Name: Aj

Pronouns: She/Her

School: Goddard High

Years of Experience: 4

# of Rounds on this Year’s Topic:

Email to contact me with questions: anjbonillam31@gmail.com

Any racism, sexism or any offensive remarks of any kind will be the automatic loss.

ON CASE

HARMS- Theres a reason its called significant harms. If your harms do actually cause damage to the general public at an alarming rate then they are not significant. Even if they are not significant though, convince me that they are.

INHERENCY- Inherency isn't a really big deal to me unless you can prove that its not/is there. Pertaining to the neg please don't base your entire attack on inherency unless the plan is already in action.

TOPICALITY- Unless they are genuinely untopical T is a timewaster. Focus on serious flaws in their case, if that happens to be topicality then attack T but I dont want a baseless attack against an obviously topical case.

SOLVENCY- Solvency is one of the most important part of a case. You could win on every argument except solvency and you will lose. If your plan will not solve the actual problem there is no reason the USFG should spend time or money on it. If you're NEG and their solvency is weak and you DONT attack it you will probably lose.

OFF CASE

DA’s - I'm fine with just about and DA as long as it links correctly. If it doesn't link they aren't topical and you need to focus on something else.

CP’s- Counter Plans are fine as long as they make sense and do the AFF plan better. IF it costs less, does more and has more adv

K’s- I will not vote for a kritik if it seems like you dont understand it. And even if youre picking it up for the first time remember all you have to do is convince me you understand, even if you really dont.

EXTRA INFORMATION

Cross X- Do NOT be rude, you can be aggressive but there is a difference. Open Cross X is fine but both partners should talk as that is the point.

Link Turns- You cannot simply say that you turn their link, I want you to explain why.

Speed- I love fast reading, however if I cannot understand you it will most likely lower your speaker points.

RFD- I will always include a detailed explanation for the decision I come to at the end of the round.

Impact calculus-

Prep Time- As the judge if no time keeper is present I will keep track of time, however both teams should set their own timer.

Evidence- I want access to the speech drop or files however you wish to share it. I do this so I can see the evidence that is used, know teams are not cheating and it just makes my job easier in terms of flowing.

30 = You were an amazing speaker, never ran out of time and answered cross x questions perfectly.

29.5 and above = Almost perfect but you mispronounced a few words or just fumbled a bit with some questions.

29 and above = Speaks very well but misses some A2 or just messed up at answering a few cx questions

28.7 and above = Speaks averagely you answered questions to the status quo and didn't fully answer questions.

28.5 = speaks at an average speed answers questions below average or fails to answer at all.

28.4 and below = doesnt fully understand the case or how to make responses to arguments.

28 and below = Stutters, mumbles or quiet, speaks at an average speed, runs out of time and doesnt know cross x answers

27 and below = bad speaks and just overall no comprehension of whats going on or how to do debate.

Below a 26 = Questionable if you read through your case before the round started or you were incomprehensible.

At the end of the round if you wish I can give you pointers or what actions to do that will make the judge more likely to vote for you in the rest of your rounds or debate career.

TLDR- I know my ballot is long, its so that you can understand my approach on any argument don't read it all if you don't want to especially if you know your strat going in is a 1 off k why read my thoughts on T then lol. Go for what you're familiar with as a judge my job is to adapt to you as long as you engage with the debate rather than spewing off your coaches 100-page brief. I'm fine with speed or speed K's, open to nontraditional debate or straight stock issues. Please ask questions before round if you're not sure of my opinion of something or what I default to on things such as T standards and Judge kicks. * if a judge is against spreading that I'm on a panel with please accommodate that judge its always so awkward to have 2 of us in the know just to ruin the round for the outlier. However, don't apply that logic to k's please!

add me to the email chain Jaceyg957@gmail.com

TOP LEVEL

Tech > Truth

Plan specific analytics > generic links.

NEG FLEX GOOD (unless you win condo neutral on condo)

Open >Closed CX (I flow CX but don't apply it to the debate unless in speeches)

Bias always exists no matter what another judge writes we all have bias and let them manipulate the ballot in one way or another I will do my best to ignore them and judge purely off of the mechanics of the round however don't be afraid to post round me if you feel that I'm wrong, however be respectful about it (especially seniors)

I'm more than fine with spreading I've ran 11 off rounds before however slow down for tags, authors, and analytics.

