About Me: I have done Policy Debate since 2018 at Bolivar High School. I went to NSDA Nationals in 2021 and went to elimination rounds. I now debate for Truman State University NFA-LD.

23-24 NSDA Topic: I have done little judging or any sort of work for this topic, so I don't know the normal affs/negs that are ran.

Speed: I am okay with speed, and can flow it fine, as I compete at speed. But if it harmful for anyone's education, I will ask that the round is done at normal speed.

T/Theory: I will vote on T/Theory if it's good. I generally am pretty policy oriented, but if you can prove abuse, or tell me why I should vote for potential abuse, I will.

Disclosure: Will vote on it if there is actual abuse. I do encourage disclosure. Do not false disclose.

DAs: These are my bread and butter, and I love a good Disad. I will view them more favorably if they have an aff specific link. However I feel that impact comparison will be important to get my ballot on a DA.

CPs: CPs are okay, I want you to win a net benefit to get my ballot on a CP. For aff, do work on net benefit or solidify your perm to me to win the perm, and I'll vote for it.

Ks: I'm not super-duper into Ks, and don't consider myself to be a K debater. However, I will always vote for a K if its good. Show me what the alt does, rather than just tagging a card as the alt with no actual explanation of what the world of the alt looks like. Same for K Affs.

Case: I find it easier to vote on case than anything. I tend to weigh case first, unless I'm shown why I shouldn't. Turns are great, and just a case specific no sol argument does a lot for me.

I'm super excited to be judging this round, here are some things that I look for;

I am a flow judge, so I know when you drop arguments and when you address arguments. Make sure that you do your best to address every argument.

Speaking quality. I understand sometimes it's hard to hear people over the internet but make sure that you speak clearly.

Respect. I expect you to show respect to me and your opponent. Disrespect can cause you to lose the round.

Best of luck!

Quick Summary - I am a former high school debater, I am a flow judge but will change to however you debate. DISCLOSE AND DO NOT PARAPHRASE! Have fun and be nice. I will be voting in a vacuum of the debate without any bias.

Background - Hi, I'm Blake Dodd I am currently a Freshman at the University of Kansas. I am a former Champ Public Forum debater, I have competed in PF my entire debate career but know how to evaluate other forms of debate as well. I always will be flowing and evaluating your arguments. My pronouns are he/him/his.

Style - I am much more of a flow judge then a lay judge. Do what you want though, I'll accommodate to your style of debate. Slow down during tags, If I don't flow it you didn't say it. Any discriminating slur used will tank your speaker points and most likely the loss. Most importantly, remember it is a debate round, learn lots, and have fun. I know the pain of a judge not evaluating or just not listening. So with that said I will be flowing everything you say. Tech>Truth, you must explain why arguments matter or do not matter. I will not make arguments for you. Otherwise I am a pretty chill debater and judge. Be nice to your opponents. If you want to spread ask your opponents and check with me before you do. If you are going to spread I expect a speech doc with what your are reading. I strongly believe in disclosure, please disclose before round on the PF/Policy debate wiki (if you have more questions about disclosure please email me or ask before the round), if your opponents ask for your case or any evidence give it to them. I am strongly against paraphrasing, I highly recommend to not do it in front of me. There is no grace period beyond 3 seconds, once your speech time is up stop reading.

Specifics - "Abuse" This is a soapbox issue for me. In a world of significant actual abuse (domestic abuse, child abuse, elder abuse, bullying, etc.), the use of the word to describe something as trivial as reading a counterplan, going over cross-x time by 3 seconds, or even not disclosing seems incredibly problematic. There are alternative words like problematic, anti-educational, etc. that can adequately describe what you perceive to be the issue with the argument. Part of this frustration is also due to the number of times I have heard debaters frustrate community judges by saying they were abused when the other team read an argument they didn't like. Please don't use this phrase. You can help make debate better.

Pronouns - If you have different pronouns or would like to be addressed in a different way please let me know and I would be happy to change my language. Please always use your opponents preferred pronouns or your speaker points will drop very quickly.

Theory/Progressive Arguments - I am perfectly fine if you want to read any progressive arguments in front of me such as disclosure theory or paraphrase theory. Other progressive arguments just check with me before you read it. More than likely it will be fine.

Contact - Email: blakedodd04@gmail.com

If you have any questions about my paradigm that aren't listed, ask me or email me before the round starts. If you have any questions about your ballot after the round, feel free to email me at thechemistlovescarbon@gmail.com

ANY TYPE OF -IST OR -OBIC ARGS/RHETORIC (INCLUDING INTENTIONALLY/REPEATEDLY MISGENDERING SOMEONE) WILL GET YOU AN L + THE LOWEST POSSIBLE SPEAKS, AND A TALKING TO YOUR COACH AT MINIMUM.

