Brett Cranor

bvsw '23

ku '27

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

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

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

General Thoughts-

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

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

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

For example:

-not having a computer/blocks in finals rebuttals

-making funny & applicable jokes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Novice Specific-

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

hi!! i'm marie (she/her), and i'm a smn graduate! i’m in my first year at umkc studying history and biology, aiming to get my emt license in a couple years :) i did debate and forensics for four years each.

i’m an experienced judge but i’m also just like. a dude. i’m a college kid with a caffeine addiction. as long as you aren’t dropping slurs or something wild i’m gonna be nice.

out of round/decorum(?): i flow on paper, but my system is between me and god so if you see a lot of paper that makes very little sense that’s why. please signpost!! as long as you slow down for tags/signposting, go at the speed your opponents and partner are okay with- within reason. debate is an exercise in argumentation, not who does a better eminem impression. if i can’t understand your argument because you’re going too fast, i can’t flow it, then bam you don’t have a second advantage and it’s all a mess.

let each other finish sentences in cross ex- it is my biggest pet peeve!!!!!!!! your opponent is a person, please talk to them like it. any form of rudeness, especially discrimination, will be noted and weighed when judging (i will dock speaker points and potentially speak to someone about it). part of the beauty of speech and debate is its diversity. embrace it.

in round: policymaker style judging- i do my best to tabula all my rasas, but sometimes my brain slips a little.

• i’ll listen to pretty much any argument as long as you walk me through a K or Theory and convince me of it
• if you’re using a plan that links to the resolution with duct tape and a prayer i will have questions. re: convince me
• if you’re using a default font CP, explain how the benefits specifically outweigh the aff plan. yay! counter plan is better! why.
• CPs have to be well-structured and argued
• burden of proof falls to the aff! if i do not believe the aff would be the best option i will not vote for it, esp if neg is arguing squo

other than these bullets, go bonkers with it, i’ll keep up.

lawrence free state 22

email: kmplawrence@gmail.com

she/her

novices:

- be respectful and kind to your partner, your opponents, and me

- please signpost!!!! and indicate when moving onto taglines- I want to flow well so I can judge well :)

- clash! please flow/pay attention so we can have an educationally beneficial round

- talking to your partner is prep time

- remember that your affirmative case exists! extend your impacts and overview it!

- warrants!!

- evidence comparison >>> "i said xyz and xyz is correct not what they said."

and of course,

have a good attitude and sportsmanship, debate is a fun and connected space if you let it be!

Hey yall!

⭐ I'm a former college policy debater (2 years) & 4 years in High School. Mill Valley HS Ast. Coach for 4 years.

⭐ You can throw anything at me argument-wise. Speed is fine as long as you are still articulate (a big influence in speaker points is clarity).

⭐ speech drop> email chain. email: hprins@usd232.org

⭐ I read evidence throughout the round, so know that I am paying attention to important warrants, and will only vote on something if there is evidence backing it and it's extended properly throughout the debate.

Emory 26, Lawrence Free State 22

serenajosephinerupp@gmail.com

I am extremely tech > truth, which frames the rest of my thoughts about debate. Every time I judge this paradigm gets shorter because my predispositions are weak and irrelevant to the vast majority of debates.

Only non-negotiables:

1. No death good.

2. I won't vote on things that happen outside of the round. I'm 20 years old and so unqualified to mediate high schoolers' interpersonal conflicts.

T:

Absolutely love T debates when debaters do impact comparison. Competing interpretations > reasonability.

Truthfully, I think that predictable limits are the gold standard. Limits for the sake of limits are bad. The most legally precise definition isn't necessarily the best one for debate. That being said, just debate.

Ks:

I am comfortable judging Ks like cap, set col, antiblackness, security, etc. I know basically nothing about postmodernism/poststructuralism/high theory.

My predisposition is that teams should get to weigh their aff and that framework interps that entirely exclude Ks are unpersuasive.

K affs:

In a close T debate, I’m a bit better for the neg. This is an issue with experience more so than bias. I’ve basically always been on that side of the debate, so I can subconsciously fill in more gaps when both teams lack judge instruction. With that said, I am so flow-oriented that this rarely matters. I’m just going to vote for the team that wins more of their impact and explains why it outweighs. Fairness is an impact so long as you can explain it as one. I don’t have a strong preference between clash and fairness. If you’re neg, I’m on par better for T than the K because that’s where my experience lies.

DAs:

Obviously great. Smart turns case explanation = good speaks.

CPs:

Functional and textual competition is the gold standard. Default to judge kick.

