Please add me to the email chain: Brenda.aurora13@gmail.com

I debated for Washburn Rural for four years between 2014 and 2018. I debated for the University of Kansas last year, but am not debating this year so I can focus on my nursing degree. Generally speaking, I am not picky about arguments and speed. Do what you want and I’ll do my best to keep up.

T: I believe that topicality is a question of competing interpretations. I like to see good explanations of each team’s offense on the flow, how their offense interacts with the other team, and why their interpretation creates a better model for debate.

Disads: I’m a big fan, especially when you have a specific link. I think impact calculus and turns case arguments are important. I always enjoy listening to a good agenda or election disad.

CPs: Delay counterplans are cheating. I’m willing to judge kick a counterplan unless the affirmative gives me a reason not to. I prefer specific solvency advocates.

Ks: I didn’t read a lot of Ks in high school. I am most familiar with neolib and cap, but I am willing to listen to pretty much anything as long at it is explained well. I will NOT listen to death/extinction good kritiks. These arguments can be triggering for me and for other people that may be competing in or watching your round. When it comes to links, I like when they are specific to the affirmative and describe how the aff increasing/makes worse whatever it is that the neg is critiquing. If you’re going for your alt, you need to prove that it solves, as well as clearly explain to me what a world of the alternative looks like. The framing debate should be more than a block reading competition, especially if the neg isn’t going to go for the alt. The neg’s interpretation should be meaningful and not just “whoever best challenges (whatever the K is critiquing)”

Theory: I believe theory is usually only a reason to reject an argument, not a team, especially considering most theory debates are block reading contests where no one really explains or understands the argument. That being said, I might be willing to vote on condo if you really explain your interpretation and impact the argument out.

Some other things to note: I enjoy a good case debate. Please be kind and respectful to one another. If you are horribly rude and disrespectful I’ll probably vote against you

I think arguments exist on a spectrum; some are compelling, and some are merely plausible. I would rather hear three compelling arguments presented in a well-crafted pitch rather than every conceivable argument presented in the hope that I will decipher the best one.

I am the debate coach at Blue Valley North HS. I was an NDT/CEDA debater at Wichita State University (2012) and a graduate assistant at the University of Kansas. I have taught camp at Michigan or Kansas every year since I graduated. I typically judge 50-80 policy rounds per year, plus some pf/ld/speech.

email: brianbox4 @ gmail dot com - do not stop prep until you hit send on the email.

I really, really enjoy judging good debates. I really, really dislike judging debates that take two hours, lack clash and mostly involve unclearly reading a document into the screen. I care far more about your ability to speak clearly and refute arguments than the type of arguments you read. Good debate good, bad debate bad. I will vote for any argument you win.

Ultimately, the debate is not about me, and I will do my best to evaluate whichever strategy you pursue, but I am very bored by negative strategies that do not demonstrate an undesirable effect of the affirmative. There is a time and a place for most strategies, and I firmly believe there is no one right way to debate, but I wish more of the debates I judged were about core topic arguments and less about non-competitive counterplans (obviously debatable), generic critiques of fiat, poorly supported politics disads, ridiculous impact turns, etc.

I have found that 99% of high school debates are such clear technical victories that my argument specific thoughts aren't terribly relevant. As such, I want to emphasize a few points that are important for debating in front of me.

Points of emphasis - adhere to each of these and your speaker points will be no lower than a 29.

1. Clarity. Many of the debates I judge mumble and slur the text of evidence, and the transitions between arguments are difficult to follow. If I cannot understand you, I will say "clear" once. If I have to say it a second time, I will reduce your speaker points by a full point. If I have to say it a third time, I will stop flowing your speech.

2. Refutation. If you use your flow to identify the argument you are answering, read evidence with purpose and speak clearly while you do it, the floor for your speaker points will be a 29. If you start the timer and read straight down without saying which argument you are answering or how to apply your evidence, the ceiling for your speaker points will be a 27. Scouring the flow to fit the pieces together IS judge intervention.

3. Highlighting. I will completely ignore evidence that is highlighted nonsensically. The threshold is obviously subjective, so if you are of the school of thought that you should intentionally highlight your evidence poorly to force the judge to read the unhighlighted text on their own, I am not a good judge for you.

4. Flowing. If you aren't flowing the debate, I won't flow your speech.

5. Meaning of the plan. If asked to clarify the meaning of the plan in CX, you need to answer. The way you choose to answer is up to you, but If your plan is the resolution + one word, be prepared explain what it does. If you do not, I will A. automatically assume the negative CP competes or DA links (based on the part of the plan in question) and B. The burden for what the negative has to do to win a vagueness procedural or solvency argument becomes exceedingly low.

6. Prompting. Each speaker should give one constructive and one rebuttal. You are permitted to prompt your partner once per speech. Additional interruptions will result in a full speaker point deduction and the arguments being ignored.

7. CX. Each partner must ask questions in one CX and answer questions in one CX. You are permitted to ask or answer one question in a CX to which you are not assigned. Additional instances will result in a full speaker point deduction and the questions/answers being ignored.

Other things to know

Evidence matters a lot. I read lots of evidence and it heavily factors into my decision. Cross-ex is important and the best ones focus on the evidence. Author qualifications, histories, intentions, purpose, funding, etc. matter. The application of meaningful author indicts/epistemic arguments about evidence mean more to me than many judges. I find myself more than willing to ignore poorly supported arguments.

I cannot emphasize enough how important clarity is. I can't believe how often I see judges transcribing the speech document. If you have dramatic tone changes between tag and card, where you can barely be heard when reading the text of evidence, you will get lower points from me. If I can't understand the argument, it doesn't count. There is no difference between being incoherent and clipping. Reading directly into the screen at top speed - no matter how clear you are - is nearly impossible for me to understand.

Go for theory? I will never be the judge who views all sides of any theory debate to be equal, but am far more likely than I once was to vote for an argument about the scope of negative fiat. I am more likely to be convinced by a qualitative interpretation than a quantitative one. Affirmatives should be extending theory arguments that say a type of counterplan or category of fiat is bad more often. Conditionality is good. Judge kick is my default.

The link matters the most.The first thing I look at is the link. When in conflict, it is more important to contest the link than the impact.

CX is huge. This is where you separate debaters who have researched their argument and can intentionally execute a strategy from debaters who have practiced reading unclearly as fast as possible. I don't flow CX, but I am very attentive and you should treat me like a lay judge because these moments will be impactful.

