Experience: Three years high school debate (Raymore-Peculiar, Peculiar, Mo.); two years NDT/CEDA (Missouri State University)

Topicality:

I will vote on T if the negative is able to show a clear violation and win the argument. I don't like when teams run a T violation as a time suck but I won't punish a team for doing so, nor will I vote on reverse T. Affs should show they are an example of the resolution.

Ks:

I lean policy more often than not but feel free to run kritiks if that is your style. I am partial to more traditional policy methods of responding to Ks such as turns and if the negative isn't able to respond to a K turn, or ignores it completely, then I'm more likely to lean to the side of the aff.

Speed:

Feel free to go as fast as you want but understand that clarity is more important. Some of the best debaters I've ever seen were slow but they made the most of their time by simply presenting good arguments. Giving me one outstanding argument over a hundred weak arguments is preferred. You won't win any favors with me if you read 20 cards that all say the same thing instead of focusing on the central issue.

Overall, just don't be a jerk. You can make jokes and whatnot but you don't have to be rude. Debate is supposed to be an activity for intellectuals and being a jerk just ruins it. Use your CX time wisely and don't try to hurt feelings.

I am an informed lay judge who is very aware of debate as an activity. I am able to flow, but not well, and certainly not at speed.

I appreciate all forms of debate, and I don't mind kritical or performance debates, but I am not well-read in philosophy. I also don't mind if things get a little meta, I don't like it when debate lingo starts getting thrown around without explanation to the judge. Debate should be inclusionary, and when parties are using unknown terminology, the activity becomes elitist. I also end up confused, which harms your ability to win my ballot.

I am a firm believer that public forum debate should be done at a normal speaking pace. If you want to speak quickly, do policy. Even with policy, I prefer when participants speak slower and are more efficient than just trying to get more cards in. I understand the reasoning behind speed and spread debate, but it makes the upper echelons of the activity elitist and inaccessible to lay judges and competitors who may be competing in a second language.

Please give justifications for any statement that you make. If you tell me that something is true, you need to tell me why or how it is true, preferably with evidence.

The more clearly you can link your arguments, the more I will believe what you are telling me.

I debated in CEDA for Kansas State in the early 1990s. Debate was fast, but the topics were non-policy, and topicality was far more common than counterplans or kritiks. I've judged a handful of high school and college rounds since then, including the 2019 Gorlok.

Since I'm out of practice, you should not go TOP speed, but some debaters at the Gorlok slowed down far more than was necessary. The important thing is clear signposting.

Affirmatives should read a topical plan.

I will vote negative on topicality if the negative wins that the plan violates the best interpretation.

Disad + Case debating is a great choice, and impacts are good.

I generally find CP's more persuasive than kritiks. I wasn't impressed with the Death K read in front of me at the Gorlok. If you read a kritik, I will flow it and think about it, but specific links that make it fundamentally refute the aff are important and its hard to persuade me to ignore the aff for impact comparison.

Feel free to ask more specific questions before any debate, and have a good time!

Add me to the email chain or speech drop: gabrielondetti@missouristate.edu

I'm basically a lay judge, but I'm a political science professor so I have some knowledge about foreign policy and related topics.

I'm not in principle opposed to spreading, but I'm used to hearing people speak at normal speed, so if you spread it's possible that I'll miss something.

Similarly, I'm OK with critiques, counter-plans, etc., but as a lay judge I would appreciate some solid explanation of what you're doing and why.

In sum, you can think of me as an informed lay judge who's open to progressive debate methods but not very knowledgeable about them.

Top-Level

Add me to the email chain or speech drop: indirapalacios@missouristate.edu

I am a mostly lay judge, however, I am well-versed in foreign policy (I have a PhD in political science) so feel free to make complex arguments.

You can talk faster, but please don't spread.

Arguments

I am to some extent familiar with certain K literature (i.e. security, orientalism), but again, not familiar with Ks themselves. However, do not let that deter you from reading it. This goes for all arguments. Please make clear and specific arguments.

I am not familiar with debate theory/procedurals, but if you do run one make sure you clearly explain how the other team made the round inaccessible or harder to be aff or neg.

On counter-plans and disadvantages, again, make a clear and concise argument. Otherwise, do as you normally do.

Short summaries overview in all speeches at the beginning on DAs/CPs/Ks/advantages are helpful and will boost your speaker ranks.

I don't know how to flow but I will take notes.

Also, my knowledge of debate jargon is limited.

Conflicts: Greenwood Lab, Kickapoo HS, Poly Prep Country Day School

Greenwood Lab (China, Education, Immigration, Arms Sales)

Minnesota NDT (Alliances, Antitrust, Legal Personhood, Nukes)

3x NDT Qualifier

Octas of CEDA '24

Add me to the email chain: ask for it pre-round.