Theory:

Conditionality is the only reason to reject the team. I'm a 2N and personally believe that condo is good, but quality of debating matters most. The aff needs to clearly explain an impact prior to the 2AR, or else I’m very sympathetic to the neg. Please do line by line.

Caitlin Sand, any pronouns

Debated for four years at Lawrence High in Kansas (Some local circuit, some natcirc) and currently debate for K-State (Ask me about KSU debate!!)

2024 CEDA Triple Octafinalist

Environmental science major and women and gender studies minor

Add me to the email chain: caitlinmsand at gmail

There are many debaters, judges, and coaches who influence my philosophy every day to the point that I can't credit them all, but all my love goes to my coach, Hannah Phelps. She is amazing, and if you run/are interested in Disability studies, you need to thank her and show her some love for the work she has done/is doing.

( ˘͈ ᵕ ˘͈♡)

Top-level:

IMPORTANT: I have an auditory processing disorder. Don't spread. If I can't understand what you're saying, I can't flow it. I'll slow you a few times, but if it becomes a problem, I'll stop flowing. "Can I spread the card and not the tags?" No. Unless the body of the card/warrants doesn't matter, but in that case just don't read the cards and read analytics. I love this activity, and I love giving feedback so don't just nuke my prefs because you don't want to slow down. In fact, I think you should get used to slowing down because there are many people, not just me, who can't understand spreading and who are competitive within debate. If my opponents can slow down for me, you can too. If you somehow ignore all of this and decide to spread--PLEASE send out analytics. PS- if you're someone who doesn't like spreading but feels like they need to do it in order to be a good debater pls, talk to me. I'm here for you and know you are not alone <333

Can I run x thing? Yes. I really don't care. You do you. It's probably better that you read what you are comfortable with because that will help both of us understand what's going on in the round. I don't believe that judges naturally get rid of all preconceived notions going into debate but know that I try my hardest to make sure you are listened to and that I am adjudicating the round fairly. Just do some judge instructions and tell me what my ballot does and I'll be happy.

Tech vs Truth. I don't even know anymore. I'd like to say I evaluate debates on a technical level, but if both teams are winning something on a tech level without certain judge instructions, I'll probably break the tie through the truth. Generally specific links > generic links; however, a good 2a/2n spin is also just fine with me. 99% of the time, I'm not going to go back and read evidence 1. I think it's your job to tell me what that ev says 2. I think it makes my job as a fair adjudicator harder and starts to dip into judge intervention territory 3. The only exception to this is if that's what the debate comes down to

Evidence: Read fewer cards. I trust that you are smart people who can come up with your own arguments without having an author for every one of them. Also just helps me evaluate the debate better if I'm not forced to listen to shadow extensions of authors I've never heard of. However, if you present to me a clipping/evidence violation, I will be forced to stop the debate and end it there I'm not going to mess around with the rules on that. "Debaters should talk more about the lack of quality the other team's evidence and the highlighting of that evidence in particular. If you've highlighted down your evidence such that it no longer includes articles (a/an/the/etc...) in front of nouns, or is in other ways grammatically incoherent due to highlighting, and get called out on it, you're likely to not get much credit for that ev with me." -Alex McVey (My head coach)

I'm probably going to be really uncomfortable if you post round/argue with me. Listen, we're all human, and we all make mistakes, including me. If you thought I evaluated something wrong or missed something, feel free to shoot me an email (I will probably not respond, however). Debate isn't a science, which imo is what makes it fun, so for both of our sakes, let's just accept the decision and move on.

Discrimination, harassment, or generally being mean results in an automatic loss. Do not read any arguments containing graphic descriptions of violence against queer people and sexual violence.

If there is something outside the round that is making you uncomfortable (debating an abuser, being harassed before the round/the tournament, being harmed by your partner/coach, etc), please come and talk to me, and I will fight for you. I will do whatever it takes to work the situation out with Tabroom because this activity is supposed to be fun.

Speaks:

I kinda just go off of vibes. I would say I average around 28.5.

Aff:

I'm tired of poor internal link stories. Like seriously, policy affs get better at explaining how, without the aff, we get to nuclear war/extinction. I've noticed this general trend of just asserting that it happens without any explanation as to why. Also, Rip to solvency cards that aren't just a sentence long would like to see that make a comeback.