I have not been formally coached or trained in debate. I have judged on a limited basis when my son and grandson were debaters.

I am a retired child and adolescent psychiatrist. I continue teaching a course on Medicine and Philosophy through UMKC.SOM

I believe that debate is about communication and critical thinking. Any argument put forth, must be said in a manner, rate, and volume that can be understood (by me). Any good argument or rebuttal must be constructed piece by piece with consistent internal logic. I am impressed by those debate teams that dare to construct an original argument rather than over-rely on the canned online arguments.

I believe that quality trumps quantity. I would rather hear a few arguments discussed with depth, cogency, and conviction rather than being bombarded by a plethora of arguments, hoping one or two might stick.

Part of communicating is not only speaking, but listening. Debaters must hear what has been said by the opposition and be prepared to respond respectfully, logically, and appropriately.

I expect debaters to adhere to rules of decorum and time. I will judge violations of rules and decorum harshly.

\I am a former 4 year debater from Olathe Northwest.

I'm a policymaker judge, if the affirmative does not successfully defend against the impacts proposed by the negative then I simply cannot vote in favor of the plan. This can be accomplished by attacking the stock issues of the plan, or a good DA and/or CP.

Kritiks are not my favorite arguments by a long shot, but, I do evaluate them in a decision, and overall I default to impacts so I'm not going to get angry if I see one, just don't abuse it, and have it make sense.

I like slow flow rounds, and do not like spreading or speeding. If you go a bit faster than the average debater then I will most likely be able to understand you, but more than that is unnecessary.

How to win as aff with me as your judge: Make sure your advantages link to your solvency, defend Solvency, Inherency, and Topicallity with your life, and answer DAs, CPs, and Ks.

I love to watch clash, don't just ignore your opponent's arguments.

On a personal note, just don't be rude? I want to be able to evaluate a round without bias, but if one team is being unnecessarily aggressive or condescending then I'm going to be biased towards the other team, which is something I don't want to have happen. Also, if you personally insult or are in any way discriminatory against another team then I will feel no remorse in siding against you, this activity should be kept cordial and should be open to everyone, not just people you decide should be allowed to compete.

Generally i'm Tabula Rasa, but will default to a policymaker who values stocks if I'm not told how I should evaluate the round.

Senior @ University of Kansas

World Schools:

i was a 3-time WSD competitor at NSDA, breaking twice. i now assistant coach for East Kansas. in high school i mainly did policy and qualified to the TOC my senior year.

WSD is a unique debate form with its own style, strategies, and nuances. please do not treat it like other forms of debate. embrace WSD: impassioned and rhetorical speaking, confronting key questions as opposed to rushing to the margins, and a respect for decorum and each other. i reward teams that embrace the world schools "aesthetic."

some things i especially like:

- non-U.S. centric debates

- judge instruction

- organized speeches

- speaking "off the cuff"

- strategic POIs

feel free to ask questions before or after the round!

My email is carolynsearscook@gmail.com carolyncook@smsd.org and I think it would be awesome for you all to start the email chain before I get to the debate so that we don't have to waste time doing it once I arrive:)

I debated in high school in Kansas from 1999-2003 (SME). I coached high school debate throughout college but did not debate in college. I was the director of debate at Lansing High School where I coached and taught from 2009-2018. This (23-24) is my 6th year directing and teaching speech & debate at Shawnee Mission South.

I dislike when debaters are mean. This activity is awesome--I believe that it pushes us and makes us better thinkers and people--and debaters cheapen that opportunity when we choose not to respect one another. Please just be kind humans.

I learned to debate and evaluate debates as a policy maker but also find that I much prefer seeing you do what you do best in rounds. That being said, you know your lit and arguments better than I do (at least you should). So:

1. If you don't think the aff should get to weigh their 1AC against the criticism, you have to tell me why--same if you think that we should abandon the topic as the aff.
2. If you want me to evaluate an argument and your 'warrant' is described as a specific term: that one word is not a warrant. . . you should include a description of WHY your claim is true/accurate/means you win. Debates that are heavily reliant on jargon that I am unfamiliar with will result in me being confused.
3. If you do little work on literature (especially lit I am not familiar with), please don't then expect me to do a bunch of work for you in the decision.

You should clearly articulate the arguments you want to forward in the debate--I value persuasion as an important part of this activity.

Please be organized--doing so allows me to focus on the quality of argumentation in the round. Debates are so much more fun to watch when you have a strategic approach that you execute with care. Talk about your evidence. Warranted and strategic analysis that demonstrates your understanding of your own arguments, and their interactions with your opponent's, make debates better.

I default competing interpretations on Topicality and think T debates should include case lists and topical version of the aff. I think that weighing impacts is important. I also just enjoy good case debate. I tend to find consult and and condition CPs to be cheating...but you still have to answer them. You should always answer conditionality.

I really prefer that you are as explicit about HOW you would like for me to evaluate the debate and WHY this approach is best.

Please speak clearly... if you are incomprehensible my flow will not be great and the quality of my evaluation of the round will likely decrease.

I debated in high school and college — a long time ago.

I like clash and reason. Explain to me why your position is better than theirs. If all everyone has provided me at the end of the round is a bunch of evidence, with no reason, I’ll just make up my own mind based on what I know.

Listening to people read to me bores me.

Pick a fight and have fun!!

As long as federalism DAs are not run, we will be okay.

I debated in high school from 2001 to 2005. I haven’t flowed since then. Open to all arguments. Please go slow enough for me to understand.

Debated 4 years at Dowling HS in Des Moines, Iowa (09-12, Energy, Poverty, Military, Space)
Debated at KU (13-15, Energy, War Powers, Legalization)
Previously Coached: Ast. Coach Shawnee Mission Northwest, Lansing High School.
Currently Coaching: Ast. Coach Washburn Rural High School

UPDATE 10/1: CX is closed and lasts three minutes after constructive. I won't listen to questions or answers outside of those three minutes or made by people that aren't designated for that CX. I think it's a bummer that a lot of CXs get taken over by one person on each team. It doesn't give me the opportunity to evaluate debaters or for debaters to grow in areas where they might struggle. I'm going to start using my rounds to curb that.

Top Level
Do whatever you need to win rounds. I have arguments that I like / don't like, but I'd rather see you do whatever you do best, than do what I like badly. Have fun. I love this activity, and I hope that everyone in it does as well. Don't be unnecessarily rude, I get that some rudeness happens, but you don't want me to not like you. Last top level note. If you lose my ballot, it's your fault as a debater for not convincing me that you won. Both teams walk into the room with an equal chance to win, and if you disagree with my decision, it's because you didn't do enough to take the debate out of my hands.

