Hi!

They/them

If you are comfortable feel free to share your pronouns with me.

Freshman at UNL. I have experience debating open and one year of varsity debate. I also competed in student congress during forensics season. Your args need warrants. Racism, sexism, ableism, and queerphobia aren’t acceptable. If I see any of these you will get the four (or 25) and lose the round.

Please give content warnings if what you are going to say could be triggering.

SIGN POST. PLEASE. Tell me what card you are referencing and read your tags and authors.

Please don't spread.

Your args need warrants.

New cards are acceptable thru the 1ar.

K's: acceptable if you can explain them to me, but I have never been a K debater and I am not very familiar with Ks and K literature, so please keep that in mind.

CP: Needs a net benefit

DA: needs to have a link

Overall, think of me as a flay policymaker judge. (also don't call me judge. Call me August.)

Have a good round and I don't care if you swear but don't over do it and don't be mean.

Put me on the email chain: augustfritton@gmail.com

I will vote solely on how much I like your fashion.

Hello! My name is Eve Benditt (she/her) and I am a fourth year debater at SME!

If you want more feedback than what I wrote down feel free to email me post-round!

General:

• If you are at all discriminatory (racist, sexist, homophobic, etc) I will immediately sign and submit my ballot for the other team.
• Giving the other team a paper copy of your 1AC if you're not a paper debater is annoying and you shouldn't do it.
• If I was you I probably wouldn't read a K in front of me. This is not to say that I don't have a basic understanding of a K, but I am not a K debater nor am I read on whatever rando lit you're giving me...

• I’d rather you underestimate what I know and over-explain your args. If I can’t explain your argument by the end of the round I probably won’t weigh it in my decision.

• I’m okay with some speed as long as you’re clear and I can understand what you’re saying

• Truth>tech

• DO NOT CLIP CARDS. You MUST make it clear that you are cutting a card and if the opposing team asks where you cut it please be able to answer.

• DA need links - I prefer case specific but if it’s a niche aff I understand this might not always be possible. If you're making your links verbally/doing it analytically just make sure it makes sense.

• Disclosure is good and you should do it.

• I will not vote on anything that happened outside of the round.

• Please don’t send over a 100+ page file in the speechdrop.

• Rebuttals are SO important and are where good speakers shine. Judge instruction is really important and I vote on it 90% of the time.

• I don’t like seeing you read off your computer in rebuttals. If you use it to write notes down on, thats fine, but please make eye contact with me it’s SO MUCH more persuasive.

• I am very expressive. Use this to your advantage.

• I will know you read my paradigm when you walk into the room and tell me happy birthday (it is not my birthday but reading paradigms is really important and I like when teams can prove to me that they did).

• CP’s don’t need to solve the impact of the aff, but they must be more beneficial than the alt for me to vote on them.

• I hate the arguments on preferring evidence for relevancy when there’s a tiny difference (aka less than 5-10 years) and I will never vote on it. Unless there was some major event that would have significantly changed a lot about your ev (like an econ DA from pre-2020), please don't make this argument.

• Love a good theory debate. The novice packet gives you your evidence – what analytical arguments can you make? How can you use those to your advantage? The caveat is that if you're bringing something up, I expect you to extend it through the round and be able to defend/define it. Don't take args from your advanced kids without understanding them!

PLEASE don't:

• Run a K if you don't know the literature or understand the alt

• Take prep before CX

• Take prep in the middle of the neg block

• Ask stupid CX questions

• Lie

• Run T without all components

• Not use all your speech time

Things I like:

• Using CX to set up arguments for the next speech/speeches

• Using all your prep

• T debates (I default to competing interpretations unless you tell me a different way to vote and why)

Things that will get you extra speaker points: **don’t feel pressured to work these in, I just think it’s funny when people can make it work

• Being funny (as long as it’s appropriate)

• References to Grey’s Anatomy

• References to Taylor Swift

Basically, as long as you're both respectful and creating clash, I have no preference on what arguments you run. If you have any more questions please don’t be afraid to ask!

-- Info --

email chain - austin.n.davis15@gmail.com

Lansing High School '23 / GMU '27

NDT qual x1

-- Truth over Tech -OR- Tech over Truth --

Tech >>>>>>>>>>Truth

-- DAs --

I don't have any specific preferences on what type of DA you choose to read. As long as you are taking time to clearly articulate a solid link/internal link chain story you'll be alright. Additionally, PLEASE impact out why your impact should be favored (i.e. why your ! o/w, how your ! means their impact can't be solved, etc). Once again no real preferences so do as you please.

-- CPs --

I mean, its a CP so I don't have any preferences besides, please don't read a CP-text w/o a solvency advocate. I'm just going to flow it as an analytic, so the Aff better punish them for this. Make sure you got a solid net-bene or I'm probably going to defer Aff on the perm pretty fast.