TL;DR: I care a great deal about debate and I will put all of my effort in adjudicating the next two hours. It frustrates me when I see paradigms that say "[x] is prohibited," but I feel the need to clarify some biases that might impact my judging. I generally am more persuaded by arguments that say AFFs should have plans, that the AFF will be weighed against the Kritik, and that the practice of conditionality is usually good. That said, I have voted for all types of arguments and am always amazed at the ways in which y'all continue to instruct and educate me as a judge.

I will never vote on an argument based on something that happened out of round. I have no context, it feels too much like policing, and it is a shameful use of my ballot. Introducing arguments like this will be met with a 25, introducing arguments like this that pertain to an individual not present in the round (other debater on their team / coach) will be met with a 20. We will never be able to fully remedy issues in a debate round that is filtered through competitive incentives. Trying to rectify these issues out of round, where discussions are more than 9 or 6 minutes of screaming into laptop and the responsible admin and coaches on your team are present, seems like the best way to go. However if something happens in round, you can call them out or stake the debate on it.

If you ask for a 30 you will receive a 25.

I flow on paper.

Blake '23 PF Update: Evidence exchanges in this format are hoogely boogely to me. You should send a speech doc containing all the evidence you read prior to the speech, and it should be sent to both me and your opponents. I want your opponents to have the evidence so they can look at it rather than asking for individual cards. If you don't do this you get a 25.

---

Policy things:

Conditionality is generally good. I will judge kick unless told otherwise (starting in the 2AR is too late). This is usually the only argument that rises to the level of rejecting the team aside from an ethics violation.

T: Counter-interps > reasonability. I have yet to hear a debater persuade me to care about grammar as a standard. Having evidence with the intent to define and exclude is ideal. I am not great for T versus Policy AFFs unless the AFF is an egregious subset of a subset or some other nonsense that everyone should wag their finger at.

CPs: I lean NEG 51/49 on competition; but, "should" as meaning "immediate" has always seemed a bit silly to me. If your CP requires a robust theoretical defense for its legitimacy (Process CPs / PICs) and you win that defense, then more power to you. The same also applies to the theoretical defense of intrinsic permutations.

Bring back the lost art of case debate! Presumption pushes in the 2NR are underutilized; conversely, sometimes there is a huge risk of the AFF versus a small DA.

I am partial to AFFs that defend topical action the resolution dictates and read a plan. I have yet to be convinced that framework is violent and I find myself nodding along to a 2NR going for fairness. Clever TVAs are usually potent. I will be frank: if you have the shoddy luck of having me in the back while reading a planless AFF, the way to my ballot is going for an impact turn.

Ks? I am most familiar with Nietzsche, Psychoanalysis, Critical Disability Studies, and Berlant. Floating PIKs seem suspect and the 2AC should make a theory argument. I think link arguments have gotten increasingly interesting and should be answered more even when teams go for impact turns to the alt. I am inclined to weigh the AFF.

I very much care about the research aspect of debate, although debates will not be decided just on cards. At that point, why don't we exclusively send speech docs rather than speak? Yes, card doc.

I flow CX. There's a reason why it exists.

Ethics violations stop the round and will be decided based on tournament rules. If the accusing team is correct, they will receive a 29 / 29.1 W and the accused will receive a 25 / 25.1 L. If the accusing team is incorrect, those points and the win will be reversed. I think maybe our lives would be a bit easier if you give the team a courtesy email when you find a miscut / improperly cited card during pre-tournament prep while writing your Case NEGS / 2AC blocks instead of dropping an accusation mid-round.

Claws out, however you wish to debate.

If you use suicide as a form of "rhetorical advancement," read Pinker or Death Good, strike me. Goodness gracious!

I have a soft spot for local lay debate. I come from lay debate and I will defend lay debate until the day that I die. Only in this instance am I sympathetic to AFFs that indict the practice of conditionality, although my threshold for voting AFF versus a 1NC with 1 CP is incredibly high. For Minnesota debaters: DCH has been one of the largest influences on the way that I think about debate. Take that as you will. Show me your flows and I'll give you +.1 speaks.

---

"And he to me, as one experienced:

'Here all suspicions must be abandoned,

all cowardice must here be extinct.

We to the place have come, where I have told thee/

Thou shalt behold the people dolorous

Who have foregone the good of intellect.'"

I'm a Senior at Missouri State University and have done a bit of everything. Be nice, have fun, I'll adapt to you!

Add me to the chain, linnzoppolin@gmail.com

I don't know a lot about the highschool topic outside of the camp files I helped cut, do with that what you will.

I take pride in being thorough, and feel that it is my duty as the judge to have thought through my decision to do my best to make the right one, and to be able to tell everyone involved why I decided it how I did.