Carrot and Stick
Carrot - every correctly identified dropped argument will be rewarded with .1 speaks (max .5 boost)
Stick - every incorrectly identified dropped argument will be punished with -.2 speaks (no max, do not do this)

General
DAs - please. Impact calc/ turns case stuff great, and I've seen plenty of debates (read *bad debates) where that analysis is dropped by the 1ar. Make sure to answer these args if you're aff.

Impact turns - love these debates. I'll even go so far as to reward these debates with an extra .2 speaker points. By impact turns I mean heg bag to answer heg good, not wipeout. Wipeout will not be rewarded. It will make me sad.

CPs - I ran a lot of the CPs that get a bad rep like consult. I see these as strategically beneficial. I also see them as unfair. The aff will not beat a consult/ condition CP without a perm and/or theory. That's not to say that by extending those the aff autowins, but it's likely the only way to win. I lean neg on most questions of CP competition and legitimacy, but that doesn't mean you can't win things like aff doesn't need to be immediate and unconditional, or that something like international actors are illegit.

Theory - Almost always a reason to reject the arg, not the team. Obviously conditionality is the exception to that rule.

T - Default competing interps. Will vote on potential abuse. Topical version of the aff is good and case lists are must haves. "X" o.w. T args are silly to me.

Ks - dropping k tricks will lose you the debate. I'm fine with Ks, do what you want to. Make sure that what you're running is relevant for that round. If you only run security every round, if you hit a structural violence aff, your security K will not compel me. Make sure to challenge the alternative on the aff. Make sure to have a defense of your epistemology/ontology/reps or that these things aren't important, losing this will usually result in you losing the round.

K affs - a fiat'd aff with critical advantages is obviously fine. A plan text you don't defend: less fine, but still viable. Forget the topic affs are a hard sell in front of me. It can happen, but odds are you're going to want someone else higher up on your sheet. I believe debate is good, not perfect, but getting better. I don't think the debate round is the best place to resolve the issues in the community.

Speaker points.
I don't really have a set system. Obviously the carrot and stick above apply. It's mostly based on how well you did technically, with modifications for style and presentation. If you do something that upsets me (you're unnecessarily rude, offensive, do something shady), your points will reflect that.

Tim Ellis
Head Coach - Washburn Rural High School, Topeka, KS
Updated July 23
Email chain - ellistim@usd437.net, fiscalrizztribution@googlegroups.com

Introduction: Hello, debaters and fellow educators. I am Tim Ellis, and I am honored to be here as a judge at this high school policy debate tournament. My background includes [briefly mention your educational and professional background relevant to the debate topic or communication skills]. My role as a judge is to evaluate your arguments, critical thinking, and communication abilities, while maintaining a fair and unbiased approach to the debate.

Debate Philosophy: I believe in fostering an environment where students can express their ideas passionately, engage in respectful discourse, and develop their critical thinking skills. I encourage debaters to focus on clear and logical arguments, evidence-based analysis, and effective communication. Substance will always take precedence over style, but effective delivery can enhance your message.

Argumentation: I value well-structured arguments that are supported by credible evidence. When presenting your case, it's important to clearly define your position, provide relevant evidence, and logically connect your arguments. The use of real-world examples and expert opinions can significantly bolster your points. Remember, the quality of your evidence matters more than the quantity.

Clash and Refutation: Debates thrive on clash – the direct engagement with your opponents' arguments. I expect debaters to engage with opposing viewpoints by directly addressing their arguments, demonstrating the weaknesses in their logic, and offering counterarguments supported by evidence. Effective refutation requires a deep understanding of your opponents' case, so take the time to dissect their position and refute it cogently.

Communication: Clear communication is key to conveying your ideas persuasively. Speak confidently, enunciate your words, and maintain a steady pace. Avoid jargon or excessive use of technical terms that might alienate those unfamiliar with the topic. Remember, effective communication isn't just about what you say, but how you say it – engaging with your audience is crucial.

Etiquette and Sportsmanship: Respect for your opponents, your partner, and the judge is non-negotiable. Keep your focus on the arguments and ideas, rather than personal attacks. Maintain a professional demeanor throughout the debate, and remember that good sportsmanship is an integral part of the debate community.

Time Management: Time management is essential. Respect the allocated time limits for your speeches, cross-examinations, and rebuttals. Effective time allocation allows for a balanced and comprehensive discussion of the issues at hand.

Final Thoughts: Debating is a valuable skill that extends beyond the walls of this tournament. Regardless of the outcome, embrace the learning experience. Constructive feedback is intended to help you grow as debaters and thinkers. I am here to provide a fair assessment of your performance, and my decisions will be based on the quality of your arguments, your ability to engage in meaningful clash, and your overall communication skills.

I am looking forward to witnessing your insightful arguments and thoughtful engagement. Let's engage in a spirited and enlightening debate that enriches all of us. Best of luck to each team, and may the discourse be both rigorous and rewarding.

Shawnee Mission East ‘17

University of Kansas ‘21

Assistant coach at Shawnee Mission East

Please put me on the email chain: carolynhassettdebate@gmail.com

***Updated***

I graduated from KU this past May after debating for the team all four years of college. Previous to that I debated for Shawnee Mission East and have been coaching there for the past 5 years now. Although I am still coaching, I am way less active in debate than ever before. I am a real adult now with a big girl job and responsibilities. That being said I am still down to listen to whatever you want to say and am more than capable of keeping up with the debate, but acronyms and assertions will take more time to click in my head since I have barely done any judging on this topic. Below are some of my thoughts over the years, honestly take them or leave them. If you win the debate you win the debate, I don't care what args get you to that point. All the top level stuff is definitely still 100% applicable though.

Top Level

I am very expressive and you will know what I am thinking. Use that to your advantage

I appreciate jokes and confidence, but don’t cross the line

Disclosure is good

Tech over truth (a dropped argument is a true one as long as it contains a claim and a warrant)

I will not vote on anything that happened outside the round

Clipping or cheating of any kind will result in an immediate loss and 0 speaks

Please respect your partner. It is my biggest pet peeve to see one member belittle the other and act superior. You are only as good as your partner, and please act that way.

