Please add me to the email chain: Brenda.aurora13@gmail.com

I debated for Washburn Rural for four years between 2014 and 2018. I debated for the University of Kansas last year, but am not debating this year so I can focus on my nursing degree. Generally speaking, I am not picky about arguments and speed. Do what you want and I’ll do my best to keep up.

T: I believe that topicality is a question of competing interpretations. I like to see good explanations of each team’s offense on the flow, how their offense interacts with the other team, and why their interpretation creates a better model for debate.

Disads: I’m a big fan, especially when you have a specific link. I think impact calculus and turns case arguments are important. I always enjoy listening to a good agenda or election disad.

CPs: Delay counterplans are cheating. I’m willing to judge kick a counterplan unless the affirmative gives me a reason not to. I prefer specific solvency advocates.

Ks: I didn’t read a lot of Ks in high school. I am most familiar with neolib and cap, but I am willing to listen to pretty much anything as long at it is explained well. I will NOT listen to death/extinction good kritiks. These arguments can be triggering for me and for other people that may be competing in or watching your round. When it comes to links, I like when they are specific to the affirmative and describe how the aff increasing/makes worse whatever it is that the neg is critiquing. If you’re going for your alt, you need to prove that it solves, as well as clearly explain to me what a world of the alternative looks like. The framing debate should be more than a block reading competition, especially if the neg isn’t going to go for the alt. The neg’s interpretation should be meaningful and not just “whoever best challenges (whatever the K is critiquing)”

Theory: I believe theory is usually only a reason to reject an argument, not a team, especially considering most theory debates are block reading contests where no one really explains or understands the argument. That being said, I might be willing to vote on condo if you really explain your interpretation and impact the argument out.

Some other things to note: I enjoy a good case debate. Please be kind and respectful to one another. If you are horribly rude and disrespectful I’ll probably vote against you

Policy Debate History:

1 Semester at Kansas State University- Fall 2009

1 Year at the University of Iowa- 2016

I would prefer to be on the email chain it makes life simpler: AndersonAudi16@gmail.com

In regards to speed generally I can keep up, I sped when I debated. With that being said if you do plan to speed read please do speak up. However if you do decide to spread and are unclear I will stop flowing and it will fall on your shoulders to make sure I am following along with what is happening. If you see me stop typing it generally means I can't follow along and have stopped flowing. If you want me to really remember something in the round slow down and make it known.

Style Preferences:

T: I don't have a problem voting on T, especially if one team does a poor job answering it or completely bypasses it. It's a good way to make sure there hasn't been any abuse in the round, make sure you convince me why your interpretation and your standards are better for debate.

DisAds and CPs: I have no problem with either. With Disads explain why your disadvantage outweighs the advantages of the 1AC, impact calculus is important.

Theory: 99.9% of the time I stick with reject the argument and not the team but there is a .01% that I will vote the other way if a team out argues that the larger debate has been made biased.

K: I'm not against a K debate, I was mainly a policy debater myself. Take the time to explain the alt to me. Real world impacts are much more persuasive to me. I will listen to the off the wall arguments but you may have a harder time convincing me to vote for them. Don't expect me to know everything I was not a philosophy major.If all you are reading are post modern buzzwords the round is not going to go well for you. K debates are not my favorite.

Case debate: I enjoy a good case debate. With that being said. I have seen a fair share of rounds where I have voted Aff because the negative has conceded the aff in the 2NR. Don't do this, no matter what you are trying to hammer home as your final point(s) extend your best case argument(s) over.

Really when it comes down to each round I am fine with all arguments, and try to come in with a blank page. If you are the better debaters you are going to win the round. I will vote on what I hear in that round and that round alone.

Tell me how to evaluate the round and justify it, I take the role of the ballot under consideration when voting.

Open CX is fine, flashing, and off-time roadmaps are alright with me. Don't be disrespectful, debate isn't a space for that, I won't vote against your team for it but it will go against your individual speaker points.

If you have any other questions or need clarification don't hesitate to ask before the round.

Email: sivanibv@gmail.com

I debated at Lawrence Free State High School for 3 years, mainly in the open division. I'm comfortable listening to any of your arguments, but I have not judged any debate rounds this year, nor do I have extensive prior knowledge on this topic. Therefore, please clearly explain any of your more advanced arguments.

In terms of speed, I would prefer slower rounds because that is what I am used to from my debate experience. However, if you speed up and I think you are no longer clear, I will let you know and make it obvious that I have stopped flowing. As long as I am flowing, that means I'm keeping up with you!

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me before the round starts! Most importantly, please be respectful to your team members and opponents during the round. I will not look favorably upon any rude behavior or offensive arguments made, and that will be reflected in the speaker points.

Actors: I like when “interpretations” have a clear and developed thesis. Not just the statement but through out it’s clear. But also good performance is good. If you go for stylized it better be thematic.

Speakers: Engage with the assumptions. Talk good. No nuclear war.

I prefer the round stay policy driven, if you do anything meta it better be well organized.

Speaking well includes word choice and the attitude with which you address your opponents. Don't be mean or condescending. They learned this last week, you learned it four days ago.

High School Debate/Forensics – Shawnee Heights (2014-2018)

College Policy Debate (NDT/CEDA) – Wichita State (2018-2022)

Previous Assistant Debate and Forensics Coach at W. East and W. Southeast

Current Head Debate/Forensics Coach at Wichita Southeast High School

Email: kaylab222@gmail.com

I like clean, organized, and well thought out debates that focus more on the depth of the arguments. I also value and reward teams that engage in high levels of clash and attack the warrants of the evidence. I am a policy centric judge, that has coached all types of debate styles. That being said, do what you are comfortable with. However, I am best in debates that revolve around some sort of policy or plan. The best way to win my ballot is doing clean line-by-line and explain why the weight of your arguments matter more than that of the opposing team.

When debating on the affirmative, what I look for is a team that can articulate a story about what the plan is, how the plan solves, and what the advantage of the plan is. I am noticing more and more in debate rounds that teams are not extending each part of the AFF, with explanations of all the moving parts. Even if the neg does not respond to a part of the aff, your job as the aff is to still extend that argument if you want to keep it viable.

If you are going to read topicality, there are a few things to consider. First, I am a judge that is a sucker for in round abuse. Even if you have to bait them into giving you the link on your ground/limit’s arguments, it is something that I am willing to vote on.

I love a good CP/Net Ben/DA Debate. This is the debate I am probably the most comfortable in, and the best judge for. The only thing I ask for in this type of debate is for the negative to explain how the CP solves the link on the DA/Net Ben, I am not going to be this gracious and do the work for you.

I don’t have a preference on whether teams go for theory or topicality. The biggest thing I look for in these types of debates are 3 things: 1. Proven in-round abuse, I don’t really care for the hypotheticals of “well this could happen” I want to know why the other team violated the rules so egregiously that it made this debate impossible for you to win. 2. Voters, this is something that is being overlooked and I am not sure why. Tell me how and why I should evaluate this argument in the context of the debate. 3. On topicality, I am more apt to vote for T if there is some version of a TVA – especially if you make an argument as to how the tva solves the advantages.

I don’t have much thought on K Debate, well-articulated links and solvency is what I look for in a K debate. I am not the most familiar with K literature, so please make sure to articulate any complex components of solvency or any buzz words.

Other niche thoughts, be nice to people, don’t steal prep, please signpost, analytics is not a part of a roadmap (what are the analytics about?), and have fun.

Questions? Ask me before the round.

Please include me on the email chain; shane.billig@gmail.com

I'm a fairly adaptable judge; 10+ years of debate experience as a competitor/coach. I default to policymaker framework and I am very familiar with CP/DA theory and am generally okay with any generic arguments, but I'd prefer to have the links analyzed to be as specific as possible. In general analysis and comparison of cards and warrants is the best way to convince me that your evidence is superior, and I find that many 2AC/2NC rely too much on reading more blocks rather than providing unique in round analysis.

I have and will vote on kritiks, and there are many times I think the K is the smartest choice in the round, however the more specific your kritiks get, the less familiar I am with the authors and literature. There are some key exceptions and generally any form of IR kritik or kritik of the general "structure" of society I will understand (Fem IR/Cap/Militarism for example). You must explain the kritik, the role of the ballot, and specifically explain the link and how the alternative functions. Explain the kritik in your own words, don't just read a block at me.

On topicality I default to reasonability, but this doesn't mean that I won't vote on topicality, especially if you give me reasons why I should prefer competing interpretations. In slow/quick rounds I am generally able to get citations on my flow, but in fast rounds you won't be able to extend just by author/year. Talk about the card, its tag, and its role in the round (this is just good extension advice in general). With all arguments if I don't understand your point, it doesn't make it onto my flow because you weren't clear, it got flowed onto the wrong sheet, etc then you didn't say it and I won't evaluate it. This happens most often on theory/T/K where I don't understand the violation or alternative or some other aspect of the argument--and the easiest solution to this problem is again to slow down for a second and use your own words to explain the argument.

If the round is going to have more than 5+ minutes of T/Theory I think everyone is better off if you go at 90% of your speed on those arguments. I am not as fast as you think I am, and while it's rare that I'm sped out of rounds, it does happen, and when it does 90% of the time it's me missing theory analysis because you're blazing through a pre-written block like its a politics card. I am more than happy to answer any questions you may have, and I do my best to adapt my judging style to the round I am in. One thing that I feel many teams do is over-adapt, and it often hurts them. Debate the way you want to debate, and I will evaluate it however you tell me to. I'd much rather judge really good debates over K literature I'm not familiar with prior to the round than bad or bland CP/DA debate.

email for chain: brandtaimee@gmail.com

Overview: I'm a 2nd year assistant coach @ Garden City High School in SW Kansas. My day job is as a physics teacher. I did not debate in high school but I did debate (policy) for a short time in college before the fact that many of the classes I was taking had a lot of required lab hours got in the way. I will absolutely flow the round.

Arguments: Generally, debate how you want to debate. I think that the best debates happen when debaters are doing their thing, whatever your thing happens to be. But if you want me to evaluate the debate in a particular way, make sure you lay it out for me what that is and why. I don't mind any types of arguments... topicality, counterplans, Ks, whatever. State it clearly and lay it out for me because, while I try to be a person who thinks about things critically and is aware of many arguments/points of view/schools of thought, I may not always be super informed about whatever argument you're attempting to make. Especially with Ks, you probably shouldn't assume I know your literature base. Debate is a persuasive activity anyway, so I feel it's important that you be able to tell me why an argument is meaningful and should persuade me. That goes for things like k/non-topical affs as well -- I am willing to vote for them and have voted for them in the past, but I think it is important that why I should be willing to go outside the resolution is spelled out within the debate.

Speed: I can handle a relatively speedy debate. If I have to put a number on it, I'd say an 8 out of 10 speed is fine with me. But I have to be able to understand what you're saying, so feel free to speak as quickly as you'd like as long as you're understandable at that speed. It's a speaking activity and you're trying to persuade me of something, so I have to be able to follow. Speech docs help. Making sure your tags are clear also helps. Speed over Zoom is harder -- if you are pretty fast and it is a virtual debate it will probably be helpful if you slow down a bit. Please know that I basically always think that a good team who doesn't spread is more impressive than a good team who does, because the non-spreading team is having to make smarter choices about their arguments since they can't fit as many words into the speech time.

Other Stuff:

*** Stealing prep bothers me (I don't want to be part of the reason things run late). Sending your speech doc to your partner is part of prep time -- otherwise they can open it up at the beginning of your speech from the speechdrop or wherever just like anyone else in the round.

