensive cards are a 100% takeout unless there’s a really, really, really, really, really good reason. That being said, I can definitely tell you I’m not a “stock issues” judge. I’d say that if not given direction, I would be best described as a policy-maker.

Notes about specific arguments:

All arguments have a claim and at least one warrant.

I don’t have a pre-conceived notion about conditional arguments. You probably should be prepared to debate that when necessary.

Without a very specific link, I have a hard time believing that your generic criticism means a case won’t solve at all. If you argue that there isn’t any version of the affirmative that will ever work, that’s fair. But you should probably be able to conjure up at least one similar historical example. The worst critical debates are where people just read long card after long card and then only refer back to the author/date. We’ve seen policy actions work in the past, right?

This doesn’t mean I won’t vote for “generic” arguments. I ran them when I debated and coach my teams to run them.

My best advice is to do whatever you need to do to win the round. I’m open to anything.

Other Notes: Humor helps your points. I've given a 30 only one time when I didn't laugh. I don't believe that 'cheating' counterplans are cheating. I think that it's a legitimate test of a policy to discuss when it should happen or why part of it should/should not happen. Legislatures consider both of those things, especially in committee. A clever Haiku is acceptable in the 2NR/2AR. I'd say its acceptable elsewhere, but I don't think your 1AR will have that kind of time. Impact turns? Go right ahead. If you want to tell me that it's cool for a million humans to die because it saves some rare form of slug that has cancer curing venom, go right ahead. I think it's important to weigh impacts. I have four cats. Do with that information what you will. Spec and advocate arguments work sometimes as well. It's part of critical thinking. Not all authors write with the exact same premise. Spending and politics uniqueness should probably be less than 48 hours old (well, newer than the last time we enacted new spending or a similar law.) If you're reading camp uniqueness for spending/politics, I'll be offended. Completely new arguments in the 2s will probably not win you the round. I'll give the 1AR tons of leeway since I remember that struggle. If there is a new DA in the 2 and the 1AR decides to give you a straight turn for Christmas, I'll probably give them a 30, even if they lose. At this point I'm just rambling, but you've gotten a deep insight into my mind. Make it worth your time. I'll leave you with this. If you don't do the work for me and I have to figure out everything for myself, you either won't like the outcome or I'll eventually vote on presumption.

LD – I don’t place any pre-conceived value on a particular model of LD debate. That means that someone doesn’t have a defined value or criterion. You can debate that model, you can advocate a policy, multiple policies, hypotest or run critical arguments. This means you should be prepared to answer those arguments if they are presented. I also have zero preference for speed in LD. If someone goes fast and they are capable of it, then so be it. The only rules I’m going to have you follow are speech times, speech order and prep time. I recently had a long conversation about the place of counterplans in LD. I came out with a couple of thoughts. 1: If the resolution defines an actor (eg: United States) I think the affirmative should be prepared debates about other actors. Example: If the affirmative is defending the USFG should implement a policy, but it's better done at a state/local level, that's a legitimate argument for the negative. You're not going to convince me that it isn't the negative's ground without a really good reason. 2: If while researching, the negative finds a better idea than what the resolution calls for to solve a specific problem, the affirmative should be able to defend their action in comparison. If you want an example, you'll have to wait until after May 5th because I'm not giving my debater's strategy away. My point being, if the affirmative says the US should do x because it will provide educational opportunities to people who don't give them now and the negative is able to say that x is a bad idea compared to y then I think that the affirmative chose the ground and the negative found something within that ground to argue.

lay - thank you

I did debate for four years at Wichita East

I’m good with all parts of debate, just make sure you explain it well (please don’t run a k if you don’t understand it).

Please don’t belittle the other team or I will lower your points.

I’m pretty good with speed, just make sure you are speaking clearly.

Let’s all try to have a fun and healthy debate. You can learn from every round whether you win or lose. Even if you don’t think you’ll win, please try your best!

No need to be super tense, I’m really welcome to jokes. Making a dad joke will probably get you extra points.

If you’re doing an email chain, please add me dolorunfemi3@gmail.com

he/him

Hi my name is Devon Rux (he/him)

I did debate and forensic in high school for three years

I have not been at a debate in a good while but im fine with whatever you decide to run I can keep up with most levels of speed so feel free to spread. I am ok with most arguments if you run a kritik in policy I cant garentee i'll understand all of it but feel free to run them.

Neeti (she/her), fourth year debater at wichita east high

please add me to the email chain: neeti2992@gmail.com

in love with good case debates; cool with cp's, da's, k's, and t

you will most definitely receive negative speaker points if you're repeatedly disrespectful to anyone during round

remember to have fun and try your best!!

(there's potential to earn bonus points if you reference hit NBC sitcom "The Office", or quote the hit E! reality series "Keeping Up With the Kardashians")

yes i have political biases, no i will not alter them for the round (haha jk ????)

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

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 :)