** Do whatever you want, my thoughts do not determine how you should debate

Aff’s

I was a 2A for a long time and because of that, I really appreciate well thought out aff’s with a strong internal link chain. If your evidence is bad/ internal links are weak how are you expecting to defend the aff? That being said I have stayed strictly policy and have rarely strayed from big stick impacts. I am open to listening to anything as long as you can defend and explain the aff. I think case debate is very important, too many teams don’t use the offense they have built to their advantage. Spend time extending your impacts and making cross comparisons to other arguments. I also really appreciate new and tricky policy affs that are unexpected.

T vs traditional aff’s

I am a big fan of T debates and feel that they can be particularly compelling and interesting. I default to competing interpretations, but can be persuaded by reasonability if done well. Spend time on impact comparison and explaining the violation, I am most persuaded by limits and precision impacts. T is never a reverse voting issue!

Framework

I've never read a planless aff and generally always go for framework or a CP. That being said I do find framework compelling and tend to lean heavily negative. Don’t think my predispositions mean you can get away with a shoddy job on framework and expect to win the round. I am most persuaded by clash based impacts and will award negatives who are able to explain their argument, 2N's that can give the speech primarily off the flow will be rewarded. I also appreciate different approaches to dealing with planless affs. Reading DA's and CP's against K aff's is cool and fun, you should do it. That being said, it is very easy for me to vote aff if you win your impact turn outweighs their impact or an interp that solves a lot of their offense.

Theory

With the exception of condo, I think all other theory based arguments are a reason to reject the argument not the team. I will not vote on cheap shot theory arguments. 2 condo is good, 3+ I can be persuaded, but need a warranted and contextualized explanation of your interp and why it should not be allowed in debate.

DAs

Probably my favorite argument in debate. I think a 2nr that is a DA + good case debate is very compelling. I prefer specific links, but there are some instances when generics work too. You need updated evidence!! I will award teams who have obviously spent time cutting new and good evidence. Please make turns case arguments, this is vital in a DA debate. And yeah i like the politics DA.

CP

I also love a good counterplan debate. I think specific counterplans cut from the other teams evidence is especially compelling and I will award you for that. I am neg leaning on a lot of counterplan theory questions, but i can be sympathetic. Really big plank CP's are also fun, adding planks that predicts what offense the 2a will go for is strategic.

Kritiks

The aff should get to weight the implementation of the aff against the K or the squo. I personally do not go for K's extremely often but when I do they tend to be literature based on neolib, security, and other topic generic K's. While I am not super into high theory lit, I have debated lots of these K's and you should not change your strategy because of me. If your thing is high theory K's, just do a little more contextualization and explanation and you'll be fine!

Neg: Please do not hesitate to go for the K with me in the back of the room, but I want a clear explanation of the alt and the link. I think that specific links are particularly important and need to be utilized. Links of omission are not links.

Aff: please impact turn the K if applicable

Please feel free to email me with any questions

* very out of date ask specifics in round

About Me:

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

Standards/Norms:

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

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

Case:

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

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

DAs:

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

CPs:

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

Ks:

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

Framing/Impacts:

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

T:

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

SPEC/Vagueness:

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

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

OVERALL:

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

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

I debated four years in high school, and judged off and on since. Head coach at Paola High School.

The threshold for refutation of arguments that I don't like is low, but not zero.

I’ll flow what you tell me, not what’s highlighted on your speechdoc.

If you cut a card for time, make sure you’ve read me the good stuff.

Run whatever you want. Seriously. If you can justify it and defend it, I’ll consider it.

Case debate is good, but I love a great offcase debate.

Theory is fine, and I’m well-versed. However, don’t spend too much time here, as I’ve probably already reasoned this out with you.

T is good but I’ll only vote for it if you run it correctly. This is also true for CPs and DAs. I expect Aff teams to tell me when Neg arguments aren’t structured correctly, but I also expect you to answer them anyway. If there’s no impact card, voters/standards are missing, etc., say so, then move on to your answers.

K’s are fine, but I’m a lot older now than when I used to run them. Be prepared to explain them.

Reading a big block of cards without any analysis from you doesn’t do much for me – in fact, it makes me grumpy.

If I don’t like an argument, you’ll know.

If I’m not flowing your speech, it doesn’t mean I’m not listening, but rather I have already made my decision. I am good at figuring out the round and will likely make a quick decision. However, I will never formally sign or write my RFD until the round is over – sometimes miracles happen.

Speed is fine, but please slow down for tags/dates so I don’t get lost on my flow. If I can’t keep up, I’ll let you know.

Impact calc at the end of the round is good. My RFD should ultimately sound like your 2NR/2AR.

Be kind, have fun, learn something.

My name is Zachary Krause, Aerospace Engineering Major and Business Minor at the University of Kansas, former debater. I think fancy arguments are stupid, plain and simple.

Alix Kunkle — Head Coach at Spring Hill High School

kunklea@usd230.org — Add me to your chain, please.

When judging rounds, I primarily vote on stock issues — have you convinced me that the AFF plan meets all of the stock issues beyond a reasonable doubt? I value clarity in arguments over words-per-minute. If I cannot understand what you are saying, I am very unlikely to follow your argument.

Please be respectful — and most of all, have fun!

Ana-Sofia Lahovary (she/they)

SME '21

KU'24/5

Assistant Coach for Shawnee Mission East High School

lahovarya@gmail.com add me to the chain:) email > speech drop

About me: Currently a Sophomore at KU Honors studying Political Science and Global&International Studies with minors in Public Policy and Latin American&Carribean Studies. This is my second year coaching for Shawnee Mission East High School (graduated in '21). I debated at SME for four years and three on the TOC circuit. As for my argumentative history, I read both kritikal (Abolition, afro-pess, cap) and big stick policy affirmatives in high school and look forward to judging debates in both areas. I am also currently coaching teams who read both types of arguments.

Research interests: Russian foreign policy, Latin American Politics, and environmental policy.

Top Level: Be kind to each other and read whatever you like! I think condo and pics are generally good and theory-based arguments are a reason to reject the argument, not the team. Detailed impact calc is very important, contextualize it to the round. I value well-explained internal link chains, quirky disad/cp debates, and just overall efficient speeches. Judge instruction is important and use cross x to your advantage. Also just do what you want I do not have huge preferences, my job as a judge is to adapt.

