To make this short and simple I debated all 4 years in high school and now on a college team and a assistant coach so I know my way around this activity.

i'm a policy maker- so please do impact calc

not a fan of K's

Competition- Salina South High School (KS): 2018-22 (immigration, arms sales, criminal justice, water), Missouri Valley College 2022-2024 (NFA-LD elections, NDT/CEDA nukes)

Coaching- Rock Bridge High School (MO): 2022-2024 (NATO, fiscal redistribution)

I use she/her pronouns, but you can just call me Sage or judge, whichever you prefer

Yes email chain: sagecarterdb8@gmail.com

The Short Version:

Judges should adapt to the debaters and to what the debaters say. I don't like intervening and love when debaters clearly explain their route to the ballot. I decide the debate on the flow, giving me good taglines and soundbites to help my flow is appreciated and will help you. I enjoy just about any style of debate, but I do have some biases and things I default to with certain arguments, these are outlined in my paradigm and can easily be changed with good argumentation. Please ask me if you have any questions regarding anything before or after the debate.

General Misc. Things-

I love theory debates, but a lot of them that I have seen have been very fast and hard to keep up. If you are going for theory or on a theory argument, I encourage you to slow down just a bit. I'll try to be clear if I am not keeping up with you, so try to be looking for my expressions.

Doing impact work is incredibly important for me. I usually start my decision at the impact level, deciding what the biggest impact is in the round and then who solves it better. Starting there and working backwards is probably the best way to get my ballot in every 2AR/NR.

T/Theory-

Default to competing interps and no RVI's

I like to see T as if I am voting for the best model of debate. This means that you need to clearly explain what your interp looks like for debate, and why that is preferable.

Small school specific standards/impacts and bright lines are some of my favorite standards when debated well. I don't have a massive preference on your standards/voters so long as you warrant and impact them out

I don't think I have any real opinions on many of the T arguments on this topic, I do think many of them are a little aff leaning but if you can debate it well go for it. I might be a secret T-Subsets lover...

I vote neg on T when they establish that the affirmative does not fit their model of debate, and allowing affirmatives like that leads to a much worse debate outcome than not allowing it. I vote aff on T when they establish a better model of debate that includes at least their affirmative, if they meet the negative interpretation, or if the negatives model harms debate more.

T-FW-

I think these debates are fun, internal links are probably the thing that ends up being the tiebreaker here more often than not, do more weighing work with internal links as well just like offense.

I'll evaluate just about any impact as long as it is clearly articulated and warranted as to why the other sides interp causes it, weighing it makes it easier to vote for it.

Make sure you answer the aff at some level so they don't just get to outweigh you the entire debate

I like good aff counter-interps, clearly outlined standards make them even better

TVA's without evidence are probably an uphill battle, be able to defend it well

C/A the voting explanation from regular T

DAs-

I love when teams use the DA strategically across multiple sheets. Link turns solvency, internal link turns solvency, timeframe impact calc, use the DA to act as multiple arguments.

Do impact calc, the earlier the better

I vote neg on the DA if they explain to me how the DA creates a worse world than the status quo or if they avoid the DA through a different action. I vote aff on the DA if they show that it should have happened, it has happened, they don't link, they turn the DA, solve the DA themselves, or just outweigh.

Counter Plans-

Counter plans can have a little logical reasoning, as a treat. I like seeing specific solvency, but don't need it, though I would like an explanation on how your mechanism specifically solves for the aff.

I need offense with a counter plan, solving better isn't reason enough for me to vote for it.

Explain your perms and your answers to the perms and we will all be happier

I enjoy counterplan theory and think it needs to be utilized more. PICs and international fiat bad are some of my favs.

Not super familiar with counterplan competition so you may want to avoid it but you do you

Love condo debates <3. I usually flow condo on the CP sheet, if you do not want me to do this make sure you tell me. I can be convinced that a team should not have any conditional advocacies, but that's pretty difficult. I don't really lean any side on condo, but if you read more than 4 conditional advocacies, the more I sympathize with the aff. I like arguments about why the certain number in the interpretation is necessary and time skew arguments.

I vote neg on the counterplan when the neg effectively shows me that the counterplan is mutually exclusive and they can solve for most of the affirmatives impacts and one of their own that the aff cannot solve. I vote aff on the counter plan when they show me the aff and CP can exist together, it has major solvency deficits, a DA of its own, or if you win the theory debate.

Ks-

I love the K and have gone for it in many 2NR's and judged that, I prefer line by line work to overviews but if you combine them be clear about the argument you are referencing. I love framework debates but they can often get muddy, clear framework debating goes a long way on my ballot. For literature bases I have read a lot and argued with, I am familiar with capitalism, biopolitics (Agamben specifically), queer/trans theory, settler colonialism, security/racial IR, militarism, and university/academy Ks. Not a huge Fem IR or psychoanalysis fan, I'll still vote on it, but I find arguments about how those fields of thought are transphobic or problematic in other ways very persuasive.

I'd like to think if I am not super familiar with a lit base I can catch on quick in a debate, but if your K is like super complex and hard to understand, you may want to put it up. Feel free to ask how I feel about your K lit base and how much I know.

Being clear about why the K comes first helps a lot

I think the aff needs to do more than throw their blocks of state good, policy making good, and extinction outweighs. Doesn't mean you can't read those arguments, I just like when teams make smart analysis on how you don't link or in line with the alternative.