Top level: If you make me start figuring things out at the end of the round you are going to be upset because I almost certainly think differently about debate than you do. The easiest solution to this is to spend time doing impact calc (be it for an extinction scenario, some form of structural violence, theoretical debate standards, etc) and to write your ballot for yourself in the 2nr/2ar. I really do mean that you should probably say, "You vote aff/neg BECAUSE _____."

Disclosure is a norm not a requirement, but it is also a reflexive responsibility we have to each other so you should probably do it. I am noticing it less in person now, but I am not a perfect flowing computer who will write every word you say, having things in the doc means that I don't have to just shrug and say, "I missed it" if I end up seeing something out the window and lose focus for a second while you're spreading a T block. If you don't send analytics or disclose before the round I to a certain degree implicitly assume that you aren't convinced that it can really stand up to rigorous testing which won't affect my decision, but will make me sad. I haven't had a lot of time/experience to figure out how I really feel that disclosure affects the round from a theory perspective, but if you think its strategic to read I'll listen and figure it out based on the round.

tech over truth usually, tell me if I should decide things differently. Warming good is almost certainly not true, but I'll listen and flow accordingly.

"AND!" (+.1 speaks if you do it [at least almost] every time)

Policy affs - cool, you should solve something.

In "Policy" debates writ large I'd suggest slowing down a touch, with boatloads of cards being tossed this way and that I tend to get a little bit lost. Same goes for flagging where you are, "Answer to ___x___ ---" will go such a long way to helping me give you credit for what you've said.

K affs - cool, I like these either as much or a teeny bit more than policy affs. You should be tied to the rez and should solve something be it in round, in debate, or in the world.

K V Policy - I am a bit of cap hack if I'm being honest with myself... That said, don't adapt to me and do something you aren't confident in, I've been apart of enough K rounds and read enough of the lit base on lots of stuff to say that I can come up with a coherent decision so long as you make sure to tell me what the alt is, what it does, and how that solves a thing. My FW for the K thoughts are pretty generic, if you lose the fw debate as the aff you probably lose absent some really good offense that doesn't require me to weigh the aff, which also means that I am very willing to not consider the 1ac if you're behind there. I have been told lots of times what an intrinsic perm is, still not really sure how its all that different from severance. A lot of perms are severance. Same as everything else, if you think its a winner to extend it, go for it.

K V K - I really like these rounds. Same as the other K section, I've read enough stuff to be reasonably confident rendering a decision on anything from Baudrillard type high theory, to identity arguments. More explanation is almost always good especially as we enter the rebuttals, "how does the aff/alt solve? what does that mean and look like?" are questions I find myself asking and if I have to end up answering for you, prepare to be disappointed. I don't really understand, "no perms in a methods debate."

T - I like T debates. You should have an impact that voting negative solves (IE education, fairness, something else) Limits over ground is my lean on T. See FW for more thoughts.

FW - Debate is a game that has a lot of real life effects and consequences that often reach the level of being more than "just a game." Having gamified portions of our activity isn't always a bad thing, but I can be convinced to that it is for the purpose of the RFD. Oftentimes people treat fw as if it was ONLY T which isn't (or doesn't have to be) the case. Usually these rounds come down to two different visions or models of debate that I have to compare based on what the 2nr/2ar tells me. I do think that predictable limits are good, and that fairness and education are important, but also that there should be room for affs that aren't just, "USFG should." Interps that bracket out K debate from the activity are going to be harder to win than an interp that tries to level the playing field and allow people to do what they want within a reasonable topic. Reasonability is a thing, but I am not really sure how "reasonability solves" means that I shouldn't evaluate your interps versus each other. It does modify how I see those interps.

CP- I know what the words mean, please tell me why they matter. CP to solve the aff and avoid a disad is a winner. They can solve/be the whole aff, or just an adv, do impact work, tell me why the thing solves, and why I pref it over the aff (usually a net benefit)

Disad - politics, cool; other things, cooler. It should outweigh the aff, and tell a solid warranted story of what happens post aff.

Case debate - do it, do it more, it's great. I LOVE impact turns, not sure about how ethical wipeout style args are but I will evaluate it like basically everything else absent a good warranted reason to reject it

Theory - I'm not very experienced in these rounds, a lot of condo is probably bad. (3+ advocacies modified by perf con or other warrants you think should change how I feel) I will accept the challenge of figuring out the round if you think it's strategically right to go for it.

The rest - I will stop the round if you do something really horrible (incredibly offensive, physically violent, etc) I will probably not stop the round for much less than that but will make a decision around something that meets those general guidelines but doesn't rise to the level of my needing to immediately intervene. (IE reject the team args are things I will evaluate, but they should have an impact and be warranted out for me to vote on them.)

I am probably a bit better of a judge for K, by that I mean that the way I just don't have the intuitive knowledge of "policy" jargon which makes some spells less dangerous sounding when cast by a 2nc. Spend time explaining your impact framing, and I especially mean that in DA rounds, try or die is not enough to explain what I should consider when evaluating the round.