Pet peeves: "3,2,1 starting NOW", talking over your partner, wasting time, not logging into wifi until round start time and then taking forever <3

• Let me know how I can be helpful to you, judging is a privilege.
• Evidence comparison and ethos are good and will be rewarded
• ORGANIZATION
• Clipping/cheating/any type of bigotry will guarantee a loss
• Disclosure is good (pls do)
• I will not vote on things that happen outside the round
• I like quirky disads and efficient impact calc
• Tech > Truth
• Pretty neg biased on most theory - reject the arg not the team
• Keep track of your own prep, although I will also keep track and keep teams accountable
• Framework should be contextualized to the round - don't just speed through general blocks
• Have fun! Debate is a super competitive space and I hope I can be helpful to you! Always happy to chat after! <3

T

• I'll default on competing interps
• TVA's = good
• predictability >

DAs

• good
• the more specific the links the better

CPs

• condo is good
• pics good process meh
• impacts of solvency deficits

Ks

• slay
• err on the side of over-explaining
• engage with them!! - generic blocks with no contextualization to the debate will not win you the round especially if your fw arg boils down "k affs are bad for debate"
• roj args are valuable
• cite specific parts of the 1ac that link
• go for whatever impact you prefer
• planless affs - I'll vote for you, prove that your model of debate is the better one
• How does your lit base interact with others? How does your discourse better the debate space?
• only need to extend a couple of links in the 2nr

Feel free to email me if you have any questions always happy to help the best I can!

I have been judging debate for over twenty years, but am old myself so when I debated in high school it was very different (real cards). I am a teacher (I teach cultural anthropology so we discuss a lot of social justice issues) but not a debate coach. I like to see that debaters understand what they are saying - that they can explain in their own words, not just read endless cards at top rate speed without explaining why the cards are relevant.

Harms, inherency, and solvency are the most important Aff stock issues for me. I want to know what problem you are trying to solve and how you are going to do it. And why it will continue to be a problem without your plan. I am very interested in real world problems.

Counterplans and generic DAs are fine from Neg, but again, I like to at least see a firm link.

Topicality is fine - but I don't love the generic harm to debate, I love some good word play, so if you can convince me something isn't topical by really delving into language I will sometimes judge on that.

Kritiques are sometimes okay- I like to see real world issues being brought up and debate tied to real world issues. But if they get really esoteric I honestly get lost.

Again - I like to see direct clash, ties to real world, debaters who understand what they are saying and can explain it to me.

I prefer medium speed - if you are unintelligible I get nothing out of that.

I am a retired career federal prosecutor followed by a shorter career as a private practice civil litigator. I have judged both high school debates and law school moot courts. I have appeared before countless federal and state judges to put forth my legal arguments for whatever issue I am presenting. I believe high school debating is very important and a very valuable skill to acquire in order to speak succinctly and convincingly. My only concern involves what I call the "rapid speak" that now seems normal in these policy debates. Such "rapid speak" whether in the courtroom or public forum is inconsistent with effective advocacy as it quickly loses a jury and irritates a judge. A more deliberate and measured presentation, in my opinion, will better carry the day. But that's just my opinion. Good luck to you.

Head coach of Blue Valley Northwest

Background:

I debated policy at Blue Valley North for four years (’04-’08) and LD for one year, I was an assistant coach for policy in Wisconsin at Homestead High School (’13-’14), and was an assistant coach at Shawnee Mission East for debate and forensics prior to my current position ('21-'23).

email for questions or concerns: evan.michaels.debate@gmail.com

Forensics:

For the debate events, organization and rhetoric will significantly help your logic land with me, but proper analysis of your position and your opponent's position should shine through regardless.

If you're looking at my paradigm for speech or dramatic events: first of all, hello and break a leg. Emote and project unless you're not doing so for a purpose. My feedback may be dry and my face may not show it during your performance but I am almost always moved by your performances.

If you have any other questions, please ask.

Policy:

I competed at and am comfortable with most levels of debate but I enjoy logical policy proposals and realistic analysis. One of my degrees is in philosophy, so I am comfortable getting into the weeds on theory and the K—just make sure you are. That said, I prefer clarity over all and specificity of arguments a close second.

Bigotry or discrimination--whether it’s to your opponents, your partner, myself, or anyone else not in the room--will lose you the round. I also understand this is a competition, but lack of respect for one another will lose you speaks.

While I will refer to your speech doc if necessary, I physically flow and I need to actually hear and understand it for it to matter to my ballot. Signpost clearly and make it plain when you are moving on to your next argument. I'll give you two clears, then you will see me either writing or looking at you, if I’m not doing one of those things, slow down or move on.

If your evidence has warrants that you’re pulling through, I will listen for them but I won’t do the work for you; point them out and present the clash and why it matters to the round or it won’t matter to me or the ballot.

In the end, I will vote how y’all tell me to vote, so providing and pulling through a framework is important even if it’s not contested as part of the debate. If none is provided, I will fall back on policy-making but I still need impact calculus and analysis of the claims, warrants, and clash to sway my ballot.

I prefer speech drop. My email filter is likely to screen out unfamiliar email addresses.

I am a former high school debater and practicing attorney. While I am a detailed flow, my pen-speed is unlikely to be able to keep up with national circuit top-tier speed. I recommend that the fastest debaters slow down to about a six on a ten-point speed scale. If I can't hear the argument, I won't flow it, even if it’s on the speech doc. Some debaters tend to ignore this request and spread at uncomfortable levels for me. I encourage you not to do so.

Substantively, there are no absolute deal-breakers for me, but I do have some commitments from which I will depart only if compelled to do so by cogent and persuasive (or unrefuted) argument: cases should be topical (unless you present compelling reasons why they need not be); teams should engage in productive clash; and debaters must operate in good faith. If I'm not successfully placed in a paradigm in-round, I will default to a hybrid policy-maker/rules framework. Aff must present a prima facie case in 1AC. I'll vote on T--readily--but neg must understand their argument and win the battle on definition/interp. Note that I tend to view T as a prima facie obligation. Aff, you should know that this means I tend to view it as a priori/jurisdictional, so if Neg wins the battle on this issue, i don't evaluate the rest of the Aff. Otherwise, I will assess the round as a test of policy. Does case identify a problem that needs to be solved? Does the plan solve for it? Does it do so without disadvantages that outweigh its advantages? In other words, the old-timey stock issues matter to me (unless you convince me they shouldn't). Clash = good; analysis = good; impact calculus = critical. Also, I really appreciate a good case debate--too few negs challenge case.