Rebuttals I really like 2nr 2ar consolidation So slow down and go for what you'll win.

Judge instruction is key even if you don't debate K's arguments such as framework, ROJ, ROB, telling me how to evaluate evidence is crucial to an easy ballot, I need to be able to justify the route I took to sign the ballot for you even if it's a simple MAG= EVERYTHING, PROBABILITY= 100% TIMEFRAME=YESTERDAY.

Please call me Jacey or J calling me Judge is kinda weird when most of you have debated me or at bare minimum are only 1-3 years younger than me, I'm "old" to you but not to the world at least not yet :(

Plan text/CASE (policy)

1AC often times go in with a plan like "set standards on (insert)" I have no idea what this means please be able to specify in cx or 2ac, more specificity the better or else I will lean neg on generic case debates/theory. I love high quality evidence and miss when case debate was a thing, it's okay if your evidence isn't 100% accurate but if the competitors call it out then good luck :).

DO line by line I beg, often people do overviews and then move onto to the off case, I will not cross apply for you.

Read re-highlights I need to know what part the highlight takes out

Presumption is so underutilized; I will grant 0% solvency if warranted however this goes both ways if a CP/ALT is introduced.

DA-

I care most about the tech and utilization of the DA I'm a good judge to run DA's you wouldn't run on lay circuits, you have to defend the entire DA if you lose one part that's wraps (mitigation is different that's below☝). "DA outweighs and turns case" + the inverse aren't actual responses flesh out what that means.

Lastly idc if the impact is both nuke war or if its climate v nuke war, explain why your side is more important too often debaters get lost in the sauce on the magnitude level when the other aspects are far more important unless FW tells me otherwise and even then, when it's both nuke war, we have to break that tie somehow.

CP-

I love Funky CP's do ADV CP's or PICS if you want just execute them well.

Explain the perm, most times the CP can easily be permed but Aff teams don't go further than "perm, perm solves" without explaining what the world of the perms look like.

Theory-

If you go for theory, you should make the framing clear as to how you are going for it/how you want me to evaluate it, Impact it out, please. It helps to point out in-round abuse. On procedurals, it helps to explain why their model abuses others.

Condo vagueness and disclosure are all viable with me, anything else you'll have to just try and see.

K's!!! -Just ask me my thoughts on your k lit before round lol

I ran a lot of Cap and eco fem k's throughout my last two years in high school with a little bit of set col and anti-blackness, I understand the general thesis behind psychoanalysis, Baudrillard, and some of the pomo k's but don't be afraid to overexplain. Do not expect me to do the work for you if its cap or eco I have some leniency.

I could care less if the alt is "discuss the aff through a Lens of (insert)" or "we set a global paradigm shift." just be able to defend the strategy you go for. Don't do 5-minute overviews and then cross apply it just do the line by line at that point.

please read the literature and be able to explain the link story clearly, I will not grant you 100% of the systematic violence your k tries to address, that's so unrealistic so gage what you can or cannot solve for and or what impacts the aff causes due to the link.

I'll def get heat for this but I think too often teams are afraid to take the positions they believe. I'll listen to a cap good debate, even if people argue its immoral 1 no it isn't it's a discourse, I'd rather have the discussion in a controlled environment like debate and 2 we should engage in all perspectives 3 its real world most old heads support cap.

K affs/performance -

I've written a couple k affs and ran one myself for a little bit, I would like some relationality to the topic however if you decide not to then please be ready for the T debate.

I like K aff debate however don't be annoyingly snarky most of the time inclusion is better to resolve harms addressed then making everyone opps right off the bat. being assertive is good but there is a line I'm a very expressive person you'll see if I think it's too far.

I'd like clear framework with a ROB and ROJ often times when K affs drop its due to a lack of understanding on what exactly the ballot does or how my specific orientation with the aff resolves any harm.

when responding to T I like impact turning T however a crafty counter interp would be nice!