*** Remember that the more work you're asking me as the judge to do during the debate, the more likely I am to miss things and maybe not evaluate the debate in the way you personally wish I would. There are two aspects to that: 1) if I am all over my flow looking for where to put an argument because you didn't tell me where it should apply to, some of my brain is getting used on that instead of listening, so I might accidentally miss something; and 2) if you don't explicitly give me ways to evaluate the debate then I have to do that in the ways that I think make the most sense, which might not line up with what you wish I'd do.

*** Be good people. :)

I have judged debate and forensics off and on for the last 7 years.

Debate is, first and foremost, a communication activity. Arguments should be clearly laid out in a way that allows me to understand, but also shows that the debaters have a firm grasp on their evidence and why it is being used. Pretend I know nothing. I am not a flow judge, but I do take notes in the round.

I don't ask to see speech docs. My decisions will be made off of what is said in the round.

I encourage you to speak at a conversational pace.

\I am a former 4 year debater from Olathe Northwest.

I'm a policymaker judge, if the affirmative does not successfully defend against the impacts proposed by the negative then I simply cannot vote in favor of the plan. This can be accomplished by attacking the stock issues of the plan, or a good DA and/or CP.

Kritiks are not my favorite arguments by a long shot, but, I do evaluate them in a decision, and overall I default to impacts so I'm not going to get angry if I see one, just don't abuse it, and have it make sense.

I like slow flow rounds, and do not like spreading or speeding. If you go a bit faster than the average debater then I will most likely be able to understand you, but more than that is unnecessary.

How to win as aff with me as your judge: Make sure your advantages link to your solvency, defend Solvency, Inherency, and Topicallity with your life, and answer DAs, CPs, and Ks.

I love to watch clash, don't just ignore your opponent's arguments.

On a personal note, just don't be rude? I want to be able to evaluate a round without bias, but if one team is being unnecessarily aggressive or condescending then I'm going to be biased towards the other team, which is something I don't want to have happen. Also, if you personally insult or are in any way discriminatory against another team then I will feel no remorse in siding against you, this activity should be kept cordial and should be open to everyone, not just people you decide should be allowed to compete.

Generally i'm Tabula Rasa, but will default to a policymaker who values stocks if I'm not told how I should evaluate the round.

Experience:

3 years High School Debate

4 years College Parliamentary Debate

1 year CEDA College Debate

12 years Coaching High School Debate

Tabula Rasa but default to Policy Maker.

Please tell me how and where to vote so I don’t have to make that decision for you because you probably wont like it.

I favor quality of arguments and evidence over quantity.

Speed: I am ok with speed to the point that it is applicable to real life. The reading so fast you gasp for breath has no purpose in real life. Slow down on tags.

Make sure you give me a roadmap and signpost! Staying organized is key to a successful debate if you are jumping around and not indicating what you are arguing or where I should flow it may lead to trouble. I will flow it where I think it goes but that may not be what you want.

Analyze cards and weigh their relevancy in the round.

I don't love theory or T but I will listen to it and flow it if you present the argument well and it's explained correctly.

Impact calculus is key in the round and whoever can prove that has the best chance of getting the W on the ballot.

I debated 4 years at BVHS. I am much more familiar with KDC style of debate. if you want me to make a good decision within your best interest there is a couple of big things that would be useful to keep in mind.

Relevant background

I have a Bachelors in Information Systems and a Masters in Information Technology. If you make arguments surrounding the tech space please do not twist the authorial intent of the work to better fit your argument. I understand that this can happen when approaching any topic to bolster your argument but I will be acutely aware of how tech arguments will actually function around the case. While I will not let my own biases overrule how the argument is evaluated in round, it will likely change how much weight I give to the opposing team if they were to question the validity of your arguments. That being said, I don’t expect you to have a comprehensive understanding of everything, I just want you to understand how my background might impact my decision making process.

Speed

Speed is okay, if you consider yourself to be pretty fast I’d say I could handle you at an 8/10 on speed. I am more familiar with slower rounds. Definitely don’t go too crazy wit it tho. I will be flowing, I wanna be in the speech drop and/or email chain. If i mishear anything I’ll be sure to ask. nwclark3000@gmail.com.

Topicality

I have to say this policy topic has shown me that I have a high threshold for the negative when evaluating the validity of topicality arguments. Don’t get me wrong I like topicality debates and I really enjoy a solid line or argumentation in this regard but I’ve noticed I seem to be flowing those args more in favor of the aff teams this year so be weary of this.

K’s

Suffice to say I was not graced with the ability to evaluate K debates very well. That being said, I have enjoyed learning and watching these rounds play out whenever they magically appear before me. I think it’s interesting and fun to watch how teams approach it. If I’m in a round where a K is being whipped out I’m probably the odd one out in a panel or smthn and honestly more power to you if that is the case get the bag frfr.

Misc.

Try to be nice in cross. Theory args are aight, counterplans are gas, generic disads are fine as long as link is good. If the round is a total mess then impact calc can get you the W. Run something crazy that I have never seen before. Please extend the warrants of your cards not just the tags or I will cry and have a panic attack and then I will explode and then die and then nobody will win the round and you will live the rest of your life with my blood on your hands.

This is me when you decide to not kick out of a weak argument that everyone knows isn’t going anywhere and spend 2 minutes in your rebuttal inventing new reasons that I should vote for you on it: Link

Policy Maker Paradigm that also takes T into account. Small town KS former debater and coach, neg arguments I like are DA, CP, T, and solvency. I'll follow anything on the aff side, but if you have a Kritikal Aff you better know how to run it. I expect Impact Calc at the end of the round to pick up the win.

I will fairly evaluate every argument in the round, but I will disregard theory, K, and T arguments if you don't know how to run them.

I debated in high school at Dodge City High from 2000-2004. I prefer moderate to slow rounds with lots of analysis and argument development. I grew up on stock issues debate but lean toward policy making at this point.

Experience: Head coach for 8 years at Wichita Northwest. Assistant coach for 3 years at Topeka High. Debated 4 years in high school. I have judged at nationals in debate/speech events 15+ years.

Speed: Okay with moderate to quick pace. Spreading okay on evidence BUT, I prefer slower and more deliberate pace with analysis.

Paradigm: I default to policymaker. Please tell me how YOU would like me to weigh the round.

Positions: I evaluate Topicality roughly on par with other issues in the round. I am fine with generic DA's as long as the links are explained clearly. CP’s and K’s are acceptable as long as text/links are well explained and maintain competition in the round. I evaluate the round pretty evenly between argumentation and communication skills. You have to have both the winning arguments and the ability to communicate them clearly and persuasively.

Novice Rounds: If this is a novice round, I expect to hear case debate and explanations. Please do more than read evidence. Explain what you are reading, what it relates to in the round, and how it advances your position. You should avoid arguing a disadvantage/counterplan/K if you have never read it before or haven't at least talked to your coach about what it means. Overall, I want to see clash and a debate about substantive issues rather than about how the other side debated. Focus on the arguments not on the opponents themselves.

Email: bcunningham7373@gmail.com

In addition to doing debate all four years in high school, I'm currently on my fourth year of coaching it. I'm open to anything really, especially if you're able to articulate your points well. That being said, I'm not fantastic with K's. I'm not saying you can't run them, just do so at your own peril. It is greatly appreciated if you explain them. As for speed, you can go fast so long as your clear (especially if I have access to your evidence).

I'm a big fan of T and on case, but like I said, open to anything. I'll also pay close attention to any framing arguments made. I vote on stock issues, that includes things like T and Inherency. A more skilled, more eloquent aff team will lose if they drop or neglect something like that.

Above all else, I love good clash and a friendly, educational debate.

Don't be a jerk (I used to have a different word here, but tabroom has since smited me for my hubris), I will vote you down on it.

hey yall

blm she/her

i coach debate at sms, i'm three years out tho as in i did not debate in college (i mostly coach forensics) went to jdi twice, competed on the state and regional level. junior at ku studying strategic communications, english with a minor in peace and conflict studies. work in politics on congressional and state senatorial campaigns- i consider myself versed on the topic/res.

im tired and have no shame left, don't make me correct your prejudice on the ballot.

but anyways,

speed: im cool fast or slow, did both in high school, respect both kinds of debate. imma say this though, i don't actively think about or practice debate anymore so overestimate me at your own risk. no ones gonna be offended if you slow it down a bit.

conditionality is good

t: typically i defer competing interps. i don't think that critical affs need to have tangible solvency advocates to be considered important and educational debates. but i am also sympathetic to framework debates and edu args as well

disads: they are great, i like case specific link evidence.

k: i feel comfortable evaluating the k, i have voted for alt and no alt critical positions but have also voted against them. i think reps are important and i don't think criticisms are material that should be used only for the purpose of offense. they are important for thought disruption, but idonlike when people pretend that they care about "real world impacts" and lie.

cp: you take youre own risk with this, i honestly never went for counter plans in high school and i understand them at a very remedial level. that being said i am always going to try my best to evaluate the debate to the best of my abilities.

i like critical affs and the res, either way

i have voted on presumption before and would prolly do it again

Judge Paradigm: Steven Davis

• Retired teacher of 40 years, the past 15 years offering assistance at Washburn Rural High School, Topeka, Kansas
• “Yes” – old enough to be your grandparent (and then some maybe); and for those in the know, "Yes" -- I dodrive the school bussesthat get us from the school to tournaments, etc.
• I have re-developed -- for me -- a genuine enjoyment of judging in recent years, and I strive to be as fair as possible.
• I hope that my love for all things speech and debate has been evident throughout these so many decades of involvement with these activities.

FORENSICS: If possible, I PREFER PUBLIC ADDRESS EVENTS

I do enjoy listening to and evaluating speech rounds. More often than not, rounds are close and final rankings (especially when points are not awarded) do not show how close some rounds are.

When I finally resolve rounds, I place a premium on those that speak clearly, are organized, and convince me that they care about what they are talking about. In all Public Address events, speakers make choices and thus should "sell" those messages because they do care.

Extemp ...I expect to hear a very well organized speech, with clear analysis and, in the end, support for assertions made. The most important component of extemp is that the speaker provides his or her answer to the question posed. If no answer is clearly provided, and explained, I will not typically rank that speaker very high in the round. Additionally, I do listen for sources and appropriate citations. I am pretty sure I believe that the source — if quoted or paraphrased — provides you a basis for most (if not all) your internal conclusions. I don’t count sources per se, but I expect there to benumeroussources cited and incorporated into your assertions, analysis, and conclusions.

Oratory ...should be presented with some passion, you should really be selling me your message and there should be some semblance of speaking from the heart present. In some ways, I am a traditionalist and prefer the oratory that sets out to identify a problem and then offers me solutions for that problem. I understand that today a lot of oratory is “dramatic” in its presentational form, but this is often over-killed and does not impress me.

Informative ...should likewise be presented in a way that makes the audience truly believe you care about the topic selected. Organization is very important . . . and internal analysis and development is critical to ultimate success. If visual aids are a component of the speech, I need to be able to see them, and they should support the message. Visual aids for mere glitz do not always make the point the speaker desires, AND too many visuals actually get in the way of the good speech.

Impromptu ...a lot depends on the topic area and topic chosen. I do not believe that impromptu is stand up comedy, but do appreciate a speaker that can present his/her/their speech in a conversational manner during which the speaker is enjoying themselves. Not to be forgotten, the better organized speech will be highly regarded by this evaluator.

