Short Version:
-yes email chain: nyu.bs.debate@gmail.com

-if you would like to contact me about something else, the best way to reach me is: bootj093@newschool.edu - please do not use this email for chains I would like to avoid cluttering it every weekend which is why I have a separate one for them

-debated in high school @ Mill Valley (local policy circuit in Kansas) and college @ NYU (CEDA-NDT) for 7 years total - mostly policy arguments in high school, mix of high theory and policy in college

-head LD/policy debate coach at Bronx Science and assistant policy coach at The New School, former assistant for Blue Valley West, Mill Valley, and Mamaroneck

-spin > evidence quality, unless the evidence is completely inconsistent with the spin

-tech > truth as long as the tech has a claim, warrant, and impact

-great for impact turns

-t-framework impacts ranked: topic education > skills > clash/arg refinement > scenario planning > fun > literally any other reason why debate is good > fairness

-I updated the t-fw part of my paradigm recently (under policy, 12/4/23) - if you are anticipating having a framework debate in front of me on either side, I would appreciate it if you skimmed it at least

-don't like to judge kick but if you give me reasons to I might

-personally think condo has gone way too far in recent years and more people should go for it, but I don't presume one way or the other for theory questions

-all kinds of theory, including topicality, framework, and/or "role of the ballot" arguments are about ideal models of debate

-most of the rounds I judge are clash debates, but I've been in policy v policy and k v k both as a debater and judge so I'm down for anything

-for high school policy 23-24: I actually used to work for the Social Security Administration (only for about 7-8 months) and I have two immediate family members who currently work there - so I have a decent amount of prior knowledge about how the agency works internally, processes benefits, the technology it uses, etc. - but not necessarily policy proposals for social security reform

Long Version:

Overview: Debate is for the debaters so do your thing and I'll do my best to provide a fair decision despite any preferences or experiences that I have. I have had the opportunity to judge and participate in debates of several different formats, circuits, and styles in my short career. What I've found is that all forms of debate are valuable in some way, though often for different reasons, whether it be policy, critical, performance, LD, PF, local circuit, national circuit, public debates, etc. Feel free to adapt arguments, but please don't change your style of debate for me. I want to see what you are prepared for, practiced in, and passionate about. Please have fun! Debating is fun for you I hope!

Speaking and Presentation: I don't care about how you look, how you're dressed, how fast or in what manner you speak, where you sit, whether you stand, etc. Do whatever makes you feel comfortable and will help you be the best debater you can be. My one preference for positioning is that you face me during speeches. It makes it easier to hear and also I like to look up a lot while flowing on my laptop. For some panel situations, this can be harder, just try your best and don't worry about it too much.

Speed - I do not like to follow along in the speech doc while you are giving your speech. I like to read cards in prep time, when they are referenced in cx, and while making my decision. I will use it as a backup during a speech if I have to. This is a particular problem in LD, that has been exacerbated by two years of online debate. I expect to be able to hear every word in your speech, yes including the text of cards. I expect to be able to flow tags, analytics, theory interps, or anything else that is not the interior text of a card. This means you can go faster in the text of a card, this does mean you should be unclear while reading the text of a card. This also means you should go slower for things that are not that. This is because even if I can hear and understand something you are saying, that does not necessarily mean that my fingers can move fast enough to get it onto my flow. When you are reading analytics or theory args, you are generally making warranted arguments much faster than if you were reading a card. Therefore, you need to slow down so I can get those warrants on my flow.

Clarity - I'm bad at yelling clear. I try to do it when things are particularly egregious but honestly, I feel bad about throwing a debater off their game in the middle of a speech. I think you can clear or slow your opponent if you are comfortable with it - but not excessively to avoid interruption please - max 2-3 times a speech. If you are unclear with tags or analytics in an earlier speech, I will try to let you know immediately after the speech is over. If you do it in a rebuttal, you are 100% at fault because I know you can do it clearly, but are choosing not to. Focus on efficiency, not speed.

Logistical Stuff: I would like the round to run as on-time as possible. Docs should be ready to be sent when you end prep time. Orders/roadmaps should be given quickly and not changed several times. Marking docs can happen outside of prep time, but it should entail only marking where cards were cut. I would prefer that, at the varsity level, CX or prep time is taken to ask if something was not read or which arguments were read. I think it’s your responsibility to listen to your opponent’s speech to determine what was said and what wasn’t. I don’t take prep or speech time for tech issues - the clock can stop if necessary. Use the bathroom, fill up your water bottle as needed - tournaments generally give plenty of time for a round and so long as the debaters are not taking excessive time to do other things like send docs, I find that these sorts of things aren’t what truly makes the round run behind.

Email chain or speech drop is fine for docs, which should be shared before a speech. I really prefer Word documents if possible, but don't stress about changing your format if you can't figure it out. Unless there is an accommodation request, not officially or anything just an ask before the round, I don't think analytics need to be sent. Advocacy texts, theory interps, and shells should be sent. Cards are sent for the purposes of ethics and examining more closely the research of your opponent. Too many of you have stopped listening to your opponents entirely and I think the rising norm of sending every single word you plan on saying is a big part of it. It also makes you worse debaters because in the instances where your opponent decides to look up from their laptop and make a spontaneous argument, many of you just miss it entirely.