T/FW

I default to fairness acting as an internal link to something like Edu however if you make fairness an impact beef it out.

T v K- I think that Policy teams too often stick to the blocks rather than engaging with the merits of the 1AC. If you go for T in the 2nr explain why the method is bad and do a fair amount of case/presumption work. even if you win that the game of debate should have rules and the aff violates, you need to be able to defend why the game is good or else I'm left confused on what to maintain and K teams entire 1ac at least gives somewhat of a stasis point on if the game is good or not.

T v policy- LOVE LOVE LOVE! I love cheeky interps, T subsets sure why not! I default to C/I however have been persuaded by reasonability, but it needs to be fleshed out more than two lines in the 2ac

I don't agree with some judges that T has to be all five minutes of the 2nr I'd prefer if it was, but I understand that on Pannels where a lay judge is present making T five minutes isn't going to work out.

If asked be able to give a case list.

In front of me arguments about standard setting on research and what it means for the season or next season of debate tend to sway me the most.

MISC

please make the flow clean, don't overstep your partners speeches more than is necessary to win the round.

My hand writing is AWFUL so I'll probably just type out RFD/comments and send them to you if possible so that your coach doesn't wonder what caveman judged the round.

(if you get me in LD or PFD just ask me questions I'm not writing another paradigm when I don't know how they got me in here!)

I am an experienced 3rd year debate student. I will be judging tabula rasa and in the occasion you do not tell me how to vote then I will judge based off of the list below. Furthermore, I am a mix of Stock Issues, and I do not personally like topicality unless it explicitly necessary to the case.

-Speaking. I want to be able to understand what you are saying. Annunciate and speak up. I will not be able to understand your arguments if I cannot hear you.

-Arguments. No matter the circumstances, the aff must win on all arguments, no matter how small. If any argument is not addressed in a debate round, the aff will lose the round. I also hope that you signpost and roadmap within the round and explain all arguments.

-Topicality. When/If topicality is run, I prefer the neg win on the argument if structured correctly, meaning you have both standards and voters. If this is not met, then the aff can address the argument similarly to how the neg structured it. For the aff, all topicality must be addressed similarly to how the neg structured it.

-Rules. The rules of debate must be upheld within the round in most circumstances. This means keep prep time to your allotted time, no new arguments in a round, ect. Breaking any of these rules will almost always count as an automatic loss to your team.

Most importantly, I hope all students I judge find this to be a learning experience and have a fun debate round. Please respect all students and judges in the round and do your best today!

Run whatever you want, just don't be awful. I'll vote you down for racism/homophobia/etc.

T- I'll only vote on if i really have to.

CPs- Do whatever, honestly. I hardly ever run anything but states. I dislike HATEPICs.

DAs- Fine with generic DAs if you can explain them well enough. Specific DAs are always better.

Ks- If you can't explain your K, don't run it. As long as you're clear on how the aff links in, it should be fine.

Speed is fine as long as you're clear

Impact calc would be cool. Tell me why I should vote for you. Good luck

:)

*I do NOT accept speed*

As a debater, It is your job to convince me why you win. No matter how extreme or out of this world your arguments are, as long as you explain them well and show me it could work, I'll vote on it.

I will be flowing the debate and keeping up with all arguments in the round, so please signpost your arguments and give me a roadmap before your speech. Please also indicate when you are starting your speech, don't just start out of nowhere.

I will not accept rude or plain out disrespectful comments or arguments. I will give you the lose even if you have "won" the round.

Remember, debate is about education and learning from each other. It's also about enjoying it and having fun :)

4th year debater --- Goddard High School

4 years experience

AFF Cases

I would Rather have a policy debate, though i wouldn't be opposed to having K's or meme cases. Know that if you do run these cases they MUST be topical and have rhyme and reason

On-Case

Impacts MUST be practical, I don't like it when you just say "OH WHERE GONNNA DIE... so vote for me." If do run these how ever you MUST win on probability and have a convincing link. I don't care what stock issues are augured they are all weighed the same. if one is gone automatic NEG win.