K Affs:

I don't really care about whether or not you have a tie to the topic. Please tell me what my ballot does and what sort of method/epistemological shift is happening. I also think debaters are slowly losing the meaning of what it means to be "material." I think K affs should be a lot better at just stating why their rhetoric/performance/movement being introduced into the debate space is a material act. That being said, though, I think the best presumption argument I hear is why is it good for the aff to be debated/why I should judge it. In the same thinking why is my ballot important to your rhetoric/performance/movement? Also, along the same lines as my policy aff opinions, PLEASE don't just pull together five random K cards and call that a 1AC. Tell me how the different parts of the aff interact with one another and how you reach your method. Without a defense of this, I will be much more persuaded by aff condo bad/presumption on this question.

For neg teams against k affs: see my opinion above. I love a good presumption debate. I lean towards the side of the fence that it's not violent to question aff construction, materiality, debatability, etc. I'd love a 2nr of just presumption, which I've definitely gone for as a 2n. Rip to case debate that isn't just the same recycled Ritter 13 card. I don't think you necessarily have to have a bunch of academy/cap/debate bad cards on this question but rather show me that you've thought about the 1AC and how it functions.

Policy:

Please give me judge instruction/impact calc. I haven't touched a DA in years so like don't assume I know the intricacies of your argument. I will evaluate it in the most tech way I understand, but please give me a top-level overview/understanding of how I should evaluate certain arguments. Genuinely good judge instruction will outweigh line-by-line debating here because of my lack of understanding of the intricacies of your argument.

T/FW/Theory

I will vote on a procedural if the event happened in the round but I am uncomfortable adjudicating things that happened outside the debate. Unless it is genuinely violent and you need to stop the round please don't make me have to look at screenshots and decide if someone should be canceled. That being said teams need to be going for in-round procedurals MUCH more. The team read a sus card that said something racist? New sheet and vote them down. The team violated an accommodation request? New sheet and vote them down. In my experience, I've learned that procedurals are not always personal but can be used as a learning experience for why someone shouldn't do something again.

Theory is fine just give me judge instruction and use it as framing for why x thing happened or matters. However, I am more likely than most to vote on condo since I dislike teams that run 8 off and then go for the one the aff dropped- it's abusive. At the same time there is some leeway on the condo debate 1. If someone is running like one K and T, I'm going to be less persuaded by your traditional condo args 2. That being said, I love condo args that are specific to K debate/your lit base. For example, If you read anti-blackness or ableism, explain to me why condo is anti-black or ableist, and I'll be much more persuaded by the traditional condo standards.

I don't really have an opinion on t/fw vs k affs I just really hate when it's an excuse to not engage with any other part of the aff. Fairness is less persuasive to me than education because I don't think debate is structurally fair. I think affs should be utilizing impact turns more rather than reading so much defense to particular internal links such as ground or clash. I love a creative TVA; from my time reading a k aff, my favorites have been: The United States should bomb Autism Speaks, and The United States should disarm with an advantage about how it hurts sharks (shark memes included in the TVA). Not arguing that those particular TVAs are good but rather show that time was spent thinking about and engaging the aff.

Ks:

I have spent a lot of time thinking about and engaging with critical literature. That being said, I will not be happy with Ks that are run when you don't understand what you are talking about because, most likely, I won't know either. Generally, I think you should be winning framework to win the rest of the K debate. However, my threshold for aff framework arguments is a lot higher since there seems to just be a trend of top-level assertion that mooting the 1AC is bad without any other warrants. Neg teams, please explain why your framework DAs/args interact with the affs standards, or else I'm not going to be happy trying to intervene in that debate. I'm definitely persuaded by Fiat bad. Aff teams, I don't think you should be arguing that Fiat is real but rather gives us good education because you don't want to let me decide between a Fiat real/not real debate (I will default neg on this question). Aff teams, please defend your reps as defense to framework. Neg teams, please stop letting aff teams get away with saying weigh the consequences of the plan when their plan triggers the K link. Generic links are okay as long as its articulated well and still apply. Alt's need to be articulated well- EXPLAIN the alt pls!! Aff teams, please stop letting the neg run away with whatever they want on the alt because some of the alts don't make any sense or can't solve. Ks without alts are okay as long as you articulate the links as case turns, but please do that as a last case 2nr option, not right away in the 1nc.

The role of the ballot and the role of the judge is incredibly important!!

K lit I'm most familiar with disability/ableism, queer theory, cap, imperialism, and abolition.

(◍•ᴗ•◍)♡ ✧*。

Live Laugh Love Debate

zwillingham04@gmail.com

Washburn Rural '22

University of Kansas '26

Assistant for Washburn Rural

General Thoughts

Debate is a technical game of strategy. If you debate more technically and more strategically, you will likely win. Read whatever and however you like. Any style or argument can win if executed well enough or if answered poorly enough. I don’t believe judges should have any predetermined biases for any argument. Dropped arguments are true.