Stop stealing prep time. When prep time is called by either side, you should not be talking to your partner, typing excessively on your computer, or writing things down. My opinion on “flex prep,” or asking questions during prep time, is that you can ask for clarifications, but your opponent doesn’t have to answer more typical cx questions if they don’t want to (it is also time that they are entitled to use to focus on prep), and I don’t consider the answers in prep to have the same weight as in cx. Prep time is not a speech, and I dislike it when a second ultra-pointed cx begins in prep time because you think it makes your opponent look worse. It doesn’t - it makes you look worse.

Speaker Points: I try to adjust based on the strength of the tournament pool/division, but my accuracy can vary depending on how many rounds in the tournament I've already judged.

29.5+ You are one of the top three speakers in the tournament and should be in finals.

29.1-29.4 You are a great speaker who should be in late elims of the tournament.

28.7-29 You are a good speaker who should probably break.

28.4-28.6 You're doing well, but need some more improvement to be prepared for elims.

28-28.3 You need significant improvement before I think you can debate effectively in elims.

<28 You have done something incredibly offensive or committed an ethics violation, which I will detail in written comments and speak with you about in oral feedback.

The three things that affect speaker points the most are speaking clearly/efficiently, cross-x, and making effective choices in the final rebuttals.

If you win the debate without reading from a laptop in the 2NR/2AR your floor for speaks is a 29.

For Policy:

T-Framework: The fw debates I like the most are about the advantages and disadvantages of having debates over a fiated policy implementation of the topic. I would prefer if your interpretation/violation was phrased in terms of what the affirmative should do/have done - I think this trend of crafting an interpretation around negative burdens is silly - i.e. "negatives should not be burdened with the rejoinder of untopical affirmatives." I'm not usually a big fan of neg interpretations that only limit out certain parts of the topic - strategically, they usually seem to just link back to neg offense about limits and predictability absent a more critical strategy. I think of framework through an offense/defense paradigm and in terms of models of debate. My opinion is that you all spend dozens or hundreds of hours doing research, redos, practice, and debates - you should be prepared to defend that the research you do, the debates you have, and how you have those debates are good.

1. Topic-specific arguments are best - i.e. is it a good or bad thing that we are having rounds talking about fiscal redistribution, nuclear weapons, resource extraction, or military presence? How can that prepare people to take what they learn in debate outside of the activity? Why is topic-specific education valuable or harmful in a world of disinformation, an uninformed American public, escalating global crises, climate change, etc.? Don't be silly and read an extinction impact or anything though.

2. Arguments about debate in general are also great - I'm down for a "debate about debate" - the reason that I as a coach and judge invest tons of time into this activity is because I think it is pedagogically valuable - but what that value should look like, what is best to take from it, is in my opinion the crux of framework debates. Should debate be a competitive space or not? What are the implications of imagining a world where government policy gets passed? What should fiat look like or should it be used at all?

I can be convinced that debate should die given better debating from that side. But honestly, this is not my personal belief - the decline of policy debate in terms of participation at the college and high school level makes me very sad actually. I can also be convinced that debate is God's gift to earth and is absolutely perfect, even though I also believe that there are many problems with the activity. There is also a huge sliding scale between these two options.

3. Major defensive arguments and turns are good - technical stuff about framework like ssd, tvas, relative solvency of counter-interps, turns case and turns the disad arguments, uniqueness claims about the current trends of debate, claims about the history of debate, does it shape subjectivity or not - are all things that I think are worth talking about and can be used to make "try or die" or presumption arguments - though they should not be the focal point of your offense. I like when tvas are carded solvency advocates and/or full plan texts.

4. I do not like judging debates about procedural fairness:

A) They are usually very boring. On every topic, the same pre-written blocks, read at each other without any original thought over and over. I dislike other arguments for this reason too - ultra-generic kritiks and process cps - but even with those, they often get topic or aff-specific contextualizations in the block. This does not usually happen with fairness.

B) I often find fairness very unimportant on its own relative to the other key issues of framework - meaning I don't usually think it is offense. I find a lot of these debates to end up pretty tautological - "fairness is an impact because debate is a game and games should have rules or else they'd be unfair," etc. Many teams in front of me will win that fairness is necessary to preserve the game, but never take the next step of explaining to me why preserving the game is good. In that scenario, what "impact" am I really voting on? Even if the other team agrees that the game of debate is good (which a lot of k affs contest anyway), you still have to quantify or qualify how important that is for me to reasonably compare it to the aff's offense - saying "well we all must care about fairness because we're here, they make strategic arguments, etc." - is not sufficient to do that. I usually agree that competitive incentives mean people care about fairness somewhat. But how much and why is that important? I get an answer with nearly every other argument in debate, but hardly ever with fairness. I think a threshold for if something is an impact is that it's weighable.

C) Despite this, fairness can be impacted out into something tangible or I can be convinced that "tangibility" and consequences are not how I should make my decision. My hints are Nebel and Glówczewski.