DAs and Impacts

DAs and Impacts Impacts MUST be practical, I don't like it when you just say "OH WHERE GONNNA DIE... so vote for me." If do run these how ever you MUST win on probability and have a convincing link.

CPs

I think CPs are scummy I don't not like picks as it ruins the debate for me. However all other forms of CPs are fair game.
I also do not like it when they are dropped. You based your case around the CP you better finish the round with it (Unless you throw it for something else the other team gives you)

Ks / Theory

I love Ks/theory, BUT you must have convincing topics, They are fun but if you run a I don't want to see them dropped. If you base your case around the K you better finish the round with it

Speed

Good presentation beats speed any day. This is a public speaking activity, not a race. I understand faster cards, but your tags and analytics should be enjoyable.

Evidence

Add me to the chain: Iankoppa0110@gmail.com

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Yelling at me or your opponent, Playing on your phone, Clipping cards, and other forms of unsportsmanlike conduct all result in an auto-loss.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Ok, I'll keep this short and sweet, confidence makes you stand out and earn better speaker points. Eye contact does the same. I am a 4th-year debater and with such, I can fluently understand all theory arguments and anything else you want to run. I am completely open to voting on topicality or a K if presented adequately. will vote on a K aff as well, if the framework and judge instruction are clear enough. Lastly, I am a tech over truth debater through and through so I care much more about your fluency and analytics than actual cards. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE just make the round fun to watch.

I debated for 4 years at Campus high school. Please asks questions before a round if you need to. Just try to convince me of your arguments, go as crazy as you want but make it convincing.

Aff

If you drop a neg argument that plausibly outweighs you will lose.

The burden of proof is on you, and at the end of the debate i need to be convinced why I should vote for the affirmative.

Neg

T - topicality is a prima facie argument, I will vote based on a good T argument but I will fault you if you make half hearted T arguments

CP - Counterplans must at least be better than the aff in one way and must be mutually exclusive, simply restating the aff case but from the negative side will lose you the round

K - a good K argument wins, I love Ks, but I want to see a K that is run well and is fully explained

Name: Anya Ortiz

School: Goddard High School

Years of Experience: 4

Email to contact me with questions: anyamortiz@gmail.com

How should debaters approach constructive speeches?

Aff - should explain why their plan should be passed, as well as stating what will happen if the plan isn’t passed and if the neg were to win. If you drop stock issues, I will flow to the neg.

Neg - should provide sufficient reasons (backed up with evidence), of why passing the aff plan is a bad idea. As the neg, spend a maximum of 3 minutes on topicality and make sure that it’s not your only argument against the aff. And if you’re splitting the block, make sure to tell me before you start reading the 2nc.

overall - don’t spend too much time on dates and authors unless you have time left because there are stronger arguments against your opponents.

How should debaters approach rebuttal speeches?

Aff - You need to work on extending and having specific counter-arguments against the neg. Spend a maximum of 2 minutes on topicality because it doesn’t need to take up all of your time.

Neg - hit hard on the aff’s weak arguments and anything that they may have dropped. If you’re arguing topicality, don’t spend your entire rebuttals. This is where if the aff dropped any arguments, you would tell me. Make sure to tell me what they dropped and how that affects them in the round.

How should debaters approach EVIDENCE?

overall - give an offtime roadmap before your speeches to help with flow and overall case understanding. Make sure you know your evidence before you walk into your round.

How should a debater run ON CASE arguments?

aff - needs to state the cons of the plan not being passed as well as the pros of the plan being passed. Make sure your advantages are strong and that you have all of the stock issues (only worry about topicality if neg runs it first).

neg - make sure you’re clear when you explain why the aff plan shouldn’t be passed. You need strong off case as well as strong time management because if you use up all of your speech time on on-case without reason why you should win (off case; disads, cps, t), the round won’t flow your way.

How should a debater run OFF CASE arguments?

aff - when answering off-case, don’t drop arguments. This is where time management is crucial because if you drop the neg’s off case arguments, you’re throwing the round.

neg - try to not have generic arguments. Also, ensure they're strong and know what you’re doing. I don’t like seeing topicality, especially when there are stronger arguments than that. I would prefer counter plans and disadvantages. Although, I try to stay away from politics because I won’t weigh those.