-- T -- policy v policy

Now I'll be real with you. I don't like topicality, I find those debates very boring. That doesn't mean I won't evaluate it, and if you are losing on T don't think I'm going to let that slide just cuz I don't like Topicality. With that being said, if you don't need to, please don't read T with me in the back. If its blatantly obvious, then go ahead. Regardless I won't tell you what to do, its your choice.

-- K --

I read afro-pess, afro-futurism, vampiric necropolitics, Taoism, queerness, cap, + ableism in HS. But by no means do I know everything about all of these topics, just enough so that I understand the language and general theory you will be arguing. So make sure you are taking the time to explain your theory, what it means for the round, and what my voting Neg is going to do to resolve or address these impacts. The most important part of the K debate is the link debate. Please try to have topic-specific links. Links of omission (the Aff doesn't mention X-thing so they exclude it) are not good links, but sometimes are all you have. So, if the Aff doesn't bring it up, then I'll give it to you but if they do, you better have a valid reason why you should get this link; but that'll be tough. Rejection alts are alts. MAKE SURE whether your impacts are physical or metaphysical that they are contextualized and impacted out in the round, this is where you will win SO MANY DEBATES. I am a lot more persuaded to vote for an alt that solves or mitigates the impacts of the Aff in some way. Lastly, I'm not gonna kick the alt for the team. If you don't want it, do it yourself.

sidenote: would love to see some KvK rounds :D

-- K Aff --

- have a strong TOP, winning this will keep you in almost every debate you have

- i'd prefer the aff have a topic link, without one, FW becomes very convincing. It doesn't mean I'll vote Neg on FW 100% of the time, but you'll need to really articulate why not having one is good. So, make it easier on me, urself, and your opponents, and jus have a topic link, so get creative. [example #1: Is the topic about nukes? (queerness) nuclear family bad, (anti-blackness) resolution is a nuclear bomb on black folks in the community, etc - example #2: Is the topic about the econ? (queerness) debate = libidinal econ = violent, (anti-blackness) black markets, etc.]

- Judge instruction!!! what is my role as the judge? why do you need the ballot? does the ballot resolve ur impacts? why is this round key? 2ARs, I need you to draw a clear path to aff ballot and tell me what tf u need me to do.

- You should know/understand your Aff, if you don't get it you prolly shouldn't read it.

-- Clash Debates / T-FW --

I'm going to vote for who T-FW. At the end of the debate, you need to be clearly explaining how your interp creates the best model of debate. I think limits and clash are very compelling impacts. Fairness isn't an impact, its a I/L (but if you win fairness is an ! that o/w the aff need for being, good for u, but it'll be an up hill battle).

if aff, make sure you are impact turning T to use the Aff to leverage offense on FW

Unasked for opinion: I think these debates can provide a much-needed discussion about the current state and future of this activity and what debate could and should look like. At the end of the day, we need to realize that debate is what we make it, and at the end of the round, rather than seeing each other as opposites due to debate style that instead we are all just people here who care about debate and want to grow. So, please stick together, and have fun in these debates, because these will be some of the most educational conversations you will have.

Goodluck!!!

Hey, my name is Jacob (he/him)

I debated at DHS for Freshman and Senior year.

I am generally okay with T arguments, it just needs to be reasonable. I don't usually vote on T when its run against a case that is clearly topical.

On the flip side, if a plan clearly is not topical, then I still expect a solid T (with a reasonable definition) ran and extended throughout the round or else I will not vote on it.

Remember to bring up the line by line in the rebuttals!

DA's must have an impact. I do not want to hear 13 off-case with just a link and no impact.

The impacts to DA's must be reasonable, and impact calc must be done in-round.

I think passion when speaking is good, but don't yell at each other.

I don't want any bigotry throughout the round.

I like frameworks because I think they make debate more fun.

Puns can be funny on taglines but if it sounds like its trying too hard then don't.

I value clash, education, and fairness the most.

PLEASE signpost as you go for flowing purposes – let me know what specific argument you are competing with.

Don't call me judge, call me Jacob :)

I prefer more of a real world debate. If generic DA's are all you have to fill time go for it, but try to not have a competition of making bigger an more ridiculous claims so that you win on impact calculus. I prefer more of a Harms and Solvency debate.

Topicality: I will vote on Topicality. I don't really care about standards and voters. Just say what they are for book keeping, but no one will win or lose on standards and voters.

Spreading: I won't vote you down simply because you are spreading, but I don't like spreading. Give me your best arguments and make them strong. Don't just give me a lot of weak arguments.

While I will try to just judge off what you and your opponents tell me, every judge comes in with biases. I am a conservative, so while I will listen to arguments such as the capitalism critique, your will have an uphill battle to win on something like that.

Hello! My name is Allie Ellsworth (she/her), and if you are reading this, I am probably going to be judging you in a debate round. I am currently a fourth year debater at Olathe Northwest and I have judged for several tournaments in the past years. Here are a few of my judging preferences:

Talking speed: Do. Not. Talk. Monotone. Give me some inflection. Use the tone of your voice to show me what parts of your speech I should care about. For novices, I don't think spreading is going to be a problem. But generally, talk at a medium/fast speed.