5. Everyone needs to compare their impacts alongside other defensive claims in the debate and tell me why I should vote for them. Like traditional T, it's an offense/defense, disad/counterplan, model of debate thing for me. For some reason, impact comparison just seems to disappear from debaters' repertoire when debating framework, which is really frustrating for me.

Kritiks: Both sides of these debates often involve a lot of people reading overviews at each other, especially in high school, which can make it hard to evaluate at the end of the round. Have a clear link story and a reason why the alternative resolves those links. Absent an alt, have a framework as to why your impacts matter/why you still win the round. Impacts are negative effects of the status quo, the alternative resolves the status quo, and the links are reasons why the aff prevents the alternative from happening. Perms are a test of the strength of the link. Framework, ROB, and ROJ arguments operate on the same level to me and I think they are responsive to each other. My feelings on impacts here are similar to t-fw.

I still study some French high theory authors in grad school, but from a historical perspective. In my last couple years of college debate I read Baudrillard and DnG-style arguments a lot, some psychoanalysis as well - earlier than that my tastes were a little more questionable and I liked Foucault, Zizek, and Nietzsche a lot, though I more often went for policy arguments - I gave a lot of fw+extinction outweighs 2ARs. A lot of the debates I find most interesting include critical ir or critical security studies arguments. I have also coached many other kinds of kritiks, including all of the above sans Zizek as well as a lot of debaters going for arguments about anti-blackness or feminism. Set col stuff I don't know the theory as well tbh.

Affirmatives: I think all affs should have a clear impact story with a good solvency advocate explaining why the aff resolves the links to those impacts. I really enjoy affs that are creative and outside of what a lot of people are reading, but are still grounded in the resolution. If you can find a clever interpretation of the topic or policy idea that the community hasn't thought of yet, I'll probably bump your speaks a bit.

Disads: Love 'em. Impact framing is very important in debates without a neg advocacy. Turns cases/turns the da is usually much better than timeframe/probability/magnitude. Between two improbable extinction impacts, I default to using timeframe a lot of the time. A lot of disads (especially politics) have pretty bad ev/internal link chains, so try to wow me with 1 good card that you explain well in rebuttals rather than spitting out 10 bad ones. 0 risk of a disad is absolutely a thing, but hard to prove, like presumption.

Counterplans: They should have solvency advocates and a clear story for competition. Exploit generic link chains in affs. My favorites are advantage cps, specific pics, and recuttings of 1AC solvency ev. I like process cps when they are specific to the topic or have good solvency advocates. I will vote on other ones still, but theory and perm do the cp debates may be harder for you. I think some process cps are even very pedagogically valuable and can be highly persuasive with up-to-date, well-cut evidence - consult Japan on relevant topics for instance. But these arguments can potentially be turned by clash and depth over breadth. And neg flex in general can be a very strong argument in policy. I won't judge kick unless you tell me to in the 2NR, and preferably it should have some kind of justification.

Topicality: I default to competing interps and thinking of interps as models of debate. Be clear about what your interp includes and excludes and why that is a good thing. I view topicality like a disad most of the time, and vote for whoever's vision of the topic is best. I find arguments about limits and the effect that interpretations have on research to be the most convincing. I like topicality debates quite a bit.

Theory: Slow down, slow down, slow down. Like T, I think of theory through models of debate and default to competing interps- you should have an interpretation to make your life a little easier if you want to extend it - if you don't, I will assume the most extreme one (i.e. no pics, no condo, etc.). If you don't have a counter-interp in response to a theory argument, you are in a bad position. If your interpretation uses debate jargon like pics, "process" cps, and the like - you should tell me what you mean by those terms at least in rebuttal. Can pics be out of any word said, anything in the plan, anything defended in the solvency advocate or in cx, any concept advocated for, etc.? I think there is often too much confusion over what is meant to be a process cp. The interpretation I like best for "process" is "counterplans that result in the entirety of the plan." I like condo bad arguments, especially against super abusive 1ncs, but the neg gets a ton of time in the block to answer it, so it can be really hard to give a good enough 1ar on it without devoting a lot of time as well - so if you are going to go for it in the 2ar, you need to expand on it and cover block responses in the 1ar. Warrant out reject the argument vs. reject the team.

For LD:

Prefs Shortcut:

1 - LARP, High Theory Ks

2 - Other Ks, Topicality

3 - Phil, Theory that isn't condo or pics bad

4/5/strike - Trad, Tricks

My disclaimer is I try to keep an open mind for any debate - you should always use the arguments/style that you are most prepared with and practiced in. You all seem to really like these shortcuts, so I caved and made one - but these are not necessarily reflective of my like or dislike for any particular argument, instead more of my experience with different kinds, meaning some probably require more explanation for me to "get it." I love when I do though - I'm always happy to learn new things in debate!

Phil Debates: Something I am fairly unfamiliar with, but I've been learning more about over the past 6 months (02/23). I have read, voted for, and coached many things to the contrary, but if you want to know what I truly believe, I basically think most things collapse into some version of consequentialist utilitarianism. If you are to convince me that I should not be a consequentialist, then I need clear instructions for how I should evaluate offense. Utilitarianism I'm used to being a little more skeptical of from k debates, but other criticisms of util from say analytic philosophy I will probably be unfamiliar with.