In all of the above events, I do believe that movement must be natural and supportive of the speech. Movement offers needed transitional support, and too much movement really hurts the overall effort. Additionally, I believe that too many gestures do more harm than good in that they just distract from the message. Use gestures to reinforce your message AND make them as natural and spontaneous as possible. Finally, your delivery needs to be clearly presented so that you are heard AND understood. As is sometimes difficult for the debater to understand, in the Public Address events "Speed TRULY Kills" . . . and conversational styles more often prevail than not.

I hope that each entry in a speech event enjoys his/her/their presentations. "Fun" may not be the exact word I am looking for, but you can truly tell when the speaker is in the communicative zone . . . and not just going through the motions.

ONE ADDITIONAL NOTE:

Although, "Yes," I prefer judging Public Address events . . . but when asked to evaluate interp or acting events, I will strive to do my very best. It is not that I can't, it is just that I prefer the speech events.

Thus, REGARDING JUDGING Interp Rounds:

I have worked with interp students over the years. Fortunately, I have always been in a situation where there was a unique interp coach available as well.

When asked what I would like in interp . . . I think it comes down to the following:

1. I look for a piece that is presented in an interesting manner. The content needs to flow and the cutting needs to make sense.
2. I look for consistency of characters. Are they believable? Are they relatively easy to follow throughout the presentation.
3. I look for a presentation where the combination of facial expressions, gestures, and vocal development blends together to provide believable characters.
4. I am not opposed to movement, but I prefer that the presentation be confined to a limited area. In a sense, I still believe that except for Duo, these are INTERPRETATION events, and the primary presentation should be focused and confined to a small area in front of one's audience.
5. A note about PRO/POE/POI. After judging at nationals last two years ago, I had an epiphany. This really regards the use of your notebook as a prop. I still hope that the notebook is somehow incorporated to suggest you are "reading" material, but I also understand and accept the notebook as a potential prop to be used during your performance.
6. In the end, I believe I know what I like, and I will rank student performances accordingly; and when the situation presents itself, I will try to explain why I ranked students as I did. Please understand that I know with 100% accuracy that my views and another judge’s views may not coincide. And that is OK by me! It is, in part, the reason why we have multiple judges in a round.
7. AND in situations where we rank performances without any other type of evaluation (like points), I hope that all competitors understand that the section will no doubt have numerous very, very good performances, yet I have no option to give a tie, I must rank top to bottom. This is the way it is! I can only promise performers that I will try to do my very best in making my final ranking decisions.

Good luck! The best to you in your future forensic endeavors! I truly hope you enjoy yourself during your presentation!

My main concern when judging a round is whether or not I can understand what is being said. If a speaker stumbles over a lot of words when reading a case, it shows lack of preparation for the round. If you use vocabulary that is not in everyday language, you should define what you referencing, especially if you are using acronyms. I appreciate when the arguments have a nice flow to them. Evidence is extremely important to me. I like to see good sportsmanship, so being polite to the other team is key.

I've been the head Debate and Forensics coach at Shawnee Mission North High School for 11 years.

The most important thing I look for in a debate round is politeness and manners. I get extremely irritated when debaters are rude or condescending. That being said, I do not shake hands, but will gladly exchange smiles and pleasantries.

As a judge, I would describe myself as a policy maker, but I am still working on my flowing. I prefer traditional arguments over critical arguments.

In general, make smart arguments, and I will listen. I follow moderate speed, unless you are unclear. If I can no longer follow, I will stop flowing. Please feel free to ask me any other questions you may have.

Hello there! I have the privilege of serving as your judge. I hope you'll find the information below useful.

Experience: I debated for four years in high school and currently serve as the assistant debate coach for Olathe West.

What I look for in the round: Since every debate round is so different in terms of argumentative focus, I appreciate it when teams specifically tell me what I should be voting for/on. For me, the best rebuttals, regardless of the level of debate, are the ones that include specific appeals to the judge to vote a certain way.

Speed preference: I'm okay with speed as long as you are clear. I need to be able to get taglines, authors, and dates down on my flow.

Topicality: If you feel there's a pretty serious violation that is preventing you from creating adequate clash, run it.

DAs: With solid analysis, disadvantages are great.

CPs: If it's consistent with the negative strategy, go for it.

Kritiks/theory: If you run a Kritik, you better know what you are talking about. Please don't run one if you are simply just trying to throw off the other team. Moreover, if you choose to make a critical argument, please make it worth everyone's time. I tend to find debates that are dominated by abstraction and epistemology unsatisfying, especially when I get the feeling that there's little substance behind the convoluted language. That said, I can appreciate a Kritik if it highlights a flawed assumption that is specific to the language and logic of the Aff case. Specific links will go a long way with me.

Decorum: Be kind and respectful to your opponents and judges. The people that are involved in this activity do it because they enjoy it. Please don't kill that enjoyment by being rude or unkind during a round.

Misc: Debate to your strengths. The best rounds involve great clash and top-tier strategy. If you need to ignore parts of my paradigm in order to make that happen, please, be my guest.

Lastly, clarity is huge to me. Explain your evidence; explain what your argument is; explain what arguments you are countering; and explain what I, as the judge, should consider when formulating my decision.

I'm an assistant coach at Blue Valley West. I also debated in high school a million years ago.

Don't speak super fast. I need to be able to understand what you are saying.

I will be flowing the debate. I should see you flowing the debate as well.

Please label ALL off-case arguments in the 1NC. It's confusing and bothersome to me if you don't.

I don't like disclosure debates- you should always disclose before the round starts unless breaking new.

CPs and DAs are fine- the links should be clear.

I usually don't vote on T.

Framework- Tell me why I should frame the debate the way you tell me to.

K- I am okay with you running one as long as it's explained really well.

Dropped arguments in the round- please try not to do this.

Avoid saying the other teams arguments are "abusive".

I value quality over quantity. Please don't read cards the whole time!

If you have questions, please ask!

aflowers141@gmail

Debated through high school and for one year at the University of Kansas.

I would say that I'm a hybrid stock issues/policy maker but with a strong policy-maker lean. However, I'm also there to arbitrate your arguments, so if you want me to apply another paradigm, as long as you can cogently argue it and convince me why I should change, I'm flexible and willing to change for the round.

I will accept the K, provided you capably understand it and can demonstrate that understanding to me and translate your understanding to a compelling rationale for voting for it. I tend to flow Kritikal arguments similarly to disads. Seriously. Spoon feed me the K and I will happily vote on it, but you should assume my understanding is, um, "not advanced." Here is where I blatantly steal a line from the paradigm of Jeff Plinsky: My policy maker lens is difficult for me to put down here, so you had better be able to tell me how your advocacy can actually solve something. In a K v K debate, this still applies - you need to prove you actually solve something.

I will accept generic disads, but try to have them link. Specific disads are always better and with what seems like functionally all affs available via wiki, there's no reason not to do the research to find a specific link. In evaluating disads, my natural inclination (which you can overcome) is to prefer realistic impacts even if they are small, to enormous but highly attenuated impacts such as multiple extinction events/cannibalism/nuke wars/etc. I don't like to count who has the highest number of nuclear exchanges at the end of the round, but if I have to, I will.

I am a dinosaur and, as such, value topicality. I will almost certainly not make topicality a "reverse voter" and give the aff a win if the only thing they've accomplished is to beat neg's T arguments. However, I will vote neg on T only, assuming neg wins it. In line with my feelings on T, before you run a PIC, ask if the aff is topical. Please note: I am not telling negative teams that I want them to run topicality. That is your decision. I am just telling you that I will vote on it if you win it.

Speed is fine and I can usually follow and flow very fast debaters. If I am holding a pen, even if I'm not writing at any given moment, I am following you. If I have put down my pen, it means you've lost me and should probably back up or make some other effort to get me back. I greatly prefer closed cross; my view is that you should be able to spend three minutes defending the speech you just delivered. While speed is fine, in my position as a dinosaur, I still value rhetoric and persuasion. If you're a compelling speaker, let that shine. Group the other side's arguments and go slower and compel me to vote for you.

Again indulging my prerogative: I not only accept, I encourage new in the two. It's called a "constructive" speech for a reason. Go ahead and construct. Similarly, I will accept add-on advantages from the aff and internally inconsistent arguments from the neg as long as they have kicked out of whatever makes them inconsistent and still allows the affirmative a chance to respond by the end of the round. Do not abuse this. If I think that you're purposely spreading them with inconsistent arguments just to force them into a time suck and not running the argument in good faith, I will not be happy about it and you will bear the consequences of my unhappiness. For example: I once watched a team run the thinnest of topicality shells in the 1NC. They basically did little more than say "topicality" and read one definition and that was it. No voters, no standards, no warrants. That forced the aff to answer in the 2AC and left the neg in a position to have forced the timesuck or blow up topicality in the 2NC. That, to me, was faithless argumentation by the neg. Don't do that.

As befitting a Gen X'er, I value courtesy and think you can absolutely hammer someone and not be a d**k about it. Play nice. Being a jerk probably won't earn you the loss, but I will punish you on speaks if your conduct warrants it. This is intended to be a very strong warning against racism, ableism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia. Engaging in those things will get you an L even if you might have otherwise won the round. My politics lean left, but I consciously try to monitor and check my biases. If your best argument is something that I would not support in real life, you can run it and know that I will make every effort to fairly consider the argument, the way you argue it and its merits in the debate.

On vagueness and topicality: I have noticed a trend where the aff's plan text is essentially the text of the resolution but with a specific "whatever" (country, program, etc.,) stated within the "plan." This is not a plan. It is vague and if the aff is not willing to specify what they are or are not doing/curtailing/removing/adding/replacing, then I will absolutely be open to the argument that they are unfairly claiming and denying territory necessary to allow a fair debate. I won't vote on this if no one brings it up, but I think it's fair to expect an affirmative case to actually specify what it will do. Edited to add: I REALLY MEAN THIS ONE. I find it very frustrating when an aff not only doesn't say in the 1AC what it is exactly that they're doing, but then refuse to answer (or not know the answer) when asked about it on cross. Affs should not do this and negs should beat the snot out of any aff that tries this.

Thoughts on the email chain: I do not want to be on it. This is still a verbal activity. If you say something clearly and intelligibly enough for me to hear it, I will hear it and flow it. From time to time I might ask you (during prep, for example) to give me your tag or the name of the person cited. But if you say something so unintelligible that I can't understand it, I won't credit you for having said it and the fact that it might be on the email chain isn't going to change my mind. I might ask you to show me a card or cards at the end of the round so that I can make sure it says what I think it says or what you say it says. But I don't like the notion of crediting a verbal statement because I read it in an email.

Bottom line: I'm the arbiter of your arguments. While the above is a statement of my preferences, I'm more than happy to judge a debate outside those boundaries and you should feel free to argue your best stuff if I'm your only judge. If you find me on your panel, you should consider going for the other judges as I consider myself to be highly adaptable and can judge a round geared for lay judges and I can also judge one geared to impress college judges.

Thank you for allowing me the privilege of watching and judging your debate.

Email: ian_haas@live.com

Hi! My name is Ian Haas. I debated for 3 years in high school at Lawrence Free State, primarily in the Open/KDC division. I’m a few years removed from this time so be sure to still explain your more complicated arguments well. I’m chill with anything you want to run as long as you explain and support it well. Everything that is bulleted below represents preferences, but I’ll vote on anything if you convince me it’s worth voting on.

• I think cohesive storytelling is important, particularly toward the end of the debate. I prefer when teams write my ballot for me in the rebuttals.
• Impact calculus is always good to summarize where we are in the debate.
• Truth informs tech. In the line by line, dropped arguments should be pointed out explicitly and the importance explained if you want me to vote on them. I probably won’t vote on a dropped argument on the flow if it’s not acknowledged by anyone.
• With speed, I’m more comfortable with slower rounds because that’s how my debate experience was. I can handle some speed, but if you’re going too fast for me, I’ll let you know and make it obvious I’m not flowing. If I’m flowing, I’m keeping up with you.
• Smart analytical arguments are good.
• Obviously, be nice. Excessive rudeness and whatnot can/will be reflected in speaker ranks.