Please don't yell in round. I experience migraines and if you are the cause of one, it will be a thornier path to my ballot.

Paradigms in order: Congress, LD (prog, trad), PFD, CX

Congress

I have high expectations because this is the only event in speech and debate that truly combines speaking and debating. I do not care how good your points are if I can't understand them, and I don't care how pretty you speak if all you're saying is empty words. Balance is key to succeed. The PO starts with the 1. Mistakes will lose you spots in the ranking, but you probably won't score lower than a 5 unless there are major issues. Also, just because you don't have the most experience doesn't mean you can't win an election. Just run! For speeches, sponsors have my gratitude (especially if nobody looks like they want to give it), and I will factor your willingness to sponsor into my ranking. Rebuttal speeches need to clap back against the opps. Specific callouts of others in the chamber and proving them wrong or expanding their point (depending on side) is going to help your ranking. Use others to climb your way up. This is debate battle royale! I like crystals, but make sure you accurately track the arguments of the round, because I am. No matter what type of speech or what order you're in, there is always a way to high ranks. CANNED SPEECH INTROS ARE BORING AND UNCREATIVE! BE ORIGINAL! I especially hate the penguin intro. For questions: sponsor and first neg is a double edged sword. If you can fend off four attackers and expand your points, that's amazing. If you get picked apart in questioning, it's your own fault. GOOD QUESTIONS CAN UP YOUR RANKING! GOOD ANSWERS TO GOOD QUESTIONS CAN TOO! For amendments, I like them, but that doesn't mean your chamber will. If you're going to try to pass an amendment, it needs to actually fix an inherent issue within the bill, and I need to hear a reason articulated in a speech (whether it's a neg -> propose amendment or an amendment speech) for WHY the amendment is necessary. If your amendment passes I will factor that into your ranking. ALSO: if other people in your chamber have said "hey, let's get as many speeches as possible by not passing amendments" that doesn't mean you can't try, but that does mean it probably won't pass. And failed amendments ARE a waste of time for the chamber. ALSO ALSO: splits are not binding. They are a verbal agreement in the chamber. Do what's best for you.

On jargon: I've honestly never been a big fan but you literally cannot be competitive in certain circuits without it. I won't hold it against you, unless I hear "Senator ___ hasn't proven an internal link for their third impact." You can talk about links, warrants, impacts, uniqueness, etc., but remember this isn't a policy round. This is a mock congress, so try your best to sound like it.

Prog LD

Speed is fine just put me on the speechdrop, don't spread your tags/analytics or you risk them not being on my flow. Also don't spread your opp out, I think it's bad for the activity and I am willing to vote on T shells/speed ks that prove that. That being said if you spread your opp out and they just take it you'll probably win, but you'll have bad speaks and I will tell you that the way you debate makes our community worse. I'm not fond of TRICKS but I'll vote for them if explained. T is fun. I really like K's and K affs, both ontological and epistemological, just explain them throughly (especially for your alt or how the K-aff solves). I think it's important to link to the aff/res with a k, but if you think otherwise prove it in round with evidence. I love method debates on alts. Performance is fun, just please have cards that support how your method of performance is good/neccesary for whatever argument you're making. CP's/counteradvocies that aren't the squo are great on neg, just show me mutual exclusivity and a net benefit the aff can't achieve. I really enjoy framework heavy debate, LD should be about philosophical defenses or attacks of argument. Tech = Truth, you should be telling me in round whether I should value truth>tech or tech>truth if it's important for the decision. I don't judge kick. If you're kicking an arg, tell me that. If you kick an arg with unresolved offense, RIP you. I may not be super familiar with all topics/arguments, but as long as it's explained well, I'm willing to vote for it. Extinction args are fine, I'm just as willing to vote for them as I am for SV based args (again, framing is important!). Evidence is important, but critical thinking is more important. You don't always need a card-for-card response if you have some crispy rhetoric that can cook. Also, READ STUDIES!! Read how a study was conducted, who it was conducted by, what it found, how it warrants its conclusions, the whole schbang. This will give you immensely more topic knowledge and allow you to engage in in-depth conversations. Jargon is fine, it's debate, it happens. Speak well and have rational arguments and you will do well.

Trad LD: Speak clearly and concisely, warrant your args, have good value/criterion debate. I am willing to vote for pretty much any position, so don't feel constricted by your circuit. Run the args YOU want to run.