I am operating under the assumption that you have put in considerable effort to be here and you want to win. I will try to put reciprocal effort into making an objective decision unless you have done something to indicate those assumptions are incorrect.

Nothing you say or do will offend me, but lack of respect for your opponents will not be tolerated.

My background is very policy-oriented. I strategically chose to talk about cyber-security instead of criminal justice and water resources. The best argument is always the one that wins. Do what you are best at.

My favorite part about debate is the way different arguments interact with each other across different pages. The way to beat faster and more technical teams is to make smart cross-applications and concessions.

Except for the 2AR, what is "new" is up for debate. Point out your opponent's new arguments and explain why they are not justified.

Evidence is very important. I only read cards after the debate if the issue has been contested. A dropped card is still dropped even if it is trash. Quality > Quantity. I do not see any strategic utility in reading multiple the cards that say the same thing. Card dumping is effective when each card has unique warrants.

Cross-ex is very important. Use it to set up your strategy, not to clarify what cards were skipped. I appreciate it when the final rebuttals quote lines from cross-ex/earlier speeches. It makes it seem like you have been in control of the round since the beginning.

I do not want to hear a prepped out ethics violation. Tell the team before the round.

I do not want to hear an argument about something that happened outside of the round.

Rehighlightings can be inserted as long as you explain what the rehighlighting says. I see it as more specific evidence comparison.

Argument Specific

Topicality:

Your interpretation is the tag of your definition. If there is any discrepancy between the tag and the body of the card, that is a precision indict but not a reason the aff meets.

Counterplans:

I enjoy quality competition debates. I like tricky perms. Put the text in the doc.

"Links less" makes sense to me for certain disads, but makes it harder for the net benefit to outweigh the deficit. Perm do both is probabilistic. Perm do the counterplan is binary.

If a perm has not been extended, solvency automatically becomes a net benefit.

Most theory arguments are a reason to reject the argument, not the team. I will not reject the team even on a dropped theory argument unless there is a coherent warrant for why it would not be enough to only reject the argument.

I will only judge kick (without being told) if it has been established that conditionality is good.

Advantages/Disadvantages:

Most scenarios are very construed. Logical analytical arguments can substantially mitigate them. I do not like it when the case debate in the 1NC is only impact defense.

Punish teams for reading new impacts in the 2AC and block.

Extinction means the end of the species. Most impacts do not rise to this threshold. Point it out.

"Try or die" or similar impact framing is very persuasive when executed properly. If the negative doesn't extend a counterplan or impact defense, they are likely to lose.

Zero risk is possible if your opponent has entirely dropped an argument and the implication of that argument is that the scenario is 0. However, I can be convinced that many arguments, even when dropped, do not rise to that level.

Kritiks v Policy Affs:

I will determine which framework interpretation is better and use that to evaluate the round. I will not adopt a middle ground combination of both interpretations unless someone has convinced me that is the best option (which it usually is).

Make it very explicit what the win condition is for you if you win framework. Only saying "The 1AC is an object of research" does not tell me how I determine the winner.

If the K is just one of many off case positions and the block reads a bunch of new cards, the 1AR probably gets to say any new thing they want.

Planless Affs:

All affirmatives should endorse a departure from the status quo.

Procedural arguments like topicality come prior to the hypothetical benefits of the aff's implementation, but if there are arguments on the case that also serve as offense against the negative's interpretation, then I will weigh those against the negative's offense.

I do not like it when the 1AC says X is bad, the 1NC says X is good, and the 2AC says no link.

Many debaters do not explain switch side debate as effectively as they could. It should be offense.

Things to boost speaks, but won't affect wins and losses

Give final rebuttals off paper.

Number/subpoint arguments.

Impact turn whenever you can. Straight turn every disad if you're brave. I love chaos, but the final rebuttals better be resolving things.

Good wiki and disclosure practices.

Don't read arguments that can be recycled every year.

Stand up for cross-ex right when the timer ends. Send docs quickly. Preferably in the last few seconds of their speech.

Make jokes. Have fun. Respect your opponents. Good-natured insults can be funny but read the room.

Pretty speech docs. Ugly docs usually means ugly debating.

Debate with integrity. Boo cheapshots. It is better to lose with honor, than win by fraud.

LD

I’ve never had the privilege of sitting through an entire LD round so if there is specific vocabulary I am not in the loop. Assume I have minimal topic knowledge.

Tell me why you access their offense, why it is the most important thing, and why they don’t access their offense. Be strategic.

Answer your opponent’s arguments explicitly. I want to hear “They say x, but y because z”.