CX: Be nice during CX!! Do not get aggressive, do not be rude to your opponent. Please let each other finish, or be polite about moving on to the next questions. You don't have to be mean to prove your point!

I'm going to be judging you on your speaking as well as the arguments being made. I will most likely join your speechdrop/email chain to look at your speech structure as well.

Overview:

My name is Andrew Fewins and I am an ex KDC debater who debater thorough-out high school and am from Shawnee Mission Northwest. I am a flow judge, so I tie the vote less to your speaking skills and more to the argumentation presented in the round. It's more important to get 4th speaker and win than get 1st speaker and lose.

Argumentation:

I was a stock debater in high school and am a primarily stock judge. Will prefer stock issues over theory argumentation. Not saying running a K or leaning heavily into topicality will result in an immediate loss just that policy in the round for me is more convincing.

Topicality is encouraged as a last resort check on un-topical affirmatives.

K's if they are the last thing on the flow will still win a round for a team.

Discloser argumentation for me is a no go. As someone whose team did not have a wiki and who personally did not disclose until speech was shared for the 1AC I feel no sympathy if the team did not disclose before hand. It is your job as a debater to adjust on the fly and going it without copious amount of prep before hand all the better.

K affirmative's will be a quick ballot for the neg if a single solid policy issue is presented.

Speed:

Speed: spreading is okay as long as I have your evidence and signposting is done well. It is necessary to discernible language when presenting if you want arguments to go on my flow.

Fairness and Abuse:

Open cross-x or alternative speaker order needs to be okayed before the start of the round. Manipulation of the round is seen as major violation of fairness and will result in immediate vote for the other team. If a team commits and Ad Homonym fallacy you will get one warning. If it occurs a second time it will be an immediate vote against the team that commits the fallacy. Also cross-x should be civilized and focused around questioning your opponent. It should not contain monologues by the questioning team or be a shouting match.

As an open debater, I get how important it is to win the round and try to vote on argumentation issues and not punish you harshly for minor errors or missteps. Have fun and good luck.

Hopefully, this paradigm has been useful, and I look forward to judging you in the round.

Hello, Fellow Debaters

Overview:

I am currently a third-year KDC/Open/Varsity (I do a variety of things) debater at Shawnee Mission Northwest. I am a stock issues judge who appreciates clash both on and off case. However, I will honestly vote on pretty much anything if it is a good argument. I also respect and appreciate theory and K arguments if they are run well.

Speed:

I can handle spreading, especially if I have your evidence for reference. However, If you have essentially stopped speaking a discernable language in favor of speed I will stop flowing. Debate is first and foremost a public speaking activity in which the public speaking ability of debaters should, in my personal opinion, always be a factor in the decision of the round.

Flow:

I will flow the entire round and I will vote on the flow of the round (unless a unique scenario presents itself). I will try to flow the round as best as I can, though I cannot guarantee that all of your arguments will be noticed on the first pass especially if they are one-sentence remarks. Please help me and yourself by extending arguments throughout the round, signposting effectively, and referring back to the flow throughout the rebuttals.

Going down the rabbit hole:

This is my biggest pet peeve in debate. Going down irrelevant rabbit holes in the debate round or rapidly spawning new existential impacts with the flimsiest of links is never going to help your cause. The second you or your team (or both teams) decide to jump down the rabbit hole I will stop flowing. To prevent this I would suggest a variety of tools, flowing the round, going repeatedly back to stock issues in the rebuttals, and sticking to debating overall arguments and not individual specifics within cards.

Fairness and Abuse:

The second you decide to commit an ad hominem fallacy I will give you one warning in the round. If you or your team decides to test the waters again I will vote against you and make it clear in the RFD. I understand that debates can sometimes become charged or aggressive, but please just stick to finding the faults in the argument and not the people presenting them.

Thank you and best of luck, Will

Hello! My name is Derek Foster, I am a fourth-year debater at Olathe West high school. 

I am quite qualified in the KDC-Varsity division, meaning, I absolutely love conversational debate.

I'm more than fine with DA/CP debates ...with this being said, I am not afraid to vote on Kritik's/ theory-level arguments.

having courage and spirit is key to me, remember, you are there to impress me. Not the other team. 

Aggression is not bad, but being mean is not; no matter how good you are if you start to get mean, you will not win (any form of discrimination will mean the round is stopped and the team who commits the act will get a 7 and a loss.)

As long as there is any sort of evidence to back it, Your words will be much more important to me than your quantity of evidence. 

Whatever you do, don't forfeit the round. 

I will give a Reason for decisions (RFD) as long as the tournament is running on time. 

If you read this you instantly have a better shot of winning the round. Good luck!!!