PF

Evidence matters a lot. Context of evidence matters more, so contextualize it. Partner dynamic is also important, I want to vote for the winning team, not the winning person and partner they carried. CLASH CLASH CLASH! Clash wins rounds. Win where it matters on clash, too--if that means framing, win there and make the rest of the round easy. If it's impacts, do some impact calc to show me where I need to be voting in the round. First speakers, your job is to assert your team's worldview, problems in the squo/aff, and solutions to those problems that your team provides. In the defense speech you certainly should prop up your own points, but the best first speakers I've seen also begin the process of cross application of evidence for your your partner. Second speakers, your job is to tear apart the opponent's case, expose how and why their case doesn't solve/matter, and enforce how your opponent's reality is net worse than your reality in the final focus. I also flow cross, but it doesn't impact my decision unless you tell me where to apply it. Speak well, be respectful but assertive, and explain arguments well. I HAVE NEVER AND WILL NEVER ACCEPT THE POLICIFICAION OF PFD. IT LITERALLY HAS PUBLIC FORUM IN THE NAME. IT'S A FORUM OF DEBATE FOR THE PUBLIC. ANY SPEED/K/PLAN/CP/ANY SHENANIGANS WILL MAKE ME VERY SAD.

CX

I'll vote for anything, just explain and warrant your arguments. See my LD paradigm for techy/prog things.

Email: maggie.kester04@gmail.com for any evidence sharing or communication purposes

-3rd year Speech and Debate student at Kickapoo High School in Springfield, MO

I'm not picky, and I'm generally okay with whatever flow a debate develops, but I do have preferences for how a debate should run and general procedures:

-I'm not at all a fan of spreading. If you're going to make an argument, it should be clear and spoken at an understandable pace. I don't think there's a point in having a debate if it's incomprehensible.

-Evidence is important, but I'm also not a fan of reading card after card back to back with little/no elaboration. Your arguments should be derived from evidence but you should still be participating as a debater and not a narrator.

-Debate, especially with community judges who may not have much information about the topic, should deal with realistic and relevant arguments. Whatever you say in a round could sway a judge in the real world, lay or flow. I still enjoy complex and hard hitting points, but please don't make outlandish arguments when you have a very real effect on everyone in the room.

-I prefer few well spoken and strong points to several weaker, fast paced points. If you have multiple strong arguments to bring up that's good, just be careful about pacing yourself with time so that they don't blur together or get weakened by time constraints. Quality over quantity.

-For time I'm fine with a 15 second grace, but do not go over that.

-I love debate wholeheartedly, and I want to see a respectful round. I know debate can naturally get quite fierce, but unnecessary rudeness or disrespect does not need to interfere.

-If there are tech issues and I can't hear or see, I'll tell you in the chat, I think it's easier if competitors do the same.

-If it's possible I prefer cameras on, but I understand it can complicate the smoothness of rounds and I won't count it against you if they're off. I ask you try them on first, but it's not a make or break.

-I'll get into rounds ASAP and I ask you don't keep a round waiting. A few minutes won't ruin things but rounds shouldn't get backlogged. Too long is a no-show and forfeit.

I'll make sure to give good insight on ballots, but that's all I have! Have a fantastic weekend and good luck :)

https://debate.msu.edu/about-msu-debate/

blaine montford---they/them

blaine, not judge

Kickapoo HS '23, Missouri Revival '23 (ROLL MO), Michigan State '27

email 2 add:

bmntdb8@gmail.com

----

TLDR:

i flow on paper. give me pen time.

clarity + speed > clarity > speed

tech + truth > tech > truth

----

debate nihilist--do whatever makes you happy, comfortable, or what you think would help you win. Debate is a communicative activity, probably, and thus if you can communicate your argument well, there should never be a world in which you would ever need to adapt to me.

currently unhappy about the rise of blatant fascism in the community--if this upsets you or you think it is not an issue strike me. i likely won't be good for you anyway.

i read a lot of critical literature--i'm not well versed in the specifics of your theory, even if i am, no i'm not. i am not an ideologue for k debate. i will vote for whoever presented the better arguments.

irrespective of how you choose to approach the round argumentatively, i will always default to well-explained and warranted arguments over anything else. bonus points if you make me laugh. thus, i really don't care what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, I prefer if both teams engage with their opponents' arguments. I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash. i dislike having to read your evidence to figure out what your arg is trying to say. i do not open docs unless your debate was very close and i need to actually adjudicate something about your ev or something went incredibly wrong and nothing either side said made sense.