Explaining what your alt does, looks like, and how that solves for the impacts throughout the debate will put you very far ahead.

I vote neg on the K when they win it's mutually exclusive their framework and a link (a note for this, just because you are the only side that presents a framework and they don't read a we meet doesn't mean an auto win. If they can win an impact turn on the K that makes it not fit the framework then I won't vote for it.), or when they show how the aff makes a bad thing much worse and they win a way to avoid that. I vote aff on the K when they win their model of debate, they show they don't link or link turn, they win an impact turn (that is not morally egregious), the alt is bad, or a permutation that makes sense and is explained well.

K Affs-

I'd prefer it if the aff defends something, it makes your life much easier, but if you are not going to then you better be ready to defend that.

It is probably a good thing if your aff is connected to the topic, and especially your mechanism, but if you want to not even mention the topic then go for it.

I like argument's related to the education of the topic and good impact work with those

Clear solvency is essential here, be ready to answer the what happens when the judge votes aff questions

Performance is cool, make sure to relate it to the topic and please attempt to garner offense off of it or include it in the rest of the debate in some capacity

I vote neg when they win an alternative model of debate is better and potentially includes the affirmative, the affirmative advocacy does not actually solve for their impacts, the aff advocacy creates more impacts than solvency, or if the neg wins a counter advocacy. I vote aff when they win their model of debate is preferable, the advocacy is able to create some solvency and not create impacts, or they win that they can exist with a counteradvocacy or that advocacy is not preferable.

LD-

I did some LD in high school, it was mostly trad value/criterion though so I am pretty inexperienced with circuit LD.

I am probably better for policy (y'all call it LARP?) and K arguments since that is my background. Phil seems interesting, but I have no experience with it or many of the arguments. I know some Rawls and Kant, but if your phil args are not super easy to understand you may want to read something else.

I don't entirely know what tricks are, if its just theory then great! I love theory debates. But, if it is more cheap shot, one line theory args or just silly args, I am not your judge and more than willing to hold the line on arguments I think are not pedagogically valuable.

I think the rest of my paradigm should answer most questions you may have, but if it does not, ask me anything! I don't really know what a good LD paradigm looks like so I def missed something. I am still super excited to judge your round!

Stolen Paradigm Lines I Agree With

"I want my opinion to come into play as little as possible during the round. I would like to be told how to vote and why, by the end of the rebuttals I will almost always pick the easiest simplest route to ballot possible. You can do this through Impact Calc, Framing debates, link directionality claims, etc. I don’t particularly care what the debate ends up being about, topical or in total rejection of the resolution I’ll be fine either way."- Nadya Steck (Her entire paradigm could just be mine)

"Impact framing is essential for all arguments, regardless of content/form. I almost always vote for the team who better frames "what is important" and explains how it interacts with other arguments. The magic words are "even if..." and "they say ... but". Winning 2NRs and 2ARs use these phrases to 'frame' the big picture of the debate."- Eric Lanning

"I think that I probably will hold the line on cheap shot arguments more often than not, typically one line arguments on a theory shell/solvency flow will not get my ballot. Generally the team that does the better link/impact analysis/comparison will win my ballot."- David Bowers

Background

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

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

Delivery

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

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

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

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

Arguments/Stock Issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CX

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

Behavior

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

Reasons for decision

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

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

In The End

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

I'm a senior at Hutchinson High School. I've been in debate for four years now, and have been coached to know what a good debate looks like. A good debate at the end of the day should be about education, but it should also be fun. We get the education from the evidence. That being said, please understand your cards before you read them out loud. I know sometimes you have to throw things together, but when I hear you read something that goes against your case it will change your speaker points. Reading through it gives you a chance to learn more about the topic. My delivery preference is more of a KDC style of debate, but I can listen to a DCI style. If you can't talk fast, don't try, I understand. Not being able to speed through your evidence doesn't make you a bad debater.

When determining who wins is tricky for me, I like to think I'm a stock issues judge. I mostly vote on evidence. If one of the teams performs with good evidence, good arguments, and impacts, I'm more likely to vote for that team. Show me why you should win, prove to me why I should have an Affirmative or Negative ballot. I love impact calculations. Some big impacts like WW3 or nuke war are hard to believe, but if you prove it. I enjoy a good analytical argument and talking from common sense, but if you can't give me the evidence about how the impact happens I can't weigh that impact against the debate. I enjoy vocabulary, case knowledge, a good roadmap, and impact calculation. I find counter-plans and critics interesting when it's ran in around because it's a different way to combat the affirmative. I don't think Topicality is a huge voting issue, that being said if the Affirmative isn't topical and the Negative can prove that then it will have some effect on the case. Flowing is a key part of debate. We should both be flowing. If you aren't, you're only hurting yourself and your team. That is how you drop arguments, doing that can come back to bite you in the future. When taking prep time, I'm pretty laid back. Things like flashing I don't consider prep, but that doesn't mean you can abuse the time.

I will also not tolerate blatant rudeness. I know debate is aggressive sometimes, but I think being rude to the other team can be a big issue. That includes racism, sexism, etc. If I hear, or see a team acting like they have no house training and are just completely rude you will see distaste on my face and I will write it on the ballot and you will lose speaker points.