Please do not spread/speed read under any circumstance. I will not be able to understand what you are saying and I will more than likely score you lower. 

Hello, I’m Tyler! If you make an email chain please include me, tylerdhs66@gmail.com, but lets be honest, SpeechDrop is better.

De Soto High School - '23

University of Arkansas - '27

If you have any questions about my paradigm or my judging preferences, please ask before the round as I will usually not answer them after we begin.

Policy Debate (Truth over Tech, in most cases... I'd say 75% Truth over 25% Tech)

Speed

Speed is fine... if your able to do it. Your arguments need to be clear. If a novice starts spreading, I will actually be mad. If your a novice, in the novice division, do not spread or use speed, please... please.. If your case is about accessibility and/or fairness, I would think VERYYY hard about if its very accessible or fair for you to speak at 400 wpm.

Conduct

I would appreciate if before the debate y'all introduced yourselves, and said "Hello" or something similar, so I can know who I will be judging for today. I believe disclosure is a nice thing to do, however, it is not required. I think it’s also a good idea to say hello to the other team as well simply because of manners. I will not tolerate rude teams and I absolutely will interrupt the round if things are getting out of hand. I will also vote teams down racist/homophobic/transphobic or otherwise hateful speech. Please, just be kind.

K/Theory

I don't enjoy K debates, and I would recommend not reading one with me. However, I will never vote you down just for running the K. Just know, you will need to explain all elements very well.

I like other theory arguments but only when they are done well. Please, do NOT just read blocks at me, make the analytics to tell me why these arguments are important (voters are a must). If you hit me with a theory argument without giving me a reason to prefer it over the policy impacts, I will divert to policy.

T

Explain your definitions and make sure the card you use has warrants that actually state (or strongly imply) your interp. Competing interps need to be evaluated in terms of both the definition's contextual value as well as the warrants of the definition read. Explain your limits/ground. No laundry list here, articulate how exactly in-round abuse has occurred or how what the plan text justifies is bad. Explain your voters. If you want to read and actually go for T, I need to see contextual work done early and often. Avoid using buzzwords unless they actually mean something.

DAs/CPs

I personally really like DA/CPs and ran them a lot during my debates, however, CPs must be competitive and they have to have some kind of net benefit (internal or external is fine) that is articulated well to me. Perms must be specific (ie. “Perm do the aff” doesn’t exist). DAs should be unique and the link should be clear. Please don’t read an insubordinate number of offcase positions only to kick them… it’s slimy.

CX

Establish before the round whether or not cross is open, I default believing it is closed cross. CX isn't binding unless you say it is. I'm fine with asserting arguments during this time but, if it's clear you're using this time to have an 11 minute speech, I won't be very happy with you. I ask that you remain respectful. Don't make this a shouting match please, otherwise I'm just going to ignore both teams and nobody wants that. Please remember, arguments can be prefaced here, but do not rely on something that happened in cross to be counted as an argument in round. If you want it to be considered, tell me that during your speech.

Overall, remember, we're all friends here.

I was 4-year policy debater in Kansas that dabbled in PFD and LD occasionally in high school. I currently debate for the University of Arkansas in IPDA.

Policy: I am used to rounds at any speed level and can judge about any argument in policy. All I stress is that you run what you feel is your best option that you understand and feel comfortable arguing. Don't run a K just to run one, make it matter in the round! I will vote on any arg (T, CP, Condo, K's, Framework, etc.). I'm probably a little more tech over truth but both matter quite a bit to me.

Other Debate Events: Use your lay skills here! I will definitely be flowing but I care more about your analysis of evidence and arguments and how they relate to your position under the resolution.

Don't be discriminatory or you will more than likely lose the round. I'm not big on T especially if you are able to run disads, a k, a cp etc only use if truly warranted. I like theory debates so feel free to run a K. Finally, I favor actually knowledge and individual assessment of the topic so I really enjoy analytical arguments as long as they have real substance.

I have been debating for four years

The K

I will listen to and evaluate the k (including performance affs). Accessibility is a very important part of any kritik, as such, be very explicit on what the role of the ballot is and what the intended impact of the alt and/or performance is. A team that is obviously knowledgeable about the kritik they are running and does a good job at framing the round and providing alt solvency can certainly win. However, I will vote on no link to the K and I will default to policy impacts unless the framing debate is done well. Don't be a moving target, try not to perf con or change advocacy stances between speeches (obviously you can kick out of the K but some of those things might haunt you on other flows). I don't love K v. K debates (framework makes the game work) but do what you must.

CPs and DAs

Please be competitive. I like PICs bad arguments and I will often vote on them unless the neg can prove competition/lack of abuse in round. Be sure to have a clear net ben (internal or external) and articulate what it is, I've seen far too many CPs without them gone for. For the aff, I don't love hearing a laundry list of every perm you can think of. Read and articulate perms that actually test competitiveness (i.e. "perm do the aff" isn't a thing). DAs should be unique, generics are good but ev quality is important.