Trad Debate: By far what I am least familiar with. I don't coach this style and never competed in anything like LD trad debate - I did traditional/lay policy debate a bit in high school - but that is based on something called "stock issues" which is a completely different set of standards than LD's value/value criterion. I struggle in these debates because for me, like "stock issues" do in policy, these terms seem to restrictively categorize arguments and actually do more to obscure their meaning than reveal it. In the trad debates I've seen (not many, to be fair), tons of time was dedicated to clarifying minutiae and defining words that either everyone ended up agreeing on or that didn't factor into the way that I would make my decision. I don't inherently dislike LD trad debate at all, it honestly just makes things more difficult for me to understand because of how I've been trained in policy debate for 11 years. I try my best, but I feel that I have to sort through trad "jargon" to really get at what you all think is important. I would prefer if you compared relative impacts directly rather than told me one is better than the other 100% of the time.

Plans/DAs/CPs: See the part in my policy paradigm. Plans/CP texts should be clearly written and are generally better when in the language of a specific solvency advocate. I think the NC should be a little more developed for DAs than in policy - policy can have some missing internal links because they get the block to make new arguments, but you do not get new args in the NR that are unresponsive to the 1AR - make sure you are making complete arguments that you can extend.

Kritiks: Some stuff in my policy paradigm is probably useful. Look there for K-affs vs. T-fw. I'm most familiar with so-called "high theory" but I have also debated against, judged, and coached many other kinds of kritiks. Like with DAs/CPs, stuff that would generally be later in the debate for policy should be included in the NC, like ROBs/fw args. Kritiks to me are usually consequentialist, they just care about different kinds of consequences - i.e. the consequences of discourse, research practices, and other impacts more proximate than extinction.

ROB/ROJs: In my mind, this is a kind of theory debate. The way I see this deployed in LD most of the time is as a combination of two arguments. First, what we would call in policy "framework" (not what you call fw in LD) - an argument about which "level" I should evaluate the debate on. "Pre-fiat" and "post-fiat" are the terms that you all like to use a lot, but it doesn't necessarily have to be confined to this. I could be convinced for instance that research practices should come before discourse or something else. The second part is generally an impact framing argument - not only that reps should come first, but that a certain kind of reps should be prioritized - i.e. ROB is to vote for whoever best centers a certain kind of knowledge. These are related, but also have separate warrants and implications for the round, so I consider them separately most of the time. I very often can in fact conclude that reps must come first, but that your opponent’s reps are better because of some impact framing argument that they are making elsewhere. Also, ROB and ROJ are indistinct from one another to me, and I don’t see the point in reading both of them in the same debate.

Topicality: You can see some thoughts in the policy sections as well if you're having that kind of T debate about a plan. I personally think some resolutions in LD justify plans and some don't. But I can be convinced that having plans or not having plans is good for debate, which is what is important for me in deciding these debates. The things I care about here are education and fairness, generally more education stuff than fairness. Topicality interpretations are models of the topic that affirmatives should follow to produce the best debates possible. I view T like a DA and vote for whichever model produces the best theoretical version of debate. I care about "pragmatics" - "semantics" matter to me only insofar as they have a pragmatic impact - i.e. topic/definitional precision is important because it means our research is closer to real-world scholarship on the topic. Jurisdiction is a vacuous non-starter. Nebel stuff is kind of interesting, but I generally find it easier just to make an argument about limits. Reasonability is something I almost never vote on - to be “reasonable” I think you have to either meet your opponent’s interp or have a better one.

RVIs: The vast majority of the time these are unnecessary when you all go for them. If you win your theory or topicality interp is better than your opponent's, then you will most likely win the debate, because the opposing team will not have enough offense on substance. I'm less inclined to believe topicality is an RVI. I think it’s an aff burden to prove they are topical and the neg getting to test that is generally a good thing. Other theory makes more sense as an RVI. Sometimes when a negative debater is going for both theory and substance in the NR, the RVI can be more justifiable to go for in the 2AR because of the unique time differences of LD. If they make the decision to fully commit to theory in the NR, however, the RVI is unnecessary - not that I'm ideologically opposed to it, it just doesn't get you anything extra for winning the debate - 5 seconds of "they dropped substance" is easier and the warrants for your c/i's standards are generally much better than the ones for the RVI.

Disclosure Theory: This is not a section that I would ever have to write for policy. I find it unfortunate that I have to write it for LD. Disclosure is good because it allows schools access to knowledge of what their opponents are reading, which in pre-disclosure days was restricted to larger programs that could afford to send scouts to rounds. It also leads to better debates where the participants are more well-prepared. What I would like to happen for disclosure in general is this:
1) previously read arguments on the topic are disclosed to at least the level of cites on the opencaselist wiki,
2) a good faith effort is made by the aff to disclose any arguments including the advocacy/plan, fw, and cards that they plan on reading in the AC that they've read before once the pairing comes out,
3) a good faith effort is made by the neg to disclose any previously read positions, tied to NC arguments on their wiki, that they've gone for in the NR on the current topic (and previous if asked) once they receive disclosure from the aff,
4) all the cites disclosed are accurate and not misrepresentations of what is read,
5) nobody reads disclosure theory!!