Tech stuff: If the debate descends into a tech fight, then you're going to have to slow way down and explain why I should vote for you. I also tend to be a dinosaur on "offense and defense" nuances. For example, I believe neg can win on defense alone, so if your arguments descend into "no offense, they lose" claims, I may not fully follow you and you may be disappointed in the ballot. Explanation and analysis > jargon and "gotcha."

Counterplans. I would prefer to see a debate focused on a topical plan. If you choose to read a CP, I'll entertain the argument, but will listen to Aff's perm claims and expect you to clash on that point. Note that I believe counterplans must be non-topical. I also won't go looking for the net-benefit (or mutual exclusivity); Neg must explain this to me in detail.

Kritik. I prefer clash on policy issues over attacks at the level of worldview or axiom, but its your round, and I understand that Kritik has some value in training high school students to analyze at the meta-level. So I'll hear you out (provided you explain the lit), but I'll also entertain counter-arguments with equal and perhaps more earnest ears. If you choose to run a K, you must explain it in detail and offer a clear, and compelling, Alt. I disfavor K Affs; I believe your job as the affirmative is to represent the resolution. K advocates must win on role-of-the-judge/rule-of-the-ballot; I'm sufficiently self-aware to know that, as a default policy guy, that's hard to do with me.

I am a parent of a novice debater and, therefore, am new to the activity. As a result, I will be looking to see if I can follow your arguments and logic. Speed will work against that goal, so I recommend you not take that approach. Please do not just read to me; provide context and demonstrate an understanding of your cards. Please refrain from using abbreviations or jargon.

Please adhere to the long-standing etiquette of the activity when engaging with me and with the other team.

This is my first year as an assistant debate coach at the high school level. I have volunteered as a judge over the years in both debate and forensics- most recently for the four speaker regionals in Lawrence. I prefer civil discourse in the rounds that I have the privilege to listen to and assess. I also prefer a stable pacing as opposed to a racing, rapid approach to speeches. Topicality is important but a reasonable interpretation by the affirmative will be something that I judge. I prefer that a team uses reliable evidence over simple analysis. I try to take an open mind into the round and listen to the cases as presented by the competing teams.

I debated four years in high school and four years in college. But it was many years ago. Since then I have judged debates over the past 30 years. But it is probably wise to consider me a lay judge. I was trained as a stock issues debater. The slower the better, including 1AC. Look at me as much as possible. We did not use a lot of counterplans and critiques were not a thing then. I am a dinosaur.

I'm currently a Third Year law student. I debated for four years in high school. Did KDC and DCI but did Oration for national tournaments. I'm on my fourth year coaching for Blue Valley.

I'm not picky on the arguments you run I'll vote on whatever you win on the flow.

In electronic debate, I prefer people to be as efficient in transitions as possible to account for technical difficulties and so I usually count prep until teams have pressed send on their documents in exchanging speeches.

Debated for Shawnee Mission East and the University of Kansas

he/they, or just nico, but please not ‘judge’

Add me to the email chain -

email: nicorhanley@gmail.com

I have a lot more experience debating than I do judging. With that in mind, it might be worthwhile to spend a bit of time in the ‘why we should get this dub’ chapter of your speech. Lots of judge instruction in rebuttals will take you very far in general but especially if i’m your judge. This is at the top of the paradigm because, if I’m being honest, in the past I’ve made some very questionable RFDs due to the team that “probably should have lost” being more persuasive in how they wrote out the ballot for me. This isn’t something I actively try to do. I do always try my best to be fair and make the correct decision, but it’s worth admitting.

Additionally, I’m not very familiar with the current (2021) highschool debate topic.

-

Philosophy:

I think debate is ultimately a game where teams are trying to make competitive arguments that win them the ballot. I think kritiks are a strategy within this game, and the debate to be had about whether this strategy is beneficial for the activity is also part of the game. Framework is part of the game. Not reading a plan is part of the game. Arguing that your alternative model of debate is an effective strategy within the traditional model of debate is, again, part of the game.

Outside of debates I have my own opinions on debate as an activity, and how effective or educational various models or methods of debate are. As a judge I am lawful neutral when it comes to these issues. I have read a plantext throughout the entirety of my debate career but that doesn’t necessarily mean that I won’t vote for an affirmative without a plan. Every single team is trying to win every single debate that they have. Even if a team is winning with an argument critiquing the nature of debate as a game, they are ultimately leveraging the irregularity / complexity of their argument to their advantage as a way of participating in the game strategically, and for that, mad respect. If you win the argument that the opposing team choosing to not read a plan / being untopical should result in me filling out the ballot in your favor, I’ll do so. It’s all part of the game, we’re all just trying to win in different ways that reflect our own strategic choices / how we feel comfortable participating in (not throughout) this activity. Some of us just want to see the world burn, and that’s ok

-

Kritiks:

I’m completely neutral on any theory-related stuff as a judge. This is true for all theory, not just kritiks.

My background is still in policy debate, so if you do choose to read a k, bear that in mind. Most of my familiarity with kritiks has been from debating against them (with the exception of the occasional Mbembe). That said, I have spent a decent amount of time reading about anti-capitalism/anti-colonial theory, afropessimism, settler colonialism, queer theory, and psychoanalysis (as it applies to the aforementioned literature).

I would rather not judge death ks or kritiks that pertain to the individuals within the debate round or on the team of the school being debated against. If you’re reading a death K, we probably wouldn’t get along very well anyway.

-

Policy Arguments:

Big impacts are good impacts. If you say that extinction isn’t as important as the area of quotidian violence that you’ve isolated due to the fact that said extinction impact is improbable relative to the ongoing structural violence described by your impact, it’d be in your favor if you also won that said extinction impact is actually improbable. Saying that the prioritization of extinction impacts overshadows structural violence seems like a pretty broad, totalizing account of impact calculus compared to a warranted, specific extinction impact. That doesn’t mean that probability is an irrelevant variable in impact calculus, however.

Counterplans are fine I guess. I love a good advantage cp. Agent cps are fine unless they’re cheating, but if no one points out that the one you’re reading is cheating or you win that it isn’t cheating you’re in the clear. I will vote for even the most egregiously cheating counterplans (the states cp) if you win the theory debate/if there is no theory debate. I think most counterplans (that people actually choose to read) are probably cheating, though most people would rather bite the bullet and write affirmatives that beat cheating counterplans instead of just saying that the counterplan is cheating. I’m looking at you, states.