These are all just preferences. The biggest thing is that you actually win the debate. Again, I’ll vote on anything or for anything if you convince me it’s worth voting on or for.

please add me to the chain– kareemhammouda@gmail.com

I’m a junior at KU. I debated in high school (open). For the 3 years since I’ve been coaching at SMS, mostly working with novices/2nd years. The extent of my knowledge on the topic is the novice case-list.

Because I did open, i’m most comfortable in slower debates.

I'm most familiar with policy oriented arguments, as this is the extent of my experience; However, I am absolutely open to other arguments as long as they are explained well.

Please be organized, signpost, provide roadmaps, etc.

Tell me how you want me to evaluate this round–ex. impact calc is important.

Disclosure is good

Cut cards ethically

Don't clip (I pay attention)

Racism/sexism/ other isms won’t tolerated, and will lose my ballot

TLDR; I’m a policy maker fLAY judge

If you have any specific questions let me know!

I lean towards the stock issues paradigm (Topicality, Significance of Harm, Inherency, Solvency, Advantage over Disadvantage)

Former three year debater at Olathe South High School and current assistant coach there as well.

I've debated in both KDC and DCI divisions so I'm down for any style of debate.

Big Picture:

Tech>Truth

Judge instruction is very important to me. I want to flow the round with minimal judge intervention, this means that I want you to explain to me why I should prefer your arguments, what I should vote for in the round, etc.

This means that you should run with what you feel the most confident and comfortable with. However, if you don't provide me with a way to vote in the round I will just default policy maker.

Personally, I believe that debate is a game of offense and defense. Offense for both teams is very important to win the round for me.

Impact Calc is a must.

A team is much more likely to win my ballot if they have a clean flow. This means having great signposting, line by line, and clash.

Extending and explaining warrants would be nice.

I understand that this is a competitive activity and for me it's cool to be laid back but I request that the debaters are still respectful to each other inside or outside the round.

If you have any questions about my paradigm or my decision, please feel free to ask me anything.

Disadvantages: While it is true that the more recent your uniqueness is, the more likely I am to weigh your argument and the DA but old-ish ones work fine too. That being said, I hate when a team just says that I should prefer their evidence because the opponent's card is "outdated". The team must explain to me in context as to why it matters that one card is newer then the other (what about the more recent world has changed?). Obviously the more specific your link, the more likely I am to weigh the DA but generic links work too if you make them. I feel that lately debaters have been treating these types of debates as separate piece from the case flow. Both teams should articulate how/why the DA interacts with the case. This includes impact calc which is severely under utilized. I'm most likely to vote on this flow if its connected to the aff case instead of being a floating argument for me to evaluate. Aff teams should also be looking to turn disads into advantages for the case instead of only playing defense. I am also a huge fans of both link and impact turns on disads and take them very seriously if the aff plans on running them in the round. If the aff does end up going for or winning on a link or impact turn, just make sure to fully explain to me what means for the debate round as a whole. I want you to treat it as if you have just won a new free advantage for your case.

Topicality: I believe that the best style of T debate is one where the main focus of the debate is around the standards and voters of T. In order for me to vote on T, I would need a team to put a heavy amount of the debate on the standards or voters. For me, T is not an automatic voting issue, if a team does a well enough job on the voters flow, I can be convinced that it doesn't matter if the aff isn't topical since there is no reason to vote for T. Also, I fully believe that T is not a reverse voting issue. If nothing else is specified, I default competing interps over reasonability.

Counterplans: I think the best way to convince me whether to or not to vote on a counterplan is do compare the solvency of the aff to the solvency of the counterplan in order to prove which one solves the impacts better. I'm cool with all types of counterplans such as PICs, delay, consult, etc. I find myself leaning towards the negative's side on the argument of whether or not some counterplans are abusive or not. That being said, I'm willing to vote on any type of counterplan theory if done right. Perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy.

Kritiks: The Kritiks that I have a decent amount of knowledge or experience with are security, militarism, capitalism, set col, and anthro. Don't just expect me to know everything about the K and make sure to really go in depth in explaining how it works. My preference on links is pretty generic as I would prefer you to use specific links but generics are fine as long as you are prepared to defend them. For impact, I would want you to do lots of work on how that impact affects the case by doing case turns or impact calculus. Even though it is important to include some work on the alt by including some good comparative solvency in it, it is not the most important thing for me. While having a good alt would obviously make the K a lot stronger, I would be fine for voting for a K with a weak alt if the impact is fleshed out enough to completely outweigh or turn the aff case. If your impact is just destroying the other team, then I don't really think you need that good of an alt but just make sure you give me some kind of an alt such as reject the aff so I have some kind of alt to even vote on. Even though I am not that big on the alt, I do need some kind of an alt in order for me to vote for the K.

Kritikal Affirmatives: A lot of my thoughts here are similar to my thoughts on Kritiks as well. This does not mean that I won't vote on K-Affs as I have before. Overall, I think the most important thing to K-Affs to me is judge instruction. Specifically, the aff team needs to tell me what I am voting for and what my ballot does for the debate round and how that ballot or the 1AC solves. This means that role of the ballot is very important to my vote and should be clear what it is in the 1AC. I prefer that your K-Aff is related to the resolution somewhat instead of just debate as a whole and for the aff team to be fully explain what they are exactly rejecting or critiquing.

Framework: When I debated, this was my favorite part of the K debate so I do enjoy seeing a good FW round. How I feel about FW debates is pretty much the same way as I feel about T debates. While it is of course important to talk about all of FW, I believe that the majority of the debate should be on the standards/voters/impacts of FW. The debates of FW should be impacted out to not only this debate round, but also debate as a whole. I think the best way for teams to argue FW is for them to use their impacts on the flow as offense. Unless the neg can make a really compelling we meet argument, I find it extremely hard to see myself voting for the neg on K if they lose FW.

Theory: Unless the other team is obviously extremely abusive in the round for whatever the reason, for me theory is a hail mary. That means that if you go for it, you better go all the way and make it the voting issue in the round. For less abusive theory arguments, I generally default reject the argument over reject the team but I am willing to reject the team if I am convinced so. Specifically on condo, I do find that my threshold for condo is extremely high, I believe that debate is ultimately a game and the neg has every right to take advantage in this game and run as many off-case positions as they want. That doesn't mean I won't vote on condo though, the aff just needs to have an argument explaining why this model of the game is bad for debate as a whole.

On Case: The only real arguments for me for the on case are purely solvency based ones. Lately, I have been finding it very hard for me to vote for a negative team with no offense and their sole argument being that the case doesn't solve. If worst case scenario for passing the aff is simply that it doesn't solve while best case scenario is gaining X and Y impacts, then I'm gonna feel pretty comfortable voting aff. For me, solvency deficits mainly help you win your probability arguments on impact calc. Besides solvency, I think that case turns are very useful as on case arguments as well. Overall, solvency arguments can be effective, but offense is also needed as well in order to gain my ballot.

Speed: I'm cool with spreading or going as fast as you want as long as you're clear and slower on tags, authors, analytical arguments, and theory. I expect for debaters to slow down a bit if they are reading from a pre made block on their computer. That being said, I don't expect perfect clarity with spreading but I want at least to understand it somewhat so it's not just straight gibberish.

Speaks: I decide speaks based upon argumentation not necessarily presentation. Obviously some speaking ability is factored in, but I’ve gotta be fair to the 1As out there.

People seem to misunderstand this so I'm putting this at top to make it clear. I will vote on any argument because I am tech > truth. Run what you are comfortable with. These are just my general thoughts about debate. Don't run an argument that you think I would like just because. If you don't know how to run it properly you probably won't win.

hudsonhrh7@gmail.com put me on email chain or email me any questions

General:

He/him. I debated at Olathe Northwest for 4 years. I'm now an assistant debate coach at ONW for 2 years. I competed in both policy and LD. Debate should be an activity for everyone, and if you prevent that from happening in the round, I will vote you down. I have done a pretty even mix between DCI and KDC, but I would definitely prefer to judge a DCI style round.

I am fine with speed but I would prefer if you slowed down for tags, analytics, and theory especially because I'm not debating anymore.

I'm tech>truth maybe too much

I hope I can make my biases clear. Even though I say there are arguments I do and don't like that doesn't mean I won't vote for these arguments, so please run whatever you are comfortable with because that will make the most educational round for all of us. I will do my best to adapt the debaters in the round. So, if you prefer to run policy arguments that's fine too. If you run weird arguments go for it. However, I will not vote for any racism/sexism/ableism/homophobia good or any similar argument.

Please ask me questions about my paradigm before the round!!!!

Disadvantages:

I never really used these in flow rounds when I debated because I don't think they are good arguments compared to other things that could be run. That doesn't mean I don't know a lot about DA's. I would run some pretty specific and weird disadvantages when I debated. Generic links are okay but can be easily defeated by a smart team. I'll listen to politics disadvantages but this is not the round I would like to see. Theory against DAs can be cool.

Impact turns:

I like impact turns because I feel like they are underused. I ran heg bad a lot and ddev sometimes.

Counterplans:

Rarely used counterplans but when I did they were usually really abusive. PICs are fine. Delay and consult counterplan are less fine and you should watch out for theory but still acceptable. Perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy. Theory is fun I will vote for anything if you do it right.

Kritiks:

I ran one-off ableism a lot, usually attacking language, representations, and generic links to the topic. I also am very familiar with fem, intersectionality, Nietzche, and cap/neo-lib.I have read some Baudrillard, psycho-analysis, and afro-pess lit so I understand most of the concepts, but don't expect me to be familiar with all the different niches. I am comfortable judging all types of rounds.

Doesn't need an alt if you can impact out how the K turns the aff, wins framework, or gives me a reason to ignore the affirmative impacts. PIKs are acceptable especially for language/reps Ks.

Floating PIKs are maybe abusive but you can win the theory on that by using your K as an offense or any other way but it is still a risk you have to be willing to take. Please explain your alt and how it solves. The ballot can be alt solvency if needed and explained. Severance on perms is a voter but be careful how this interacts with other theory-based arguments you have already made on why we shouldn't be looking at education or fairness etc.

K-affs:

I ran a k-aff with a plan text that would either fiat my alt or I would kick plan later in the round after reading a K. Your plan doesn't have to relate to the resolution, but it would be preferable if it does. If you are negative against a k-aff your best strategy with me as the judge would be to run a K. I feel like lots of teams put themselves in a position where they are defending policy or the state action which the aff team probably has prepped against. Running a K makes the framework debate easier, will catch the team off guard, and can turn the aff. I do think switch side debate can be good. Not too familiar with performance affs but I am very intrigued by them if you want to run it please do

Topicallity:

I love a good technical T debate and will vote on T even if the plan is perfectly topical if the neg has good impacts.

I default to competing interpretations. I belive your interpretation is your model of debate and that voting on T is meant to prevent certain affs from being run debate wide. I don't think a definition needs to be contextual to the resolution. If by the end of the round it produces the most [insert T voter here] than I will use that defintion to evaluate the round.