----

i prefer k debates that either:

1] contain robust explanations of each team's model and pedagogies in debate and why that is good/preferable to the other or

2] center around questions of which side's praxis is best to resolve certain impacts. what that entails is up to you.

reading an un-contextualized link wall straight down in the block is not good link debating. making a theory of power claim about the world and then saying "The 1AC is complicit in it!" is not good link debating. links of omission can be good if you have a persuasive reason that matters. the cap k link into the k-aff that "the 1AC didn't talk abt capitalism so vote neg" is usually not persuasive, a link, or worth anyone's time to debate. if you read a k please know the literature around it. very tired of hearing people butcher people's work.

I judge k debates like 2004 Jason Regnier.

----

i prefer policy debates centralized on da/case strats---not the biggest fan of teams who proliferate counterplans to minimize engagement from the aff. Katsula's ideology is something i can easily get behind, but i won't vote you down if you "break the rules" per se. i subscribe to the cult of negative flexibility [I'll still vote on condo tho] and still understand the strategic value in both approaches. you do you but if adjusting matters see previous. people like Astrid Clough, Jeff Buntin, Kevin McAffery, Will Repko, and Bill Batterman share a lot of debate hot takes I do in this regard.

----

you should disclose. policy teams saying silly voting issues is frustrating and i have a low bar for the other team answering them unless you can explain why it isn't.

don't be racist, a bigot, ableist, or violent to another person in the room. infringing on the safety of your opponents is bad and i will likely have to step in and make it tabs problem.

clipping needs proof and you have to stake the round on it.

don't steal prep. prep ends when the email is sent.

please flow. people who ask "can i get a marked doc/can you list the cards you didn't read?" when the other team clearly marks cards/a low number of cards are marked.

My background: I graduated early from Bolivar, MO. (December 2023). I was on my debate team since freshman year. I have competed in: CX, LD, Congress, Radio, and IX. I have experience/knowledge in every event except World Schools Debate.

Preferences:

-Spreading is okay as long as I have something to read from. If I cannot pick up key points, the rest of the debate is left for the other team to explain your points. (Puts you at a disadvantage) If I can read it, that'll make it much easier for me to follow and flow.

-If possible, share documents with me as well. Again easier for me to follow.

-Be kind and respectful.

If you have other questions about anything specific let me know!

Good luck, Speak well, and Have fun.

Rylee Richardson

Quick Summary - I am a second year college debater in NPDA, I am a flow judge but will change to however you debate. If you refuse to disclose, you will lose the round. Dropped arguments = conceded arguments, and it's hard to come back from that. Have fun and be nice.

Background - WSP. I'm Pat, I competed in PF for most of my highschool debate career. I qualified to a multitude of post season tournaments in that and did well in policy when I debated it. I am now a debater for William Jewell College and have improved greatly since leaving highschool, breaking at many tournaments and being a tournament champion.

Style - I am a flow judge. Any discriminatory language will lose you the round if it is deemed to be that way from your opponents and the subsequent reaction that is taken to apologize or dispute the claim.. Debate is about learning and having fun, but winning while you do it. SIGNPOST, if you lose me in an argument dump without signposting, it could cost you multiple arguments. Tech=Truth (both will be evaluated to some extent)

Spreading - If you want to spread, ask your opponents and let me know beforehand. When spreading, I expect a speech doc for every speech in which you do with warranting and tags.

Paraphrasing - If you paraphrase your ev will not be worth as much until i can see the whole card

Specifics - "Abuse" - DO NOT use this term to define anything less important than legitimate material violence.

Pronouns - Always use your opponent's preferred pronouns or your speaker points will drop and if it is repeated you will lose the round.

Theory/Progressive Arguments - I think progressive arguments are very interesting (K's, theory's, etc.) and I will evaluate them just like any other arguments

Contact - Email: Pterry4c03@gmail.com

Hello! I am super excited to be judging for you guys and just wanted to give you all a quick heads up about how I will be judging these debate rounds.

Some of the biggest things that I will be looking at to decide the winner of these rounds are as follows:

1. Respect: You need to respect both me, your opponents, and your partner if you have one. I appreciate assertiveness and bold debaters, but there is a line between assertive and disrespectful, you should understand this line as it is basic human decency. Do not cross it.

2. Flow: I am a flow judge so if you drop questions, contentions, or refutes, I will take note of this and this will effect my decision.

3. Speaking Voice and Tone: I understand that there are going to be tech issues now and then, but for the most part, you should speak loudly and clearly. Answer questions with purpose and just overall conduct yourself effectively and professionally.

I will obviously be adjusting this depending on each round and each situation, but for the most part this is what I am looking for. Overall, make sure that you guys have fun, be polite, and maintain the educational qualities of this program.

You will all do great!