Even outside of debate I’m not super opinionated on condo, so i’m especially neutral in-round. Lots of judges are super unwilling to vote aff on this, I think the threshold is pretty 50/50 for me. If the neg undercovers it then it’s their own fault. As long as the aff has sufficiently won their interp is both good for debate and mutually exclusive with the negs actions then the aff wins. I don’t really think it makes sense to treat the phrase “dispo solves their offense” as an instant gamewinner. Especially if your interp is just about being unconditional always or only getting 1 conditional advocacy, putting all your eggs in the dispo basket seems pretty random imo.

Delay CPs/ other troll CPs are pretty silly and I probably wouldn’t be thrilled if I had to vote for one but it isn’t out of the picture. I don’t like to be reminded of the pain that is the abuse of fiat under the guise of creating competition. This sort of applies to PiKs as well, depending on the degree to which they are ~floating~

Disads are so variable that I don’t really feel like I need to write anything specific here. If the cards are good, read them. I like the politics DA, I guess.

Topicality is probably my favorite argument in debate. A good T debate is just a really fun time all around. A case list is always a great way to spice things up. Reasonability can a better argument than how it’s often articulated, but I still think even it’s better iterations aren’t exactly slayer args. For whatever reason some people like to spread their T blocks faster than they do their cards. Not a fan. Slipping random inherency voters in the middle of said T blocks. Also not a fan. If you do this and wonder why I didn’t vote for you after you went for it in the 2nr, kicking the counterplan da that couldve won you the debate, now I get to say it’s because you didn’t read my paradigm ;)

-

Misc. stuff:

Not everything that I or any judge tells you is necessarily good advice. No two people think about debate in the same way and that's part of why I love debate. Implications of that: I understand that the strategy that maybe I would have chosen to execute in a debate round isn't the ultimate best or the one that fits the style of debate that you like to practice.

Debate is supposed to be fun. I'll never understand people who go into debates genuinely (or seemingly genuinely) upset at what they're doing. If you have fun, the round is more fun, judging is more fun, etc. Debates that are fun to watch are so much easier to deal out higher speaker points to.

**good arguments change my opinions all the time so if you think you're right about something go for it - I always try to make an effort to check my biases toward particular arguments**

**this does not apply to the death k**

Debate is a competitive space in which we all try to have fun / escape the chaos of reality, so don't bring toxic behavior into it.

If you read stuff that I should be writing down at a speed that you yourself are unable to flow, I’m probably unable to flow it as well. Having more years of experience in the activity doesn’t suddenly make me write at supersonic speeds compared to a normal human debater, unfortunately :c

-

Speaks:

I think good research is the most fundamental aspect of debating well. If you are clearly knowledgeable about the stuff in the debate, whether it be your own evidence, the other team’s evidence, the kritik you’re reading, you get the point, i’ll reflect that in your speaks. If you’re rude in cx or your speeches to the other team, your partner, or me, I’ll reflect that in your speaks as well. Interrupting people is rude. Be mindful that debate is a communication activity.

I don’t really care about swearing, just don’t overdo it. If you’re wondering to what extent I mean by “don’t overdo it” don’t do it at all.

Using slurs or saying racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, etc things are not tolerated. 0 speaks and a loss. There are exceptions to this, but again, if you’re wondering what those exceptions are, they probably don’t apply to you.

-

Points:

0 - ? - ???

27.5-28.5 - good

28.5-29 - great

29-29.5 - exceptional

I probably wont give above a 29.5, but if I do, well done! This has only happened twice.

I have yet to reward a 30

Don’t clip. Do. Not. Clip. (pls don’t clip i will be a very sad nico) I debated against a team that blatantly clipped multiple cards in their 2nc, had evidence that they had clipped, marked their evidence exactly where they had clipped, made evident in the following cx that they had clipped, went for 6 minutes of “why has this debate not ended already they literally clipped” in the 2ar and subsequently lost the debate because the judge accepted their apology for having clipped. If I judge a debate where there is evidence of clipping, I will not be so gracious. 0 speaks and a loss. :c

please put me on the chain Email:Rose.joel2003@gmail.com

I debated for 4 years at Lawrence high, I mostly did Fast kritical debate but I feel comfortable judging any style of debate

basic rules-

- I don't do hand shakes

- don't be mean for no reason if I think your being over the top rude it will reflect that on your speaks

- I will automatically vote you down for being discriminatory, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or creating an unsafe debate space

- if you go top speed on anylitics put them in the speech doc or I'm likely to miss arguments

- you cant win a round without offense.

I debated from 88-92 for Wichita East. I have judged over 100 rounds including final rounds for national qualifiers. I am a traditional flow judge. Speed doesn't bother me but content is key and I must be able to track and flow the round. If you are going to color outside the lines of traditional argumentation, better bring me along for the ride

Greetings Debaters!

(she/her)

I am a 5th year debate sponsor with my school with not a lick of personal debate experience to my name. I am but a humble teacher of mathematics who wanted some extra ways to get involved in my school. That's not to say that I haven't been learning a lot about debate with every new year that I sponsor. I've come a long ways to where I am in understanding the jargon of debate, the technicalities of a round, and how to listen to a round. My team has in the past referred to me as a "fairly competent lay judge" with my current abilities. So I've got some judging experience but by no means am I ready to listen to a team spread like their lives depend on it or run complicated plans/kritiks. I do my own form of simple "flowing" which sometimes has given teams the impression that I'm more advanced of a judge than they assume and I am lost in the round very early. Looks are deceiving, I honestly just have a terrible working memory for lots of details in round!

When judging debates, I really appreciate when I'm able to learn more about debate itself from the competitors. There are a myriad of different types of arguments that you make to poke holes in cases or highlight issues with speeches - be explicit to me on what you are attempting to accomplish with your own speeches or CX. A road map for each speech is a must with VERY CLEAR markers within your speeches to tell me when you are addressing a new part of your competitors last speech. Like I mean almost excessively explicit within your speech. I can judge best when I am able make sure each argument is being responded to throughout speeches.

I tend to vote on solvency or impact calculation, but have been known to give the ballot to a really convincing framework debate.

Good luck!

Shawnee Mission South 21'

justin.a.tran07@gmail.com

Last update: 12/16/23 - I have judged a few rounds on the Economic Inequality topic, but I am still not familiar with everything so please articulate your arguments as much as possible and try to limit throwing around acronyms.

General:

---Disclosure is good.

---Clipping is cheating and I will give you bad speaks.