I feel like a lot of teams think that a dropped standard means they won T. Think of it like conceding the other teams solves for 500 lives when you solve for 1000 lives. If you don't articulate how that conceded standard acceses the T impact the most you won't win the round. For example if they concede a limits standard it would be smart to go all in on depth>breadth. It is also good to impact out voters, ie people quit debate which means education is decreased writ large. K teams feel free to impact turn T thats always a fun time. I will vote on time skew RVIs, but I also believe that topicallity is not an RVI most of the time unless they are running multiple interps. RVI's can also be abusive. Basically, I am open to any theory argument if you can argue it well.

Theory:

You can run theory agaisnt anything if you believe hard enough. That being said you have to have a good impact that is clearly articulated by the need of the round

I love theory arguments and would like to see an in depth debate here. I will vote on blippy dropped theory arguments if all the parts are included (need to see some resemblance of interp some standard and voters) and it is thoroughly impact it out in the round. If you drop a theory argument your best way to win is weighing your inherent voters and trying to claim education gained (or some other voter) outweighs the education lost. Theory spikes aren't used as much in policy but I think they are cool and test a teams ability to flow and respond to every argument. Might be abusive tho. A lot of the stuff I said for topicallity applies here.

Only place I intervene is obvious egregious clipping and won't allow new args in the 2nr(unless justified) or 2ar (never allowed even with justification unless justification is in previous speech then it wouldn't be new arg)

Stock issues:

Inherency/harms/significance is only a voter(most of the time) if the plan is already happening. Please impact out why this is a voter because the affirmitive can still generate offense off of advocating for a plan that already exists. I think circumvention arguments are cool and will vote on them if they are sufficient (don’t think durable fist applies to everything the aff will claim). Solvency deficits are good and underused arguments and remember to bring them up when weighing impacts.

Framing:

I don’t default to a utilitarian framework for evaluating impacts, and don't believe magnitude outweighs probability by default. I don't think I ever ran a extinction impact unless I had to throw together a crappy DA because the judges in round made me. Since I see myself as more of an LD debater, framing debates are very important to me and I think they are underused in policy. I'll evaluate the round however you tell me to.

Framework:

I made lots of framework arguments when I debated and I will defintely vote on them. I like a good role of the ballot. It shouldn't be self serving, but if the other team drops it then I guess it is over for them if you continue to meet the role of the ballot as the debate goes on. I believe that the affirmitive and negative should be viewed as a body of research and that plan focus is bad. However, like any argument you could argue me out of this. I think education is more important than fairness, especially in terms of a framework debate. Fiat is illusory is a real argument because it is true. I'd like to see clash on out of round impacts as much as possible whether it is fairness, education, violence, or some other impact. I think fairness should be used to show how education is lost or how they further an out of round impact.

You can use framework still in round with normal affs and no K's. If you did this I would be pretty happy. Honestly don’t know why more teams don’t do this

Final notes:

DEBATE IS A PLACE FOR ALL PEOPLE. To reiterate, I am very lenient about what you run, but if it doesn't include certain groups in the debate space or blames certain groups of people you will not like the ballot at all.

Please have fun that's all I really care about. Don't make the debate bad for another participant.

General Experience: Over 15 years of experience in the Debate & Forensics community (competing, judging, and coaching).

Policy Debate: Tabula rasa with policy roots. Negative conditionality good; love counter-plans. Open to K's and K Affs.

Daytona Hodson

Previous Olathe Northwest debater for 2 years (Including quarterfinals at Novice State)

Overall, debate is an educational event. Every competitor should actively participate and contribute to the argumentative landscape. This means promoting a environment that is inclusive of everyone (ie. being polite during CX and other team's speeches), yet competitive to decide a clear winner of the round. The first thing I look for in round is professionalism.

Topicality: While Topicality is meant to establish a more educational definition, I understand topicality as a time skew. When explaining topicality, I want to see all parts of the argument (Counter Interp, Violation, Standards, Voters). Without the key parts the entire argument can be lost. As the Aff team, meeting the interpretation of the Neg is good, but I strongly urge the Aff to provide the interpretation they used to develop their case to promote the educational aspect of topicality. Tell me why to prefer the definitions, debate the definitions. Use education and fairness as your reasons to prefer the counter interpretation.

CP / DA: I prefer a traditional negative argument including CP's and DA's. I look at DAs in four parts UQ, Link, Internal Link, and Impact. I prefer argumentation on the Link and Internal links as it directly brings the DA into relation with the AFF case, but if they have been already debated, Impact debate is the next best option. If the round consists of several different types of impacts (Dehumanization, poverty, war ...etc) I want to see framework on which Impact should be preferred. This can be in the form of Impact Calculus (Magnitude, Time Frame, and Probability), card evidence by an author, or both. Addressing framework should use impact calculus as the reason to prefer the other interpretation. CP's don't need to be topical. If they are topical, that is perfectly fine, but explain why it can't be achieved under the AFF plan. Also, if a CP does not have any net benefits, then I will not vote on it as you shouldn't prefer the CP. I will vote against the argument, and not the team. As long as you run other arguments, I will continue to look at your other arguments not apart of the CP.

K's: If I had to choose to hear or not hear a K, I would lean more on the NO side. I'm not familiar with K debate. I am open to hear it, but you must explain the importance of each piece of evidence and type of argument. If you run a K and the other team drops the argument, Obviously it is an easy vote for the team that ran it. If you want to run a K-AFF, same thing applies.

Theory: I support arguments with Theory about Fiat, Topicality of CP's, and other arguments. The largest piece to win my ballot with theory is to explain why debate overall is better with it being changed. Use Fairness and Education as the voter.

Inherency/ Solvency/ Advantages: Inherency is why you should be passing the plan. If a Neg team can prove that the plan has either already happened or the problem doesn't exist, then the NEG will win. While advantages are benefits to passing your plan, they are not the reason to pass your plan. I will vote NEG if the plan doesn't solve. If the NEG shows that the case will not solve, then your plan no longer has advantages. Circumvention is a viable argument, but the NEG must prove all of the solvency is gone and not just a small part of it. Even if the AFF still solves for some substantial amount, they will win on Solvency. For any governmental circumvention case by the NEG, I am open to listen on how the plan will be circumvented after it's implementation. On Advantages, I look to see that the AFF prevents the largest impact in the round (look at how I measure impacts in CP / DA section). I also look to see if the advantages you claim are probable. Maintaining the link story is the most important part for an AFF team to maintain their advantages in round.

Flowing / Judge Requests: I often cross apply several arguments when flowing. The evidence used in one argument will be compared to the other evidence used in the round. I also please ask don't speed read. I think it completely devalues the entire point of debate. Obviously talking fast is perfectly fine, but if the goal is to run a ridiculous amount of off-case arguments just so you can say that the other team forgot to address 1 of your 5 arguments, that will reflect on your ballot.

I ask that you please provide me with a copy of evidence before speeches. This enables me to better listen to arguments and look into accusations of inaccurate claims by teams. I also ask for closed cross examination as it provides the most education for individuals during the activity. I strongly encourage teams to communicate with each other and track each others time. Unless specifically stated by the tournament, prep times should not include putting evidence on a flash drive. The most important thing I ask is for coherent road maps. If a team brings up new arguments in the rebuttals, I will not vote on them. A response by the other team directing me to the new argument would be appreciated, but not required.

While judging the largest thing I look for is sportsmanship. During my time in debate, I have seen the good, ugly, and bad. Don't make arguments personal attacks on other competitors. At the end of the day, you have to debate both sides of an argument at a tournament. After that, the best way to my ballot is preventing solvency. If the AFF solves, explain why the disadvantages overwhelm solving the problem.

they/them

please add me to chain - jamdebate@gmail.com

important stuff not directly related to my opinions about debate:

ceda update:

this is my first year judging college debate and kentucky is the only tournament i've judged at. i have not done any topic research for nukes. i've been out of college debate for a few years, but have been consistently coaching and judging high school debate. i am pretty experienced coaching/judging most different types of arguments, but for the past three years have mostly coached teams going for critical arguments. i used to primarily judge policy debates, but now primarily judge clash and kvk debates

please be honest with yourself about how fast you are going. i need pen time! i don't need you to go dramatically slower than you normally would, but please do not drone monotonously through your blocks as if they are card text or i will likely miss some arguments.

if debating online: go slower than usual, especially on theory

how i decide stuff:

i try my best to decide debates strictly based on what is on my flow. i generally try to intervene as little as possible, but i am not a judge that thinks that any argument is true until disproven in the debate. as much as some consider themselves "flow purists," i think every judge agrees with this to a degree. for example, "genocide good" or "transphobia good" etc. are obviously reprehensible arguments that are harmful to include in debate and i won't entertain. that being the case, i have kind of a hard time distinguishing those "obvious" examples from more commonly accepted ones that are, to me, just as harmful, like first strike counterplans, interventions good, etc. i’m disappointed i have to add this to my paradigm, but i will not vote on “the police are good” or "israel is good"

despite how the above paragraph might be interpreted, i frequently vote for arguments i don't like, including arguments i think are harmful for debate. at the end of the day, unless something i think drastically requires my intervention, i will try to judge the debate as objectively as i can based on my flow

by default i will vote for the team with the most resolved offense. a complete argument is required to generate offense, so i won't vote for an incomplete argument (e.g. "they dropped x" still needs a proper extension of x with a warrant for why it's true). judge instruction is very important for me. if there is an issue in the debate with little guidance from the debaters on how to resolve it, don't be surprised if there is some degree of intervention so i can resolve it. i will also not vote for an argument that i cannot explain

opinions on specific things:

i am willing to vote on arguments about something that happened outside of the debate, but need those arguments to be backed up with evidence/receipts. this is not because i don't/won't believe you otherwise, but because i don't want to be in the position of having to resolve a debate over something impossible for me to substantiate. i know it’s somewhat arbitrary, but it seems like the least arbitrary way for me to approach these debates without writing them off entirely, which is an approach i strongly disagree with. however, if someone i trust tells me that you are a predator or that you knowingly associate with one, i will not vote for you under any circumstances.

plan texts: if yours is written poorly or intentionally vaguely, i will likely be sympathetic to neg arguments about how to interpret what it means/does. neg teams should press this issue more often

planless affs: i enjoy judging debates where the aff does not read a plan. idc if the aff does not "fiat" something as long as it is made clear to me how to resolve the aff's offense. i am very willing to vote on presumption in these debates and i yearn for more case debating

t-usfg/fw: not my favorite debates. voting record in these debates is starting to lean more and more aff, often because the neg does a poor job of convincing me that my ballot cannot resolve the aff's offense and aff teams are getting better at generating uniqueness. i am less interested in descriptive arguments about what debateis (for example, "debate is a game") and more interested in arguments about what debate ought to be. the answer to that can still be "a game" but can just as likely be something else.

k thoughts: not very good for euro pomo stuff (deleuze, bataille, etc) but good for anything else. big fan of the cap k when it's done well (extremely rare), even bigger hater of the cap k when it's done poorly (almost every cap k ever). if reading args about queerness or transness, avoid racism. i don't mind link ev being somewhat generic if it's applied well. obviously the more specific the better, but don't be that worried if you don't have something crazy specific. i think "links of omission" can be persuasive sources of offense. for the aff, saying the text of a perm without explaining how it ameliorates links does not an argument make

theory: please make sure you're giving me pen time here. i am probably more likely than most to vote on theory arguments, but they are almost always a reason to reject the arg and not the team (obvi does not apply to condo). that being said, you need a warrant for "reject the arg not the team" rather than just saying that statement. not weirdly ideological about condo (i will vote on it)

counterplans/competition: a perm text without an explanation of how it disproves the competitiveness of the counterplan is not a complete argument. by default, i will judge kick the cp if the neg loses it and evaluate the squo as well. aff, if you don't want me to do that, tell me not to

lastly, i try to watch for clipping. if you clip, it's an auto-loss. the other team does not have to call you out on it, but i am much more comfortable voting against a team for clipping if the issue is raised by the other team with evidence provided. if i clear you multiple times and the card text you're reading is still incomprehensible, that's clipping. ethics challenges should be avoided at all costs, but if genuine academic misconduct occurs in a debate i will approach the issue seriously and carefully

avoid saying slurs you shouldn't be saying or you'll automatically lose

Hello, this is me, your Judge. Koalten

email: koalten.hornback@gmail.com

Debate Experience:

- Debated competitively 4 years at Nickerson High School

-2 years of debate coaching at Hutchinson High School

TL;DR: I'm a tabula rasa judge who defaults to policy-making when there are no framing arguments made. Good ol' fashioned policy is what I like to see, but I'll roll with anything.