T

Explain your definitions and make sure the card you use has warrants that actually state (or strongly imply) your interp. Competing interps need to be evaluated in terms of both the definition's contextual value as well as the warrants of the definition read. Explain your limits/ground. No laundry list here, articulate how exactly in-round abuse has occurred or how what the plan text justifies is bad. Explain your voters. If you want to read and actually go for T, I need to see contextual work done early and often. Avoid using buzzwords unless they actually mean something.

CX

CX isn't binding unless you say it is. I'm fine with asserting arguments during this time but, if it's clear you're using this time to have an 11-minute speech, I won't be very happy with you. Don't make this a shouting match please, otherwise I'm just going to ignore both teams and nobody wants that.

Speed

I am okay with speed in basically every instance except for when we get to theory args made on the flow that need explanation. If it's intricate and not in the speech doc slow it down a bit, it will help you if I can understand what's going on. That being said I'd prefer you be organized, clear, and slow instead of messy, unintelligible, and fast. I won't ever give up on your speech if you have a hard time with clarity, but just know I may not pick up all of your arguments

email: cici.hunter24@gmail.com

LHS '23

KU '27

For email chain: michaelim2005@gmail.com

Policy General

Debate is a game that can be more than a game, and the ballot is a tool that can be more than signifying win/loss

Disclosure is good (and something that everyone should be doing), and file share is even better (something that everyone should also be doing)

IMPORTANT: Any amount of intended bigotry will result in 0 speaker points and an immediate L, so don't be a terrible person and we won't have a problem

PLEASE ask questions. If you don't understand what my paradigm is talking about, ask me before round

Speed is only a problem once it becomes unreasonable for your opponent(s) to compete. For me, don't worry about going too fast--that doesn't mean you should go as fast as possible--signposting is important

don't be a terrible person

Theory

I love theory and will weigh it first. That doesn't mean that that will be an easy win. Voters need to be extended and are always a reason to reject the arg (only exception is condo)

condo is the only argument I would consider a viable theory 2ar

T

T is very important and I am easily swayed by standards debate. If I am not directed, I'll default to competing interps and weigh the debate from there

Reasonability isn't being reasonably topical. Reasonability is that the aff causes a reasonable amount of abuse

T is generally not an rvi

DA

I'm chill with linear da's or 2 card da's

DO IMPACT CALC & TURNS--that includes how the internal link chain should factor in impact calc

Brevity is still good and doesn't mean you need a 3 minute o/v

CP

Competition theory is important.Solvency is not an internal net benefit and isn't a reason to vote for the counterplan--that includes impact calc

There is no such thing as a cheating counterplan if the aff doesn't read theory. I don't care how abusive the cp is and I will vote on it given that aff offense is lacking

If you're going for a meme/joke advocacy, run it as a k--that makes it funnier on k proper and framework

K

I love kritiks. They are wonderful and are some of my favorites args, but framework is important. If fmwk is conceded, then I can't vote on the k.

Severance is very persuasive on the perm level. I will understand most arguments and it's more likely than not that I kick the arg because I believe severance happens

I debated set col, psychoanalysis, and cybernetics k debate. Don't assume I'm familiar with the lit. I've researched some wacky k's before (STEM, anthro, hauntology, pearl harbor, deleuze, baudrillard, cioran, todestrieb, matrix, etc.) but that doesn't mean I will automatically understand the k

Kicking the alt is bad unless fmwk permits it

I like rejection alts, but material and educational solvency need to be won (depending on fmwk interps)

K Aff

I've experimented with k affs and run a few, but know this: I love them. I'm not a professional, so I need the aff story to be consistent and have a clear reason and strong offense as to why rejecting a plan text is necessary

The advocacy needs to be clearly articulated and have solvency

T is a generic neg strategy, so please spice things up with unique offense other than debate bad--I won't devalue the args if they're generic--although I do believe k affs are good for debate (but who cares if neg is winning the t flow)

Weighing the aff fmwk vs neg k fmwk is messy and typically devolves to impact calc--do that plus compartmentalize

Case

I'm not a fan of primarily stock issues paradigms, but if the round doesn't provide me anything else, I will become a stock issues judge. Inherency, harms, solvency, and t are important

If the aff is exceptionally bad, case 2nr's are fine, but make sure there's offense to talk about instead of exclusively defense

I think human extinction good is a funny arg, but will only weigh it as a joke and possibly as an rvi if the opposition makes genocide/bigotry turns

BTW, I consider impact calc to have 2 levels: the in round impacts and the imaginary fiat impacts and I weigh in round impacts over fiat impacts

Fun fact, kicking the aff can be strategic (and funny), but prob shouldn't be done

Again, ASK QUESTIONS BEFORE ROUND IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SOMETHING

LD General

I debated LD for 4 years in high school, have gone to nationals and was the 2023 5A state champ, so I have quite a few feelings about the activity