This is basically the situation in college policy, but it seems we still have a ways to go for LD. In a few rare instances I've encountered misdisclosure, even teams saying things like "well it doesn't matter that we didn't read the scenario we said we were going to read because they're a k team and it wasn't really going to change their argument anyways." More intentional things like this, or bad disclosure from debaters and programs that really should know better, I don't mind voting on. I really don't like however when disclosure is used to punish debaters for a lack of knowledge or because it is a norm they are not used to. You have to understand, my roots are as a lay debater who didn't know what the wiki was and didn't disclose for a single round in high school. For my first two years, I debated exclusively on paper and physically handed pages to my opponent while debating after reading them to share evidence. For a couple years after that, we "flashed" evidence to each other by tossing around a usb drive - tournaments didn't provide public wifi. I've been in way more non-lay debates since then and have spent much more time doing "progressive" debate than I ever did lay debate, but I'm very sympathetic still to these kinds of debaters.

Especially if a good-faith attempt is made, interps that are excluding debaters based on a few minutes of a violation, a round report from several tournaments ago, or other petty things make me sad to judge. My threshold for reasonability in these debates will be much lower. Having some empathy and clearly communicating with your opponent what you want from them is a much better strategy for achieving better disclosure practices in the community than reading theory as a punitive measure. If you want something for disclosure, ask for it, or you have no standing. Also, if you read a disclosure interp that you yourself do not meet, you have no standing. Open source theory and disclosure of new affs are more debatable than other kinds of disclosure arguments, and like with T and other theory I will vote for whichever interp I determine is better for debate.

Other Theory: I really liked theory when I did policy debate, but that theory is also different from a lot of LD theory. What that means is I mainly know cp theory - condo, pics, process cps, perm competition (i.e. textual vs. functional, perm do the cp), severance/intrinsicness, and other things of that nature. You can see some of my thoughts on these arguments in the policy section. I've also had some experience with spec arguments. Like T, I view theory similarly to a da debate. Interpretations are models of debate that I endorse which describe ideally what all other debates should look like. I almost always view things through competing interps. Like with T, in order to win reasonability I think you need to have a pretty solid I/meet argument. Not having a counter-interp the speech after the interp is introduced is a major mistake that can cost you the round. I decide theory debates by determining which interp produces a model of debate that is "best." I default to primarily caring about education - i.e. depth vs. breadth, argument quality, research quality, etc. but I can be convinced that fairness is a controlling factor for some of these things or should come first. I find myself pretty unconvinced by arguments that I should care about things like NSDA rules, jurisdiction, some quirk of the tournament invitation language, etc.

Tricks: I think I've officially judged one "tricks" round now, and I've been trying to learn as much as I can while coaching my squad. I enjoyed it, though I can't say I understood everything that was happening. I engaged in some amount of trickery in policy debate - paradoxes, wipeout, process cps, kicking out of the aff, obscure theory args, etc. However, what was always key to winning these kinds of debates was having invested time in research, blocks, a2s - the same as I would for any other argument. I need to be able to understand what your reason is for obtaining my ballot. If you want to spread out arguments in the NC, that's fine and expected, but I still expect you to collapse in the NR and explain in depth why I should vote for you. I won't evaluate new arguments in the NR that are not directly responsive to the 1AR. The reason one-line voting issues in the NC don't generally work with me in the back is that they do not have enough warrants to make a convincing NR speech.

Michelle Canon

If you are using email chains: michellecanon8@hotmail.com Please include me so I can view cards if needed.

Experience: 4 years of high school debate at Truman High School (Independence, MO) 1987-1991; qualified to NFL Nationals 1991 Team CX Debate- Awarded Overall Speaker award 5th place; Qualified to Nationals in '90 and '91 in Original Oratory.

4 Year Collegiate Debate- William Jewell College (Liberty, MO) Debated CEDA 1991-1995; Placed at CEDA Nationals 1994 (I think we dropped in quarters? it's been a hot minute :D), 1995 Season I helped coach Novice as my partner had graduated.

General Preferences:(this is focused on Novice Debate)

I have seen a lot of topics over the years and have judged fairly routinely. My favorite debates provide direct clash and there is a cohesive approach from both teammates. I want to see that you are thinking through your team's approach and your arguments complement each other. The 2AR and 2NR are the crystalizing rebuttals and I want impact calc on how the arguments are weighed out.

I am a flow judge, so I want a road map on how many off-case and what areas of case you want you to signpost arguments applied on the flow. I love structure- I understand that's not the trend so please emphasize your tag lines, if you are reading quickly. I flow off of what you say, and I expect both teams to flow off of what is said in the round, not off of exchanged documents. I will always prefer quality over quantity. I get very frustrated when both teams read blocks quickly and don’t slow down for main points. I used to speak fast but I haven’t done it in a long time so please keep it reasonable. I expect you to fill all your time, and I expect quality arguments. I see speed as a necessity in certain speeches and arguments, but only go as fast as you can be clear, if no one understands what you're saying it's not going on the flow and won't be weighed in my decision. Do not choose speed over quality. Condense down and make a solid argument.