Delivery:

I can keep up with about anything. However, my biggest thing is that clarity is more important than speed. Debate is supposed to be an activity that is accessible to everyone, and spreading cuts down the potential audience of a round. Communicate in a way to educate, not just to win. If you do choose speed, be able to justify it if the other team argues against it knowing my preference. Something that is rarely discussed is the skills policy debate teaches you that you can bring to other aspects of your life, and I have yet to be convinced that reading super fast off of prepared evidence is something you can apply to other areas of your life.

2020 Update: obviously I'll be super understanding with the stuff over virtual, don't worry about this so much, just make sure that I can actually tell what you're saying over zoom and don't rely on an email chain with me

Kritiks:

If you choose to do it, do it well. Be succinct with the alternative and tell me why I should be voting for the alternative over the case. Links need to be specific here. Impact debate is a great way to win me over. I know most of the common K's, but still explain the theory of what you're kritiking and how the alternative will help fix the status quo. BTW I don't buy the "reject the affirmative" alternatives and don't debate the role of the ballot, it's just a way to record data and we assign too much meaning to it. Perms usually get sloppy so make sure to explain what a perm would actually look like in the real world.

CP's:

Go for it, but don't turn it into a theory debate unless there's clearly been some sort of detrimental harm to education. See above on perms too.

Case and Disads:

This is the stuff that I really love to see. Attack case all day long and tell me why they fail. Run DA's and see if they stick. Generic disads are fine - it's the affirmative's job to uphold the resolution and if they can't kill a DA that links to the resolution, they fail to uphold it. I love a good old fashioned policy debate, and I think the educational value in preparing for a case debate is really quite valuable.

Topicality:

I like a smart T argument, especially those that use contextual evidence. I'm open to just about anything on T.

Decision Making:

I'm pretty open when it comes to framing the round and I think that it's a great debate to be had. Having said that, if framing is just not touched on at all, I'll resort to a policy-making paradigm, and weigh the impacts of the plan vs the impacts of the DA's (touching on impact calc would do well for you here if you don't argue for a different framing method).

History: for some reason, a tabroom glitch doesn't display to you my full judging history to you, but rest assured, I have voted almost exactly 50/50 this entire year and past years.

Education:

I am a Wichita State University student with a Bachelors's in English and a minor in Criminal Justice. Currently enrolling in a Fort Hayes State University Master's program for Education.

Debate is a competitive, educational activity that supports speech, argumentation and research skills. I expect you to address stock issues and have clear, well-connected and relevant off case arguments. I will vote primarily on the quality of evidence and argumentation and secondarily on the speech skills displayed. Whatever arguments you run, be organized on the flow, be clear on your arguments, and be persuasive in your speaking.

Shawnee Mission East Debate & Forensics Coach (2 Years)

Shawnee Mission East Forensics Team (2017-2019)

NSDA DUO Semifinalist (2019)

NCFL DUO Semi, quarterfinalist (2018, 2019)

Racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic rhetoric will not be tolerated at all.

Jan 2024 Update:

Extend your arguments. Extend your arguments. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS! (THIS IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT FOR ME THAN WHAT TYPE OF ARGUMENT YOU READ) Some of the debates I've watched this year have me so frustrated cuz you'll just be absolutely crushing in parts of the debate but just not extend other parts needed to make it relevant. For example, I've seen so many teams going for framework this year where the last rebuttals are 5 minutes of standards and voters and just no extension of an interp that resolves them. Or 2ARs that do so much impact calc and impact-turns-the-DA stuff that they never explain how their aff resolves these impacts so I'm left intervening and extending key warrants for you that OR intervening and voting on a presumption argument that the other team doesn't necessarily make. So err on the side of over extending arguments and take advantage of my high threshold and call out other teams bad argument extension to make me feel less interventionist pulling the trigger on it. What does this mean? Arguments extended should have a claim and a warrant that supports that claim. If your argument extension is just name dropping a lot of authors sited in previous speeches, you're gonna have a bad time during my RFD. The key parts of the "story" of the argument need to be explicitly extended in each speech. For example, if you're going for T in the 2NR then the interp, violation, the standard you're going for, and why it's a voter should be present in every neg speech. Whatever advantage the 2AR is going for should include each part of of the 'story' of aff advantage (uniqueness, solvency, internal link, impact) and I should be able to follow that back on my flow from the 1AR and 2AC. If the 2AR is only impact outweighs and doesn't say anything about how the aff solves it, I'm partial to voting neg on a presumption ballot

Ways to get good speaks in front of me:
-Extend your arguments adequately lol - and callout other teams for insufficient extensions
-Framing the round correctly (identifying the most relevant nexus point of the debate, explain why you're winning it, explain why it wins you the round)
-Doc is sent by the time prep ends
-One partner doesn't dominate every CX
-Send pre-written analytics in your doc
-At least pretend to be having fun lol
-Clash! Your blocks are fine but debates are SOOO much more enjoyable to watch when you get off your blocks and contextualize links/args to the round
-Flow. If you respond to args that were in a doc but weren't actually read, it will hurt your speaks
-Utilize powerful CX moments later in the debate
-If you have a performative component to your kritital argument, explain it's function and utilize it as offense. So many times I see some really cool poetry or something in 1ACs but never get told why poetry is cool and it feels like the aff forgets about it after the 2AC. If it's just in the 1AC to look cool, you were probably better off reading ev or making arguments. If it's there for more than that, USE IT!

WaRu Update 2023: I think debaters think I can flow better than I can. Slowing down on pivotal moments of the debate to really crystalize will make you more consistently happy with my RFDs. If you're going top speed for all of the final rebuttals and don't frame my ballot well, things get messy and my RFDs get worse than I'd like.

Krousekevin1@gmail.com

Background:

I participated in debate for 4 years in High School (policy and LD for Olathe East) and 3 years in College Parli (NPDA/NPTE circuit). This is my 6th year assisting Olathe East debate. I've done very little research on this topic (emerging tech) so please don't assume I know your acronyms or the inner workings of core topic args.

I have no preference on email chain or speechdrop, but it does irritate me when debaters wait until the round is supposed to be started before trying to figure this stuff out.

Speed:

I can keep up for the most part. Some teams in the national circuit are too fast for me but doesn't happen often. If you think you're one of those teams, go like an 8/10. Slow down for interps and nuanced theory blocks. 10 off rounds are not fun to watch but you do you.

Argument preferences:

In high school, I preferred traditional policy debate. In college I read mostly Ks. I studied philosophy but don't assume I know everything about your author or their argument. Something that annoys me in these debates is when teams so caught up in buzzwords that they forget to extend warrants. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. Not just author names, but extend the actual argument. Often teams get so caught up in line by line or responding to the other team that they don't extend their aff or interp or something else necessary for you to win. This will make me sad and you disappointed in the RFD.

I'd rather you debate arguments you enjoy and are comfortable with as opposed to adapting to my preferences. A good debate on my least favorite argument is far more preferable than a bad debate on my favorite argument. I'm open to however you'd like to debate, but you must tell me how to evaluate the round and justify it. Justify your methodology and isolate your offense.

I don't judge kick CPs or Alts, the 2NR should either kick it or go for it. I'm probably not understanding something, but I don't know what "judge kick is the logical extension of condo" means. Condo means you can either go for the advocacy in the 2nr or not. Condo does not mean that the judge will make argumentative selection on your behalf, like judge kicking entails.

K affs- I don't think an affirmative needs to defend the resolution if they can justify their advocacy/methodology appropriately. However I think being in the direction of the resolution makes the debate considerably easier for you. I wish more negs would engage with the substance of the aff or innovated beyond the basic cap/fw/presumption 1nc but I've vote for this plenty too. I have recently been convinced that fairness can be impacted out well, but most time this isn't done so it usually functions as an internal link to education.

I'm of the opinion that one good card can be more effective if utilized and analyzed well than 10 bad/mediocre cards that are just read. At the same time, I think a mediocre card utilized strategically can be more useful than a good card under-analyzed.

Any other questions, feel free to ask before the round.

LD Paradigm:

I've coached progressive and traditional LD teams and am happy to judge either. You do you. I don't think these debates need a value/criterion, but the debates I watch that do have them usually don't utilize them well. I'm of the opinion that High School LD time structure is busted. The 1AR is simply not enough time. The NFA-LD circuit in college fixed this with an extra 2 minutes in the 1AR but I haven't judged a ton on this circuit so how that implicates when arguments get deployed or interacts with nuanced theory arguments isn't something I've spent much time thinking about. To make up for this bad time structure in High School LD, smart affs should have prempts in their 1AC to try and avoid reading new cards in the 1AR. Smart negs will diversify neg offense to be able to collapse and exploit 1AR mistakes. Pretty much everything applies from my policy paradigm but Imma say it in bold again because most people ignore it anyways: EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. Not just author names, but extend the actual claim and warrant. Often teams get so caught up in line by line or responding to the other team that they don't extend their aff or interp or something else necessary for you to win. This will make me sad and you disappointed in the RFD.

Parent judge, didn't debate in school. Undergrad from DeVry in Computer Information Systems, MBA from Keller Management School.

Debate the case before you debate rules and technicalities. Stay on topic of the resolution. Speed is conversational to moderate, please don't card dump in round.

If you have any questions feel free to ask before round.

Experienced former competitor and coach in debate and forensics. While my experience is primarily in forensics, as a policy debate judge I’m familiar with and open to all types of arguments (disads, counterplans, critiques, etc.). I consider myself a tabula rossa judge, in that I will vote on any argument to decide a round assuming the teams have framed it as a primary voting issue. That being said, I rarely vote on procedural arguments like topicality. When it comes to speed reading I can’t keep up like I used to. It’s ok to read fast, but try to keep it around a 7/10 so I can keep up.

jessealankc@gmail.com

Hi,

I’m Alina. My pronouns are she/her. I was mostly a block boy when I debated but I do prefer judging lay style debate rounds. I’m fine with Ks and like open cross x and all that stuff whatever you want to do I just think the most important thing is to have fun.

add me to the email chain alexmc.debate@gmail.com

General Thoughts:

1. Be respectful.

2. You do you, read what you want and debate how you want.

3. Judge instruction in the 2nr/2ar is the best way to get me to vote for you. What does an aff/neg ballot look like? What does winning x argument mean for how I evaluate the round? These are the types of questions I want answered in the 2nr/2ar. Being ahead on some part of the flow is cool but not telling me what that means for how I evaluate the round may result in you being disappointed when I decide who won the debate based on my interpretation of what those claims mean for the debate rather than what you think they mean.

4. Offense is everything - if you win a substantive piece of offense in the debate there is a high likelihood that you win the round. No aff offense in the 2ar means I vote negative on presumption. Arguments needs warrants.