What types of behavior will you NOT TOLERATE in a round?

From the time you show up to your round until the time that you get back to your coaches, be on your best behavior. You’re representing your school. Please don’t be rude and watch your body language because that’s one of the key things I pay attention to. Don’t fidget with anything while your opponent or partner is speaking. And if I catch you on your phones, it will be a loss on a 7.

What types of behavior do you ENJOY seeing/hearing in a round?

I enjoy seeing and hearing the passion in your speeches and especially in cross-x. During rebuttals, just show passion while telling me why I should vote for you. Make sure to come to me and shake my hand as well as introduce yourself. First impressions are important.

What preferences do you have as a judge towards…

>>>Speed?

You can read as fast as you want to, but I have to be able to understand you.

>>>Cross-Examination?

I prefer open cx versus closed. And use up all three minutes. It’s not very long so take advantage of the time you have.

>>>Prep Time?

Don’t try and cheat prep; don’t use it in the middle of the neg block or after the 1ac.

>>>Impact calculus?

If you know how to run impact calc, run it. If not, it's fine. Just make sure you know what you’re talking about. Also, make sure it’s in the second rebuttal.

>>>Topicality?

Honestly, I see topicality as a time-waster and don’t care too much for it. You can run it, but if your entire rebuttal consists of just T and has other off-case arguments, I will automatically flow to the other team.

>>>Generic disadvantages?

I would try and stay away from these because there’s a greater chance that you’re going to lose. Try to be more case-specific.

>>>Conditional counterplans?

Counterplans are my favorite and a big vote for me. I prefer them over disads and t. However, don’t just walk into round running one off-case which would consist of a counterplan. Also, make sure you know the argument as well as your aff if you’re going to run it.

>>>Kritiks?

Only run them if you know how.

I am a fourth year debater who competes in varsity tournaments. I do not care how fast you speak as long as it’s understandable and you sign post. Starting with a topical aff is good along with neg running disads and possibly a counterplan. If you understand your arguments and show to me that you do, then I'm more likely to weigh that side. Saying your partner is going to answer everything is not the way to go. I also really love analytical arguments.

I am intrigued by K's, but please only run them if you understand them...

My decision is usually made by my flow. I see how the arguments correspond and if they made sense and how you delivered them.

I have no preference as to how the “perfect debate” should go and i'm open to any arguments as long as you are able to defend them. However 8 minutes of topicality is not how I imagine things to go so please steer away from that, I won't vote it down if it's a reasonable argument but it does make for a rather bland debate and there's endless arguments out there waiting to be made.Clash is a must!!

Flowing: tell me what I need to look back at and cross apply!

The aff should know their case enough to be able to look at me while they speak, not with their noses shoved in their computer. I believe delivery is super important, the more passion and interest you show the more persuasive you sound.

I love cx. I believe cx is super important for not only clarification but for setting the round into motion.Trapping them is good, helps set up your arguments and shows the drive to defend your side. However that’s not an open invitation to be a complete jerk.Rebuttals need to be delivered in order of the debate and I expect you to tell me every argument made and how your case is to be preferred.

good luck!

Hi! My name is Prakriti, she/her. Head coach at Wichita East High school.

Add me to the chain: prakriti.ravianikode@gmail.com. I'm also fine with SpeechDrop.

Policy:

General--

I will not evaluate anything that happens outside the round.

I follow along the doc - if I see you clipping its an automatic L.

Speed is fine, please add analytics to the doc if you're going fast. If I can't understand you, I will clear you! If I still cannot understand you, I will start dropping the speaks.

If you have any other questions about specific arguments please ask before the round.

I don't like case overviews. Just debate down your flow.

I flow cross-ex! I also stop paying attention to cross-ex and speeches once the timer goes off.

I'll vote for anything. Tech over truth. You should be well-versed in your arguments. Nothing annoys me more when debaters stand up for speeches after the 2ac and just read cards/analytics straight down without interacting with your opponents' arguments. Please use judge instruction and tell me exactly how I should evaluate the round.