The most valuable part of LD is time: maximize offense and be concise always or you'll lose

I debated pure offense in LD: everyone else's value/criterion is problematic and maximize offense on the contention debates

V/Crit

i believe the value is the primary lens through which the round is voted on and the criterion is the means or thesis the case achieves the value

clash on v/crit is super underrated and makes the debate really easy to win

defense is mid for me because i don't have a clear reason to prefer one or the other without sufficient offense

Contention debate

i interpret the contention debate as your opportunity to meet the criterion by a preponderance of the evidence and will frame impacts as implicit reasons opposing value/criterion structure doesn't work

contentions can take the form of policy speeches or kritiks, but i'd prefer if they were formatted appropriately: don't run policy debate offcase, just read it on case or make it a main contention

topicality is rare, but if the violation is egregious without counter definitions, i'll allow it

Again, ASK QUESTIONS BEFORE ROUND IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SOMETHING

Hi! I am Ravnoor and I'm a debater at SMNW. I have been debating for 4 years, so I know quite a bit about policy debate. Therefore, I am quite familiar with the resolution and arguments run this year. Do not be afraid to run different types of arguments, but do make sure you don't kick them halfway through. Please make sure you are respectful while you are in the room. If you are disrespectful in any sort of way, you will be losing speaker points, and there's a solid chance I will vote against the disrespectful team. Please make sure your arguments are listed clearly, for I would like to be in your speechdrop.

Neg-

I love on case clash, so it'd be nice if you have some. 

T-

I'm a fan of T. If the aff isn't topical or can't prove themselves topical, T goes to the negative team.

CP-

Make sure if you're running a CP, you clearly differentiate the Aff plan and the CP. If your CP sounds more like the aff plan than not, I might as well vote aff on perm if they run one.

Cross ex:

Please utilize your time and ask as many questions as you can, if not, at least take the time as an advantage to further clarify your case. Also, be respectful!

K-

I'm personally not a huge fan of Ks but I will not vote against it if run carefully.

Speed-

Spreading is not a huge issue if I have your evidence and if you are emphasizing your arguments clearly.

Flow-

Make sure you are flowing as a debater in the round, it will help you keep track of arguments. I will be flowing and will be voting on flow.

Impact Calc-

I love impact calc and if you go ahead with it. that's a plus.

Overall, make sure to be respectful in the round and have fun!

I'm a senior advanced debator who will be fine listening to any argument you have. I'm fine with spreading, but don't appreciate when it's done badly because a team wants to appear advanced. Only spread if you trust your ability to provide evidence spreading and explain your argument convincingly in the same speech.

If you use speech drop or flash drives, I would appreciate access to the documents, especially if you intend on spreading.

Above all, this is a debate. Rudeness, pettiness, or anything discriminatory won't be tolerated. Just have fun with debate.

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.

Man, just make smart arguments.

Also, No Ks.

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!

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.

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•◍)♡ ✧*。

My name is Christian Skaggs and I am currently a veteran policy debater at Leavenworth High School, where I am co-captain of the team.

The Idea

I usually default to the NEG at the start of every round. Though an unorthodox point of view, I've always been of the opinion that the NEG has the advantage coming into a round. This is because of a litany of various theory that I don't really have the text-limit to get into, and this correlates to the fact that I am typically 'tech over truth'. AFF, don't let this dissuade you, I'm just as convinced by a good AFF plan / argument as I am by a NEG argument.

As for actual issues I weight heavily;

Topicality; Topicality is the most important thing in debate. Frankly, I don't care about any opinions stating otherwise. If you are not topical, you are literally debating nothing. If the NEG can prove the AFF is not topical, they automatically win - but this means you most pose voting grounds as the NEG.

Harms; Solvency is important and all, but in reality solvency holds no ground if there's nothing to solve. The AFF must understand that you need harms in order to have solvency - they go hand in hand. Having harms with no solvency is just as bad, if not worse.

Solvency; See section above. Solvency and harms go hand in hand. You must be solving for something, and those need to be valid in order for any chance at winning

SQ; AFF, you need to aptly explain what the SQ is on-top your inherency because if the NEG has an updated card with an alternative SQ, I must automatically assume your inherency is null either way.

Inherency; Again, see above. Inherency is important, more important than SQ, meaning you need to harp on it much more than your SQ card(s) (this is obvious). Make sure you know what's stopping your plan, too many times have I seen debaters not know what's stopping the plan from going through in the SQ.

ADVs / DAs; These are important to any case, but not essential to a NEG. The AFF, in all probability, needs ADVs. That being said, make sure all ADVs and DAs have sufficient links to your case. Until you cannot link your ADV to your specific case (and other way around for DAs) - I must assume it is invalid.

Ks; I love Ks with all my heart, enough said. Run them right, though. They can be a blessing or a curse

CPs; A counter plan needs to make sure it cannot be permutated by the AFF. This is essential, and if all else falls into place, including your impact calc - you win. Just make sure you illustrate why your impacts outweigh.