---Don't steal prep.

---A dropped argument is a true argument.

---I am okay with speed as long as you're clear and signpost tags/analytics.

---ASPEC and similar arguments aren't good but the aff still needs to answer them.

---Don't be Racist, Sexist, Homophobic, Ableist, etc. I will vote you down. Debate should always be an inclusive space where everyone feels comfortable.

---Feel free to email me about RFD's, questions, or concerns

TL:DR: Read whatever you like, I think any style or argument can win. I am not very familiar with K-affs and most K literature so please try to explain things to me and why they matter/what you win because of each individual part of the K debate. Debate is a game unless proven otherwise.

Speaker Points: Clarity (Especially in online debate) and smart arguments make your speaks increase, the opposite makes them decrease. Clipping = 0 (One warning). Make jokes at your leisure, speaker points will go up or down depending on the quality.

Thoughts about arguments:

Affs: Read a plan or don’t. Key things I want to see are impact calc, framing, and articulating what your plan/advocacy does. Use the aff as a tool on other flows and contextualize it to the negative's arguments.

K-Affs: I view this more than any other argument as an offense-defense paradigm because it’s the only way that makes sense. You need offense as well as defense on why your world is better. Detailed overviews about what the aff does boost speaks and makes it easier for me to evaluate.

Case: Clash, warrants, evidence comparison, author indicts, source indicts, smart analytics. Read more than just impact defense.

DAs:

---Generic links are fine, just contextualize it

---Do the impact calc so you can weigh the DA

---DA O/W and turns case goes a long way, same with case O/W and turns the DA

CPs:

---Any CP is fine until proven otherwise.

---Consult CPs, Delay CP's, and Process CPs are probably cheating and I will have a low threshold rejecting the argument.

---Condo debate should be condo is good/bad, not sure there's a "good" number of conditional CPs.

---Dispositionality is real.

---As with T debates, Condo is an offense-defense debate. Extend your interp, don’t drop the other team's interp, you need offensive reasons and defensive reasons.

---PICs are fine.

---Read all of the perms but also put them in the speech doc.

---Perms aren't advocacies, they are tests of competition.

---Impact out perm theory, I will listen and vote on all types of CP theory.

Ks: I'm not versed in K literature and am not particularly the best for judging these types of arguments. That being said, explain and warrant everything you say and I'll do my best to evaluate it. The only K's I'm more familiar with is cap and neoliberalism, please give a good alt. I don't have a lot of experience watching K debates but I know I will be a little bit sad if you read anthro, ballot K's, or certain author name K's (Baudrillard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, etc.) and will be persuaded toward arguments about these people being bad on a personal level and hence they shouldn't be read in debates.

---the more case-specific your link and the more comprehensive your alternative explanation, the more I’ll be persuaded by your K

---Explain what the alt does and how it functions so I know what I’m voting for

---Reject the aff is definitely not an alt, unless all of your links are about how the aff makes something worse that the squo solves, in which case just frame/read it as a case turn

---PIKs are okay but must be in the block and must be articulated in what they look like in the world of the alt. It's very easy for me to find these arguments illegitimate, especially if the 2AC preempts it.

T:

---I definitely find myself leaning competing interps, if an interp is that abusive for the aff then why can't they just beat it?

---If I have an articulation of what reasonability means in the context of the round, how the aff meets it, and why it should be preferred it's not impossible to win.

---Neg needs a case list and a list of ground they lost and why that matters.

---Ground isn't an impact, rather an I/L to fairness.

---Extend an impact to T, obviously.

Theory: High threshold for rejecting the team, exception is condo, and needs to have clash if you want to win

Framework (Aff vs K): Make your interp whatever you want, just articulate why your interp is better than the negs from a fairness perspective.

Framework (Neg vs K-Aff): Debate is a game with educational benefits, warrant out your standards and why your interp solves their offense

I consider myself a "big picture" impact judge. Persuade me with credible evidence that is framed with logic. I am a creative, independent thinker so if you don't connect the dots I might jump to my own conclusions, and if there's no impact, I might think "who cares?." A "piece of evidence cannot speak for itself, please don't try and drown me with "cards." Reasoning first with good support. I love pathos! I love debate and believe it is wonderful preparation for the kind of civil discourse that can save our democracy. I debated with St. John's University, NY when I was in college, coached Stoa Speech and Debate for 13 years, and now am the Graduate Assistant for Park University's Speech and Debate Team, where we are re-establishing a tradition of excellence. Park U is a great choice for an affordable classic education, close to home with a growing Speech and Debate program. Check us out! Janine.Wilkins@Park.edu. Follow us on Instagram: parkspeechanddebate.

For Debaters:
I will attempt to judge the round on the prevailing paradigm argued in-round. If no weighing mechanism is presented/argued for, then I will judge the round "on balance", or weigh the standing arguments and attempt to choose the more reasonable side. Low-point wins are good in my book: Argumentative strength is not the same as being a stellar speaker.

Debate happens in a very specific educational context, so debaters should be considerate of the ultimate educational aims of the event. Deception is demonstrably contrary to this context. Very fast speaking (spreading/speed as a weapon) is contrary to the educational context. It often is an ableist practice discriminatory of people who are incapable of keeping up, such as those with auditory processing quirks. I am one such person. You can talk at a New Yorker pace and I will be fine, but going much faster could very well render your speech incomprehensible and your arguments little better than white noise.

Lastly, for those policy-minded folks that want to impact to extinction all the time: Y'all have an especial burden to demonstrate the causative links between the opponent's world and that impact. If each step of the way ain't bare and warranted, I may well just dismiss it outright as extinction fear-mongering. Sorry, not sorry.

For Interpers:
I am watching a performance. Choosing a good piece and executing it well are the ways to go. I will try to weigh heavier on the performance/execution side, but the perceived quality of the selection(s) undoubtedly influences me too. Unlike perhaps most judges, I do like older/historical works a fair bit.

I have 3 years of high school debate experience, as well as judging at least 5 tournaments this year including novice state. When judging, speakers should seek to balance communicative skills, as well as technical debate skills. I highly value when speakers summarize their most important arguments, not only for my benefit, but it also proves your understanding. Generic DA, T's, CP's, and K's are all fine by me so long as you have a clear understanding of what you are saying and substantial supporting evidence. Speed not an issue when reading cards as long as I have access to your speech via Speech Drop or a similar service. When you're addressing me as the judge however, your speed show slow down and speaking should become more deliberate.