Kritik--

More familiar with policy args, as far as K's, I'm familiar with Cap and Fem. Other than that you should over-explain. I am not the best with theory so I will need clear judge instruction and voters for K theory args. Also if you are just using jargon without explaining it, I won't understand what you mean and I cannot vote for it. I want to know what the world of the alt looks like and why I should prefer it to the aff.

Topicality--

I default to competing interps. Explain what your model/interp means for the topic. That will convince me more than generic blocks. Pls slow down on the T flow.

DA--

Impact calc is important!! I evaluate the link level of the DA first and weigh it with the impacts of the aff. I am not very familiar with economic literature. If the 2NR is the Econ DA, please give me a story on what exactly the economy will look like in the world of the aff/DA.

Background

I have been debating for 4 years now at Hutchinson High School as a Policy debater .

Prep Time - I understand that technology issues do exist, I am quite lenient when it comes down to tech errors, grabbing and sorting flows, getting a timer prepared, ect. I would prefer you be ready though. But if you start to abuse it I will enforce prep time.

Delivery

I do prefer a slower debate in which you really get into the details of an argument. I have noticed that there is a lot more clash in doing so because you can really get the point of the argument. It also will help clash because the other team will understand the argument and understand how to answer it. It also just comes out more impactful. But if you must go faster that is fine.

I flow from the speech itself, not the document. So if you think something is important I would try to go slower on it to emphasize and make sure that I get it written.

I do like debates that are a little more intense just because it really brings out the passion in all of the participants. But I don't want it to go to the point when someone starts to get irritated or worse. This is for educational purposes, try to have fun with it.

Please sign-post, it's hard for me to flow arguments for you/other team if you don't say what you are exactly answering. It also is just really nice to know what I am going to be hearing about so I can prep and make it a lot neater.

Arguments/Stock Issues

Critique - I’m not in opposition to critical debate, but for me to vote and understand it, you will really have to explain it, and explain it really well.

I think the most important issues in debate are Inherency, Solvency, and Topicality. While everything else is important these stick out to me the most.

I think a good debate revolves around clash. Without clash there is really no point in the debate, so the more clash the better.

Inherency - Inherency should be one of the main things that are debated in a round. Inherency is what is wrong in today's SQ, so if you drop inherency, does your plan really solve for anything? I will vote on Inherency.

Solvency - Kind of like the Inherency section, If you drop solvency then you have made me lean to the opposing side. Without solvency, you don't solve... Simple as that.

Topicality - I do like a topicality debate because it challenges both sides to know the whole resolution fairly well and requires the Affirmative to do more than just memorize some cards (Meaning that in my opinion, Topicality is a voter issue).

Counterplans - I think counterplans are a very technical and useful strategy, but you really have to make me believe that it is more useful than the aff's plan. You will also have to solve for the burdens of a counterplan

CX

CX is the most important time in debate. Not only are you giving more time for your partner to perfect their speech. But on top of that, this is where you can really expose holes in your opposing team's case/arguments. You can get a lot through CX if you use your time and use it well.

Behavior

I will not tolerate any disrespect, bullying, rude, and hateful comments or actions. There is no room for that in debate. We are all here to get better and to learn from this experience. We should be trying to raise each other up, not leaving others behind

Reasons for decision

Majority of the time I am a Policy Maker/Stock Issues judge because I find it important that if the affirmative can find more pro's to the plan than the negative can find con's, then it should be passed and vice versa. But if I am told to view the round in a different view I will.

Impact Calc: If your opponents do impact calc and you don't... don't expect the ballot to be in your favor. If you want me to vote or view a certain way, you have to say so. Convince me.

In The End

In the end, debate is supposed to be both educational and fun. Just try to enjoy yourself and try to do your best.

Kritikal

Games Player

Tab

Policymaker

Stock

Policymaker

Stock

Tab

Hypothesis Theory

As a former forensics competitor and coach, I pay a good deal of attention to delivery (you need to speak at a rate such that I can understand you!). Just rattling off info without emphasis or proper inflection damages your credibility for me. Logical arguments are important. Finally, professional and courteous conduct is always appreciated!