Ethics

I'm all for aggressive debates, in fact I love them dearly, but be generally nice. You can be as "aggressive" as you want during the debate, but when the dust settles make sure you have manners.

Overall, just don't be mean (general, I know).

I do not tolerate racism, homophobia, transphobia, or bullying, no matter how good you are if you are disrespectful it will be reflected in my decision. This doesn't mean you can't be sassy it just means don't cross that line otherwise I will stop the round and we will have a talk after your speech.

Do Not Spread

- No new in the 2NC is a bad argument and you will not win on it.

Topicality: Controversial opinion not every case needs to have a test on how topical they are. I have a high threshold to believe T, effects T is okay I guess same for extra T so make sure it is explained well. I see T as a DA to the Case, it is a voting issue just like a DA so if you go for this tell me why T is more important than solving the issue.

The K: Cool run it but the alt must have a good explanation in every speech it appears in. Also the argument "the k doesn't make any real change" won't fly with me, when I vote for policy affs and cps I understand there is no physical action taken there either. Prove why the alt can't solve, run a perm, no link it, and maybe even prove why you solve the issue better.

The K aff is completely fine with me but explain what the role of the ballot is, your advocacy/alt, and how the negatives arguments link to the problems the aff describes. If you are facing a performance K aff than talk about the content in the performance.

Theory: Cool and theory doesn't have to be a minute long block or anything but I don't want theory one liners that get blown up in the 2NR that had no voting issue? impact in the beginning of the round.

Speed: Fast is fine but I reserve the right to yell clear if I do not understand what you are saying or volume if you need to be louder. Also I might miss analytics if you go too fast so go at tag speed on the analytics.

Case: It exists the neg should argue on it and affs should carry through the key points of the case and its advantages. I would love to see people quoting evidence in their explanations and using the other teams ev to link to their arguments. Case turns keep me alive.

About Me

My name is Luke Thomas. I am a sophomore at the University of Kansas studying mechanical engineering.

Experience:

• 1st Year Assistant Coach at St. James Academy.
• I debated 4 years at Shawnee Mission Northwest, went to state all 4 years, and was the 17th best debater in the state my senior year of high school.

Make some sort of comparison using KU basketball and you'll get a bump up in speaker points.

Who I am as a judge:

How I vote: Whomever has the most compelling argument that makes sense and is explained well will win. I will mainly vote on stock issues, but if an argument works, I will vote on it.

AFF should respond to all of the arguments. Perms are fun, but wouldn't recommend if you don't understand them

I will be flowing the entire round, so if you dropped something, I will know and it will affect the result of the round.

I will also have the evidence in front of me, so add me to the speechdrop

Give me a roadmap before the speech

Arguments: I like new arguments I haven't seen before or common arguments with new twists, as long as they make sense.

Favorite Argument: I really like CPs with a DA

Speed: I can follow spreading, but you have to be clear, slow down for car

I prefer Logos and Ethos over Pathos

General

Be nice, build clash, don't drop arguments

Don't misquote your opponents!!!

I am fine with you using open evidence in round, a quick google search is also a good source if you don't have any evidence.

You can respond to an argument with analytics, but unless you speak logically, you won't win the argument. Don't say that I should disregard an argument response because it was analytical. Prove how your evidence is better. Or respond with new evidence.

Cross Ex

The 1AC better know the answers to the questions asked in the first cross ex. This sets up the rest of the round, so you should know your stuff. You can't change your answer later down the line.

Cross Ex is where speaker points are won and lost. If you ask good, compelling questions that either set up a new argument or clarify something, I love it. DO NOT be rude to the other team and ask them questions like they are dumb. I hate it when people do that.

Cross Ex is a great time to clarify points and set up new arguments. Do not go up and ask them to summarize their speech (unless it's really confusing). I would rather you just say you have no questions then let the other team talk for 3 minutes straight about how amazing their arguments are.

On Case

Inherency

• The inherency argument is won with a more recent card and a better source. A combination of those two things will win the argument for the aff. If you have a card from the .gov that was written 2 days ago, that will probably win.

Solvency

• The plan does nothing without solvency. Aff can't access any of the advantages without it. If AFF loses on solvency, they lose the round. The solvency should be rock solid.

Advantages

• They better link to the plan. The links to the advantages are the best things to poke holes in.
• I love all impacts from everyone gets a puppy to prevention of human extinction.

OFF Case

Topicality: Yes, Comes first when voting

• I love it. Run it if you want to and you can make a compelling argument. Make sure you have standards and voters.
• The aff team better run a we meet or a counter def. If T is dropped, you lose no matter what.

Disadvantages: Yes

• DAs create amazing clash with the AFF and I love to see when a common DA is ran with a new twist.
• DA turns are good responses and something to look out for.