I will vote on almost any developed argument that is extended through the entire debate. If the argument is case side and it takes out a stock issue that will warrant a negative ballot. Case side you have to develop the argument and it has to be extended in rebuttals and weighed by 2NR. I will not weigh anything that is not extended into rebuttals. Of course, no new arguments initiated in rebuttals.

T-I appreciate a good T debate and will vote on it if it is set up as an off-case and developed (meaning analysis, definition, clear stated violation) and extended. I will vote Neg on T if the affirmative drops it- but the negative has to extend it and go for it.

I was a 2N my entire time debating - I love a well-developed Disad, I expect the shell to be run in the 1NC and I expect 2N to set up shop and blow it up if that's what you are going for in the debate. Please don't run contradictory DA's. Keep your story clean and extend the full disad. If you spend all your time proving a link and internal link but fail to have clear impact scenario in your 2NC then you aren't winning as big of an argument as you could.

CP-I like counter plans as well for a policy debate. Make sure they are mutually exclusive, competitive, non-topical and net the highest impacts. The only counterplans I'm not a fan of is the big generic theoretical counterplans like an Anarchy counterplan. I see that as a waste of time. I'd rather you make intelligent arguments then read a big generic CP- if this is what you want to go for make sure you develop the argument clean and clear with a more specific creative spin to get my vote here.

K- I see K (at the novice level) a pretty non-persuasive argument. I think it detracts from having a strong debate and becomes more about gaming the round (again at the Novice level) vs debating the topic. That being said, if you are running a more creative affirmative trying to catch negatives off-base, then I'm willing to consider K's and other theoretical arguments more heavily to provide some negative ground. I ran plenty of crazy cases so I get it, but that will open up the flexibility on links and more theoretical arguments. If there is clear negative ground, it's going to be hard to get me to vote on K. And for goodness sakes, if you are running a K over language or protection of specific rights- please don't violate your own K during the round with your own discourse. I have never heard an affirmative K, so if you are running it you better know it inside and out and be able to clearly explain it- and please know I really don't want to go here for a novice debate.

Please don't make this competitive reading where each team reads their own briefs. There needs to be direct clash- that is what debate is about. Final rebuttals should write the ballot on what is the most significant in the debate and weigh out the debate.

I want to see courteous, respectful, intelligent debates. I don't see debate as a personal argument, so please don't take it there. I will give poor speaks for anyone rude, condescending or overly disruptive.

If we can get some laughs in the debate and have positive fun I'll always reward with higher speaks.

bluevalleynorthch@gmail.com

add me to the email chain

she/her

bvn '24

notes:

feel free to ask me any questions!

pronouns: she/her

add me to the email chain: bkcoleman@bluevalleyk12.net

I don't really care what you run, just don't be rude.

Brett Cranor

bvsw '23

ku '27

I know nothing about debate trends/popular arguments for any high school topic.

email chain (please include both)- cranor.brett@gmail.com+ bvswdebatedocs@gmail.com

If you have any questions/problems with anything said below, feel free to ask.

General Thoughts-

1--Read whatever. I'm open to functionally everything. Ideological opposition to arguments doesn't decide who wins the debate. The bar only gets crossed if it harms other debaters or is a procedural violation of debate (clipping, miscutting evidence, etc).

2--I only evaluate what you say. tech> truth, but debate is a speaking activity, not a research document submission. I make decisions solely from the words on my flow; I'm not going to reread all your cards to find warrants for you. If you want me to read things after the debate/it is important to the round, I will obviously read them. Debate takes a lot of commitment, dedication, and perseverance so I will do my best to reciprocate such commitment by adjudicating the debate to the best of my ability.

3--I don't have a set scale for speaker points. They're pretty arbitrary but revolve around precision, smart decision-making, and how well I feel like you've actually debated (i.e not having a block battle). I will not give you a 30 if you ask for one. Even if you win you should get a 30 in the round, that does not reflect your speaking ability. This is non-negotiable; I do not care, speaks are getting beyond inflated. Speaker points are based on speaking so there's no out-of-round practice (like open source, etc) that is going to give you boosts, but that doesn't mean there aren't extra ways to increase them.

For example:

-not having a computer/blocks in finals rebuttals

-making funny & applicable jokes

-technical, efficient, and easy-to-following debating (i.e numbering, clear lbl)

4--Cross-Ex: It should always be open unless agreed upon by the debaters. If your offense is predicated on someone not knowing the answer to a question, while their partner knows it, you deserve to lose. This doesn't change if you are mav. However, I still do believe the person getting cross-examined should be answering the majority of questions asked. Having one person answer all the questions is nearly always perceptually horrible. Cross-Ex is binding and I will flow any questions and responses for the duration of three minutes. Debaters are free to ask any questions to the other team during their own prep time, but I won't flow anything said/responded to.