The Specifics:

Topicality / Theory - I default to competing interpretations. I don't think RVI's are much of a thing unless something egregious occurs.

CP's - Perms are just a test of competition. All your cheating counterplans are fine just be ready to defend their legitimacy in the debate.

K's - I'm good with whatever literature you like. I want a clear link in the 2nr - going for presumption without an impact directly tied to the reading / politics of the aff can occasionally work but I think the aff would need to be in a pretty dire situation. Judging high school debates I often find myself dissatisfied with alt solvency explanations in the 2nr, so if your 2nr strategy is heavily reliant on the alternative be sure to be in depth and try to contextualize the alternative to both neg and aff impacts, clearly outlining how the alternative process works and how you resolve the impacts, as well as which defense / turns means I prefer alt over the plan. For framework, if you think I shouldn't evaluate the implementation of the affirmative the justifications need to be clearly outlined.

K Affs / Framework - I heavily lean towards fairness as an internal link, not an independent impact. I can be convinced otherwise but will likely need more impact explanation and comparison in the 2nr. Switch sides should have a unique reason it's good rather than solves fairness while only linking to aff offense half the time. I find ethos to be relevant in these debates, I'm not a huge fan of conditional ethics. Ultimately if you engage in good faith debate you should be fine.

ksumccoy@gmail.com

Introduction

I'm an assistant coach for debate and forensics at Blue Valley North. As a theater and English teacher of nearly 20 years, interp. events are probably my strongest area. You should probably see me more as a community judge with some background in the event rather than someone that pays close attention. I'm more of a sponsor than a coach most weekends that just makes sure students get to their rooms. As of October 2023, I have only judged a couple rounds and have little contact with the topic research file.

Policy...

I know this isn's succinct and what advanced debaters are going to want to hear or debate to, but I hope the following helps.

1. I'm a theater and English Lit. teacher first. Don't just read at me. I think this is an oral communication event. Communicative issues and telling the story are still important. I'm not going to try to listen or flow speed. Honestly, I'm tired of people reading a powertag with a whole bunch of stuff they don't really understand or not linking it to the round we're in. I'll jump on the email chain/speechdrop, but I'd rather be listening to your rather than reading highlighted text.

2. I'd like to think that I'd listen to just about anything in the room and be willing to vote on it, but I'm probably a policy maker who prefers reasonable and probable impacts over magnitude. I haven't had a lot of Ks to consider or vote on so I'm not sure how I feel about them philosophically. I'm not a games player that will vote a team down for missing one minor arg. on T in the 1AR. I don't like ridiculous spreading args. from the neg. that then kicks everything that doesn't stick. I'd rather have a couple speeches debating the merits of an argument and find some depth than shell out ten things that don't matter.

3. I'm good with judge instructions. Explain to me why I should be voting a certain way. I'm not going to be reading every sentence of your evidence and make the arguments for you. I'm also not an expert in the event that will know every piece of the game y'all do.

4. If you open the abuse story in the round, you better not be doing it elsewhere. I think new in the 2 is typically slimy if off case, but I'm primarily talking anything running a ton of T you plan to kick in the 2NR, turning CX into a speech, stalling finding a timer and prep time, fiddling with the file share, et al. If you waste time on an abuse story when you could have used that time to debate this issue, or your opponent points out you were just as or more abusive in the round, I'll vote you down for wasting our time discussing it. Debate the topic.

Congress

I've scored a few rounds in Kansas invitationals over the years. Probably 5-10 rounds. I've used Congress as a model for various classroom activities and projects in my English and Speech classes and worked with students here and there on some speeches. I enjoy an efficient and respectful chamber with obvious connections and clash between speeches to show active listening. Yes, speeches will be prepared with credible evidence and relevant sourcing, but there should be clear sections responding to the debate in the room. Strong POs will be considered in ranking. As a theater director for 10 years, I'm used to watching the entire stage. You are always "on" in a session. A congressperson who is listening, engaging, efficient, and respectful will be rewarded over one who is simply domineering.

LD - I've judged these rounds here and there and at the national tournament, but it has been awhile. Be sure to take care of the value and VC debate as that is the framework that lets me know how to vote in the round. Evidence to show how real world examples have worked are great, but don't forget the values work. This is why I like this style of debate. We aren't focused primarily on the policy but the ideas and values. If you keep that in mind and can explain it for a theater/English teacher that prefers a communicative style, you'll have a better chance at the ballot.

PFD - Well, this is something I haven't seen a lot of, so I'd encourage you to look at the other comments regarding LD and Policy and cross apply to this event. Haven't coached it. Only seen a few rounds of it.

Alex McVey - Director of Debate at Kansas State University

Yes Email chain - j.alexander.mcvey at gmail

Online things - Strong preference for Camera On during speeches and CX. I'm willing to be understanding about this if it's a tech barrier or there are other reasons for not wanting to display. But it does help me a ton to look at faces when people are speaking.

If I'm physically at a tournament and judging a debate with one online and one in-person team, I'm always going to try to be in the same room as the in-person team, if the tournament permits. Within those parameters, Zoom teams should let me know if there's anything I can do to make myself more present for them in that space. I respect what online debate has done to increase access for some teams, but I value in-person connection with debaters too much to go judge from an empty classroom or hotel room.

I flow on paper. I need pen time. Clarity is really important to me. I'll always say "clear" if I think you're not being clear, at least 1-2 times. If you don't respond accordingly, the debate probably won't end well for you.

I tend to be expressive when I judge debates. Nodding = I'm getting it, into your flow, not necessarily that it's a winner. Frowny/frustrated face = maybe not getting it, could be a better way to say it, maybe don't like what you're doing. I would take some stock in this, but not too much: I vote for plenty things that frustrate me while I'm hearing them executed, and vote down plenty of things that excite me when first executed. All about how it unfolds.

The more I judge debates, the less ev I'm reading,  the more I'm relying on 2nr vs 2ar explanation and impact calculus. If there are cards that you want me to pay attention to, you should call the card out by name in the last rebuttal, and explain some of its internal warrants. Debaters who make lots of "even if" statements, who tell me what matters and why, who condense the debate down to the most important issues, and who do in depth impact calculus seem to be winning my ballots more often than not.

Debating off the flow >>> Debating off of speech docs (ESPECIALLY IN REBUTTALS). I'd say a good 25% of my decisions involve the phrase "You should be more flow dependent and less speech doc dependent." Chances are very little that you've scripted before the debate began is useful for the 2nr/2ar.

My experience and expertise is definitely in kritik debate, but I judge across the spectrum and have been cutting cards on both K and Policy sides of the legal personhood topic. Run what you're good at. Despite my K leaning tendencies, I’m comfortable watching a good straight up debate.

Don't assume I've cut cards in your niche research area though. I often find myself lost in debates where people assume I know what some topical buzzword, agency, or acronym is.

Theoretical issues: Blippy, scatter-shot theory means little, well-developed, well-impacted theory means a lot. Again, pen time good.

I have no hard and set rules about whether affs do or don't have to have plans. Against planless/non-topical affs, I tend to think topicality arguments are generally more persuasive than framework arguments. Or rather, I think a framework argument without a topicality argument probably doesn't have a link. I'm not sure what the link is to most "policy/political action good" type framework arguments if you don't win a T argument that says the focus of the resolution has to be USFG policy. I think all of these debates are ultimately just a question of link, impact, and solvency comparison.

I tend to err on truth over tech, with a few exceptions. Dropping round-winners/game-changers like the permutation, entire theoretical issues, the floating PIC, T version of the aff/do it on the neg, etc... will be much harder (but not impossible) to overcome with embedded clash. That being said, if you DO find yourself having dropped one of these, I'm open to explanations for why you should get new arguments, why something else that was said was actually responsive, etc... It just makes your burden for work on these issues much much more difficult.

Be wary of conflating impacts, especially in K debates. For example, If their impact is antiblackness, and your impact is racism, and you debate as if those impacts are the same and you're just trying to win a better internal link, you're gonna have a bad time.

I intuitively don't agree with "No perms in a method debate" and "No Plan = No Perm" arguments. These arguments are usually enthymematic with framework; there is an unstated premise that the aff did something which skews competition to such a degree that it justifies a change in competitive framework. Just win a framework argument. That being said, I vote for things that don't make intuitive sense to me all the time.

I like debate arguments that involve metaphors, fiction, stories, and thought experiments. What I don't understand is teams on either side pretending as if a metaphor or thought experiment is literal and defending or attacking it as such.

A nested concern with that above - I don't really understand a lot of these "we meets" on Framework that obviously non-topical affs make. I/E - "We're a discursive/affective/symbolic vesting of legal rights and duties" - That... doesn't make any sense. You aren't vesting legal rights and duties, and I'm cool with it, just be honest about what the  performance of the 1ac actually does. I think Neg teams give affs too much leeway on this, and K Affs waste too much time on making these nonsensical (and ultimately defensive) arguments. If you don't have a plan, just impact turn T. You can make other defensive args about why you solve topic education and why you discuss core topic controversies while still being honest about the fact that you aren't topical and impact turn the neg's attempt to require you to be such.

RIP impact calculus. I'd love to see it make a comeback.

RIP performance debates that actually perform. My kingdom for a performance aff that makes me feel something.

Affs are a little shy about going for condo bad in front of me. I generally think Condo is OK but negatives have gotten a bit out of control with it.  I'm happy to vote for flagrant condo proliferation if the neg justifies it. I just don't think affs are making negs work hard enough on these debates.

Negs are a little shy about making fun of 1ac construction in front of me. Ex: K affirmatives that are a random smattering of cards that have little to do with one another. Ex: Policy affs where only 2 cards talk about the actual plan and the rest are just genero impact cards. I feel like negative's rarely ever press on this, and allow affirmatives to get away with ludicrous 2AC explanations that are nearly impossible to trace back to the cards and story presented in the 1ac. More 1nc analytical arguments about why the aff just doesn't make sense would be welcome from this judge.

In a similar vein, many affirmative plans have gotten so vague that they barely say anything. Negatives should talk about this more. Affs should write better plans. Your plan language should match the language of your solvency advocate if you want me to grant you solvency for what is contained in said evidence. I'm going to be trigger happy for "your plan doesn't do anything" until teams start writing better plans.

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.

Be kind to one another. We're all in this together.

Head coach of Blue Valley Northwest

Background:

I debated policy at Blue Valley North for four years (’04-’08) and LD for one year, I was an assistant coach for policy in Wisconsin at Homestead High School (’13-’14), and was an assistant coach at Shawnee Mission East for debate and forensics prior to my current position ('21-'23).

email for questions or concerns: evan.michaels.debate@gmail.com

Forensics:

For the debate events, organization and rhetoric will significantly help your logic land with me, but proper analysis of your position and your opponent's position should shine through regardless.

If you're looking at my paradigm for speech or dramatic events: first of all, hello and break a leg. Emote and project unless you're not doing so for a purpose. My feedback may be dry and my face may not show it during your performance but I am almost always moved by your performances.

If you have any other questions, please ask.

Policy:

I competed at and am comfortable with most levels of debate but I enjoy logical policy proposals and realistic analysis. One of my degrees is in philosophy, so I am comfortable getting into the weeds on theory and the K—just make sure you are. That said, I prefer clarity over all and specificity of arguments a close second.

Bigotry or discrimination--whether it’s to your opponents, your partner, myself, or anyone else not in the room--will lose you the round. I also understand this is a competition, but lack of respect for one another will lose you speaks.

While I will refer to your speech doc if necessary, I physically flow and I need to actually hear and understand it for it to matter to my ballot. Signpost clearly and make it plain when you are moving on to your next argument. I'll give you two clears, then you will see me either writing or looking at you, if I’m not doing one of those things, slow down or move on.