Counter Plans: Yes

• The minute a CP is ran, the burden of the NEG shifts from advocating for the squo, to advocating for the CP.
• CP vs AFF Plan
• Run the CP in conjunction with a DA, it'll make it better.
• I love CP, but they need to have case specific evidence if you want to win with one.

Kritics: No

• I hate Kritics. I will probably not vote for a kritic. There are much better arguments that create better clash that can be ran against the AFF.

#InGeneral :

Kate Trebra (she/her)

I am a 4th-year debater at Olathe Northwest. I have debated in KDC/Open for three years. I am familiar with this year's topic and the arguments that are made around it. I can handle a decent amount of speed, but as soon as you start going super fast you're gonna lose me. To win the debate, convince me why your arguments are better and why you should win on them. what can i say, im a simple girl!

Please include me on your email chains-- kbtrebra@gmail.com, or tell me the Speechdrop code. that would be great.

Don't be rude or just flat-out mean during your round. Doing so will automatically result in losing the debate... nobody wants that to happen, right? I believe that debate is a fun and educational activity, which means that there's no room for bad attitudes or behavior.

#Disadvantages :

I love DAs. I think that they're fun and a great way to poke holes in the aff's plan. Again, I'm familiar with most DAs ran this year. But that doesn't mean you can assume that I know everything you run. Explain the story to me and how exactly the aff plan will trigger the DA.

#Counterplans :

I am a slight counterplan enjoyer. To win on a counterplan, you must not only prove that you can solve better than the aff but ALSO that you have a net benefit. Anything that does not reach those minimums will not win the round sowwy . Outline the ways that the aff does NOT solve on the level that they specify, and then tell me why exactly your cp does.

#Topicality:

T!!!!!!! love it! Run it IF and only IF the plan is untopical. If the plan is obviously very topical, and the aff team proves it as such, then I will not vote on T. If it is untopical, go wild! Make sure to have your interpretation in context, voters, violations etc. Obviously those alone won't get the win, but I will vote on T if you prove to me why the aff is a violation of the resolution.

#Kritiks:

to be super honest... im not a k fan! I don't run these in my rounds, but I have encountered them before and that has solidified my viewpoints on them. If you somehow do decide to run a kritik, walk me through it like I'm your mom learning what exactly debate is. I am not that knowledgeable on the literature surrounding kritiks, so be wise when running them.

#AllInAll:

i enjoy debate- and at the end of the day, it's a fun activity! make sure to find the fun in debate for yourself! if there's any questions, ask me in round or just shoot me an email.

EXTRA: if you have a conversation with me about weezer and their discography i will be a huge fan if you hate weezer DONT bring it up i dont want to hear it

I have debated for three years (policy and LD), so I am fairly familiar with lingo and a decent reading speed.

There are three main principles that MUST be followed in the round:

1. Respect everyone in the round (opponents, judges, your own partner) regardless of if you agree with them or not

2. Don't be mean. I hate seeing petty arguments or rude cross x

3. Have fun! If you're not having fun, why are you even debating?

As for argumentation,

I'm a stock issues judge. Tell me not only how your arguments link to stock issues, but WHY it matters.

Topicality- If Topicality is being debated, I will vote on it, so respond to it fully! This is a pre-requisite for a winning aff.

Significance- tell me WHY arguments are important (magnitude)

harms- enough said. I love extensions on impacts (especially advantage solvency)

Inherency- know what your inherent barrier is! If evidence is old, have more recent evidence to show it is still an occurring problem

Solvency- I WILL VOTE ON THIS HEAVILY. Prove to me that you solve (aff) or why the aff doesn't solve in the way they state they can (neg)

I am excited to watch your debate! And, of course, feel free to ask me questions before the round!

Hello! My name is Peyton White, I am a senior varsity debater at LVHS and have already signed to my collegiate debate team as a captain my freshman year.

Cards/Evidence

Cards/Evidence-My judging style is very straight foward. I will only take into account the facts and cards provided within the debate round. I am very educated on this years Policy topic, but if a team can not present any counter evidence or explains how something stated in the round is a fallacy then as a judge I must assume it to be true. Use all your time and if your going to speed make it addable.

Topicality

Aff-If you can provide more accurate up to date counter-definitions I will prefer yours. The AFF team does forfeit its right to define terms after the 1AC if its a definition of importance in the round.

Neg-If the Neg proves the AFF is untopical then they will win the round. This does not mean to sandbag T. If your definitions are not realistic or actually linked properly I will not take it into account on my ballot.

SQ

AFF-Please provide a up to date SQ.

Neg-I will prefer your AT SQ if you have more prevalent cards and sources.

HARMS

AFF-You must show that These harms are prevalent in todays SQ.

Neg-Prove the Harms of passing the plan outweigh the Harms in the SQ

Plan Text

This is important and should be looked at throughout the round

Solvency

If the off dosent link the solvency then it docent exist.

He/Him

Do whatever you want, or read Cuyler Dunn's paradigm (he has a nice personality).