5--Go for the arguments you are comfortable going for. Your ability to debate the arguments you're comfortable with outweighs the consequences of badly explaining arguments because a judge prefers them. That being said, if a said argument is more confusing and/or technical, just explain it more in-depth.

6--My bar for an extension seems to be fairly high. I understand that speeches are constrained by time limits, but I'm a pretty big stickler about only accepting arguments in previous speeches. This does not just mean I throw them out the window, but rather the bar for disproving them lowers. I'm all for spin, but there is only so much you can get out of a sentence. The place where I most commonly see this is 2ac and 1ar case extensions. I enjoy seeing debaters extend advantages and internal links while doing line-by-line, as opposed to overviews, but a clear and coherent internal link chain should be present in every speech. With that being said, new 1ar arguments are up to the debaters and the only time I will personally intervene to strike things off my flow is while protecting the 2nr, against a new 2ar.

7--Dropped arguments are true, but I think debaters tend to have tunnel vision when it comes to this. There is a large chance that something else on the flow can implicate said argument, which makes banking on them solely less offensive than many believe.

8--I will not vote on anything outside of the round; no exceptions. If it's important enough, tab should be deciding this, not me.

Novice Specific-

Be nice. Everyone is here to learn (or just pass the class tbh) so unnecessary, degrading, or rude remarks are automatically going to make me not want to listen to you. I enjoy watching and evaluating debates but am completely uninterested in watching people degrade others for mistakes/not knowing what to do.

Hi! My Name is Mackenzie Leece. (Pronouns- She/her) I am a 4th-year debater at Blue Valley West High school. Make sure to include me in the email chain: mjleece@bluevalleyk12.net

General: Make sure to always debate with a positive attitude and demonstrate good sportsmanship. Also, be aware of your audience/components in regard to how your argument might affect them. Bullying, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. will not be tolerated in the round and will result in you losing the round. So just remember to be nice!

Performance: I tend to vote for teams that confidently present their plan in a clear and enthusiastic manner. Make sure to read your plan with emotion so I understand the urgency of your plan. Also make sure to give roadmaps, overviews/under-views, and consistently make eye contact with me so you aren't just reading a bunch of info. Speed is not the most important thing to me when considering the winning team. It is more compelling to me if you can read a speech at a good pace with clarity and emotion.

Voting: I generally vote for the team that answers and combats all arguments brought up during the round. I vote for the team that efficiently presents/counters the plan with confidence and emotion. I don't vote for teams that are rude or clearly don't know the information that they are reading.

If you have any information that you think I should know please let me know. I will do what I can to make you feel comfortable in the round!

BVSW '24

amyblloyd6@gmail.com

Johnny Perkins

BVHS '24

Four-year debater, three-year (so far) forensicator

Use jhperkins8@gmail.com for email chains

Elle Razi

email: elrazi@bluevalleyk12.net

Background: fourth-year, open, and varsity debater

Speed: I am totally fine with you speaking fast, however, annunciation is extremely important and I need to be able to understand you. Speaking fast can be difficult, so it is up to the debater and their skill level, but it doesn't make you any better or worse. As long as I can understand your tags and cards, I am fine with any speed

affirmative: When reading an affirmative be sure to understand your own arguments and be prepared to be asked multiple questions regarding your case. Be sure to respond to all negative arguments, it is hard to vote on arguments that were completely dropped or not correctly shut down.

Cross-examinations: Cross-ex is my favorite part of policy debate, I appreciate it when teams utilize the time to give their partners preparation. It is important to use cross-examination wisely and hook the other team on clarification and impact.

Negative: When responding to arguments, try to use off-case arguments to your advantage so you can compare them to the affirmative plan in depth, and back it up with a reason. Even though you will be reading off-case arguments, don't drop the affirmative case answers.

Rebuttals: Giving your rebuttal is extremely important, especially when you are wrapping up the debate, speak clearly, and use line-by-line to prove why you should be voting for your side in the debate round.

harvinsandhubvsw@gmail.com

????????????I am mostly Tabula Rasa; however, some hard preconceptions I do have are that I largely view the 1AC as an object of research and my role as the judge as an educator.

I love Ks and will most likely be familiar with your litbase (when I debated I mainly went for Nietzsche, Warren, Skirshmire, Bifo, Bataille, and Sexton) but I still have a higher threshold of contextualization.????????????

Debated for four years at Blue Valley Southwest ['21]. I know very little about the water topic, so try to avoid using too many acronyms [without explanation] or assuming I know general topic information.

Add me to the email chain: rorystanfield03@gmail.com

HELLO YOU AMAZING PERSON

If you're reading this, I'm judging your round, so take a deep breath and just have fun!

Background:

I'm currently a Junior and have been debating for three years now, but have experience within regards to public speaking for five. I'm currently located at Blue Valley North in Kansas, but began competing at Parkhill South in Missouri, then for FLVS in Florida. In my Sophomore year I was granted the position of President of my team and also offered that of Assistant Coach, so needless to say I have an understanding of the events Speech and Debate offers as well as how to compete and judge in them! I am also familiar with both local and national circuits, dabbling in each.

Outside of school, I am the Treasurer of the Florida Chapter of Beyond Resolved, an organization that strives to encourage diversity in the field, and am also the Executive of Committee Development for The Cosmos Championship, which is currently the largest online and international debating platform.

Expertise:

The first event I ever debated in was Congress and I've remained in that ever since. Over the years I have participated in POI, Oratory, Lincoln Douglas, and Public Forum, but have the most knowledge of what I started in. Doing so has led me to qualify so far as second within my House for Missouri State, seventh for Florida State, two NSDA National tournaments, and ranking top 60 at Glenbrooks with 400+ NSDA points. I say this to just prove that I'm passionate about what I do and genuinely enjoy it!

Policy:

-Please do not treat me like a lay judge, but I do appreciate extra help!

-I have a violent hatred towards spreading and am not telling you to not do it, but to just keep that in mind when choosing your speaking style... ultimately your choice. I understand you'll be SpeechDropping your case, but if I have to solely rely upon reading them to understand what you're saying, there is an issue. Don't make my brain spontaneously combust <3

-I'll be looking for the typical claim, evidence, and reasoning format... if you can't do this then you fail to even make an argument

-I LOVE counterplans because I find it redundant to trash one's solvency then fail to offer a better way to solve the issue

-Cross ex and rebuttals mean a lot to me because it shows whether you know the weak points of the opposing side's case, and what you can do when extemping. If I should truly vote for your side then you should be able to convince me even when not reading off a script!!

Congress:

-Don't be insanely speech-ey. I greatly appreciate one's ability to deliver an argument in a convincing and calm demeanor, but it should not be a performance, merely a conversation

-Clash is CRUCIAL. If you're the first Aff/Neg then it's understandable not to have this, but even then, you can anticipate what will be said later on in the debate. Don't try to give the first speech just to avoid this. If you never refute your opponents' claims in your speeches, then how am I supposed to know what they say is wrong?

-Cross examination is significant when both giving and receiving it. Please please please ask concise and understandable questions, and when answering them, do the same

-Volunteer when needed! I promise you that in a round when someone fails to run for PO, deliver the first Aff/Neg, or pass a motion, it's obvious to the judges who steps up. Don't be afraid to give yourself a pat on the back for doing this and to tell us you made a speech during a 5 min recess for the sake of debate, or have never POed before and are doing it for the same reason. We appreciate you SO much, and so do your fellow debaters

-Please don't go over time! I've seen some people give 3:30 speeches and it physically pains me. When you're in a chamber with roughly ten others, please keep in mind the fact that everyone needs a chance to speak

*I'm super finicky about rules. Take a glance at NSDA's handbook, because there's a lot of common misconceptions I see in Congress. Definitely don't bring up evidence that wasn't previously said in cross-ex, or refuse to give a speech an entire round. THANK YOU!!

Summary:

Throughout the entirety of my debating, I've recognized the value of it as well as what can be learned. You should be participating in this for the experience rather than the results, because quite honestly, those come hand in hand! Don't get overwhelmed by the extensiveness of my paradigm I honestly just like to talk a lot.

Hope this helped, and can't wait to meet you! You got this :)

*This should go without saying, but be respectful to everyone even when not debating. I do not tolerate any form of negativity that may disrupt a round.

*PO Cheat Sheet

Blue Valley West '24

he/him

email chain - hienjoshuatran@gmail.com

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 :)

Ben Ziegelman (he/him)

Debated four years at BVSW

Please add me to the email chain ziegelman.ben@gmail.com

don't refer to me as judge it's uncomfy

i will clear twice before i stop listening 

TLDR

I don’t care what you do as long as you’re not discriminatory/cheating

General

Tech over truth in almost every instance

Don’t change how you’re going to debate based on the paradigm, I don’t care enough to warrant sacrificing what you're comfortable doing

Fine with speed but I’ll stop listening if you’re not clear

I love a healthy amount of spin, but make sure it lines with what the evidence actually says.

Judge instruction in rebuttals is probably the best way to make sure I see the debate from the same lense as you

Don't be rude to your opponents or partner, it's an easy way to lose speaks

Going for high risk high rewards arguments and doing it well is an easy way to bump speaks 

Ask questions if you have any

T 

Competing interps>reasonability, but I will still vote on reasonability if executed well 

DA

I am not a huge fan of very generic disads, but I won't hold it against you as long as you're still making connections to the aff (obv specific links will be easier to win with and bad ev quality is a good way to make sure I give the aff leeway)

CP

Love them, much easier to vote on a DA when it's paired with a good counterplan

I think it's great when a CP is functionally and textually competitive, but if you can prove it doesn't need to be I'm game

K

Don't assume I know all the jargon for your specific kritik

I don't think you need an alt

Explaining the aff through the links is a really good way to win a link

Theory

More likely to vote on condo than anything else, but I will still vote for other objections if done well (not perm theory though)

Case

Case debating is just as important neg as aff, I don't like neg teams that forget to do their due diligence on case, and likewise I'm not a fan of aff teams not utilizing their case to beat other neg args