If your evidence has warrants that you’re pulling through, I will listen for them but I won’t do the work for you; point them out and present the clash and why it matters to the round or it won’t matter to me or the ballot.

In the end, I will vote how y’all tell me to vote, so providing and pulling through a framework is important even if it’s not contested as part of the debate. If none is provided, I will fall back on policy-making but I still need impact calculus and analysis of the claims, warrants, and clash to sway my ballot.

Lynn A. Miller
Derby High School
Derby, Kansas


Debate Experience:
4 Years High School (1980s)
3 Years College - CEDA and NDT (circa 1990s - old guy!)
Coaching: Current head coach of Derby High School and former head coach of Kapaun Mount Carmel High School.
lmiller@usd260.com
Updated: August 17, 2016

I have been around for a long time and I have remained progressive in my coaching and views on debate. I am fine with theory and/or non-traditional debate strategies, but I will try to outline some predispositions.

T:
I will vote on it and I think it is still an issue. I prefer CI but teams need to explain their interpretation and why it is better. I prefer to see some link that indicates a loss of strategic ground for the negative. I may be persuaded by potential abuse, but prefer some in-round loss of ground or strategic disadvantage.

FW:
I honestly think clash is very important. Teams who try to frame the debate in ways in which ground is extremely limited or non-existent for their opponent tend to lose my ballot when this is properly debated. I evaluate this on the flow based on what was presented in the round, not what I think about the position. I am not persuaded by FW that says Ks are bad/illegitimate - they are part of debate get over it!

CP:
Not particularly fond of conditions CP or plan + CP positions. Fairly open to anything else, but CP solves better is not a net benefit!

K:
I have read some literature, coached some successful K teams, open to hearing whatever you like, but don't expect me to vote on (or catch) K buzz words and vote because you said something that sounds cool. K teams have a higher threshold for me in establishing a link and point of clash with opponents. Just because someone told you, "say this phrase and you will win" probably won't work with me. However, a solid K position with clear link/impact/relevance will get my ballot if well defended.

DAs/Advs:
I tend to give some risk to even sketch link stories. That works for both aff and neg. Focus on timeframe and magnitude for me.

Solvency:
Again, I tend to give the aff some risk of solvency usually. I expect both teams to do solid impact calc and weigh everything in the round.

Bottom-line - I like debate which for me means clash. Not too concerned about what you are presenting, but I am concerned that a debate happens and I can make a decision based on how arguments are presented and who best explains why they should win. In the few instances where teams have been disappointed with my decision it usually revolves around what they "thought" they said in the round and what I "heard" in the round. I will not do work for you, so explanation trumps reading a ton of cards in most of my decisions. Any more questions, just ask me.  

 

I straddle between the policymaker and stock issue paradigms. I am somewhat sympathetic to tabula rasa, but I usually go either policymaker or stock issues.

I dislike spreading speed. Otherwise, I am open to following and flowing your round as you deliver it. If you can persuade me that your particular strategy is advantageous for implementing or defending your policy position, you have liberty to use it. I prefer straightforward debate rather than hairsplitting the rules; topicality fights are the main reason I am not a pureplay stock issues judge; but I have had very occasional rounds where topicality indeed decided the ballot. I strongly dislike generic DAs. I am lukewarm about Ks and counterplans, but I have occasionally voted for teams employing them. Whatever your strategy, persuade me that it makes sense, with logic and documentation.

I debated three years in high school, and I have judged approximately 20 topic-years since high school. I have judged at three NCFL national tournaments, one day each during the first-day prelim rounds.

I am a teacher and assistant forensics coach at Garden City High School. I have minimal experience judging policy debate, but I judged World Schools Debate at NSDA nationals last summer.

I teach/have taught world geography and sociology classes.

I will approach policy debate as a person who wants you to make arguments I can understand at a rate I can understand them. I will take notes about the round.

I am an old school "Get off my lawn" kind of judge. I have been an assistant debate coach for 18 years and I was a high school debater but not college. I prefer real world arguments with normal impacts nuke war and extinction really annoy me. I hate spreading and will stop listening if you word vomit on me. I can handle speed but double clutching and not clearly reading tags will be a problem. I am being forced to do an electronic ballot but that DOES NOT mean I want a flash of your stuff. I HATE KRITIKS but will vote on it if it is the only thing in the round. I prefer nontopical counterplans and will tolerate generic DAs if the links are specific. I like stock issues and policy impact calculus. I like quality analytical arguments. Teams who read good evidence not just camp and wiki stuff will get my vote.

In terms of how I judge rounds- communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance. I need to see the aff case proven or the neg disprove the aff's case using evidence/stock issues.

I'm generally looking for who proves their side the best using traditional stock issues, evidence and arguments, but also logical ties.

I like a deliberate, conversational pace- I need to be able to understand you. If I can't understand what you're saying/reading, I stop listening. Be clear, concise, and don't speed read. Explain your cards.

I'm generally not big on counterplans. Prove to me as the neg why the aff's case won't work, don't just change it to a different agency, etc. Argue against their plan.

Topicality is important, but it must be a fairly blatant violation to win my ballot.

Please don't argue over definitions or abuse the whole round. Argue the case.

Generic disadvantages are acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed and do not argue extinction/nuclear war. That's probably not going to go well.

Kritiks are acceptable if specific links are analyzed although I prefer real world arguments.

jpark.debate@gmail.com

University of Kansas '23, Washburn Rural '19

he/him/his

Coaching for the Asian Debate League and Taipei American School

Based in Taiwan, so the time difference will affect my judging. This means you need to have more enunciation and clarity than usual.

TLDR:

---very low econ knowledge

---very bad for K AFFs, fiat Ks, process counterplans, and technical T arguments

---decent for other policy arguments and Ks that are DAs

________________________________________________________________________________________

TLDR:

---Not the greatest flow, likes creativity, more likely to care about macro-issues than minor technical drops, avoid jargon/acronyms, will vote on args that promote sedition

---Fully-developed strategies that clash tend to perform better in front of me.

---I think have a higher bar for what constitutes a 'complete argument' than the average college-aged judge and some may say I care more about the "truth" side of "tech over truth." This is not necessarily about content, but about argument development/evidence/persuasion.

---My debate beliefs are malleable. This paradigm might make me seem like an old person (true, though), but good debating can remedy my predispositions. Good ev helps too.

---Largely persuaded that:

(1) incomplete args in the 1NC justify new responses

(2) net benefits should be verbally stated in the 1NC

The justification for both of these will be below.

________________________________________________________________________________________

General:

Positives

1---Respecting your opponents (CX, pronouns, don't mercilessly bludgeon less-experienced debaters), be ethical, etc.

2---Efficiency. In your speech, during prep, emailing, down-time. etc. If you don't need 10 minutes of prep for the 2NR/2AR, don't take it.

3---Taking debate seriously. Pay attention, flow, try. But also, have fun! We are all invested, so let's make our debates worthwhile. Ad-homs are bad and not arguments.

4---Research (evidence matters, but so could spin). Vertifical proliferation is better than horizontal proliferation of arguments. Also, likely won't vote for death good.

5---Ethos and Clarity. I am a bad judge for teams that just spit into their computer at 300 WPM at 65% clarity. Lowkey think that debaters that are slow (while being smart, technical, etc.) are *****chefs kiss***** I should hear every single word you say. Please enunciate and recognize that debate is also a communication activity instead of a block-perfecting competition in the 2NR and 2AR. If you are a team that has rebuttals prescripted without any plans of contextualization (such as asserting things happened when they didn't), then please email me your 2NR/2AR blocks, and I will assign your speaker points during the 1AC and vote against you.

6. Organization---speech docs, cards, wikis

Negatives

1---Lack of analysis. You should have framing arguments, judge instruction, contextualization, and argument development.

2---Debates that make me litigate things outside of the debate.

3---Vagueness. It should be clear what your AFF does, what the plan means, what the counterplan does, what your highlighting of evidence means, and what the tags of your cards are intended to communicate. I am likely more amenable to vagueness arguments than most judges.

Misc

I kicked the AFF in a decent chunk of debates I was in. I do not think this influences my judging but my AFF (and NEG) debates would sometimes look really different than a lot of people.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Policy:

Topicality vs. Policy AFFs

T versus policy AFFs was one of my least favorite arguments. It isn't ideological, but I spent most of my debate career debating with 2Ns who were obsessed with it, so I just never really thought about it. I find most T debates dry but I understand the strategic necessity of them. My aversion stems from 1NCs that lack a violation and then debate becoming late-breaking.

To improve my VTL when going for T, internal link explanation is important. 2Ns have seemed to forget that there ought to be a reasonable explanation about how we get from the violation to zero NEG ground ever. Both teams should have more debating about what the interp/counter-interp debates would look like. Assertions of topic biases or quality of generics should be explained with warrants. I am not the ideal judge for a technical T argument.

For some reason, I find ground arguments more compelling than limits/precision. Not sure if this will affect my judging, but I've always thought that limits arguments were hyperbolic. Big topics feel good if the NEG has robust strategies to counter them. When evenly debated, plan-text-in-a-vacuum is a tough sell for me.

Disadvantages

The optimal 2NR is a DA and the case. Counterplans are for cowards. I'm not as big on the modern Politics DA as most Kansas debaters but it's okay. I would prefer not to judge debates about intrinsicness tests.

AFFs teams should have offense on the DA. NEG teams should try to have real "turns case" arguments outside of "nuke war is bad."

Counterplans

I'm mostly AFF-leaning on theory arguments. I'm not wedded to these beliefs, but I have some predispositions. I am not a huge believer in conditionality. This is not a free invitation to go for condo in the 2AR, merely an observation that in-depth debates are better.

My least favorite genre of argument as a debater was the process counterplan. Again, I understand its strategic utility and will judge the debate neutrally. I'd prefer a 2NR that is about why the AFF's bad. Competition debates are dry. Comparative evidence between the AFF and the counterplan's process demonstrating functional competition could make me hate your counterplan a little less. I am also a less qualified judge for complex competition debates.

Case

I am a good judge for presumption and giving a low weight to the AFF advantages. The 2AC and 1AR get away with murder on the case, so the NEG teams should use that to their advantage. This is an area where good debating will be rewarded with nice speaker points.

Soft Left

I enjoy soft left AFFs but framing contentions need to contain offense. ________________________________________________________________________________________

Critiques:

Ks vs. Policy AFFs

I'm better for Ks on the NEG. I will award specificity, especially backed with evidence. I will have a hard time voting on critiques that lack interactions with the scholarship and thesis of the 1AC. If the NEG reads a K impact turn to the AFF's advantage, that is likely the best strategy in front of me. Or, have a robust framework justification with turns case arguments. I seem to care a little bit more about performative contradictions/linking to your own K than some (not for theory reasons). The closer your K is to a soft-left impact turn, the better. I am willing to vote on non-extinction impact-turns (example: heg is racist/causes violent interventions---bipolarity is preferable).

K AFF vs. T: USFG

I have voted both ways but am a bad judge for you/find most AFF offense not intrinsic to T. Explain what debates over the AFF interp would look like. I always thought framework debates were thought-provoking and helped me think about debate. Explain what debates over the NEG interp/TVA would look like. I am open to voting for either fairness or education. I am a believer in research about the topic, so the closer your AFF is to being about the topic, defending a theory of power, being a substantial shift from the status quo, and defending material action, the better. Any lit bases outside of bio power, colonialism, settler colonialism, capitalism, and IR need more explanation.

________________________________________________________________________________________

(1) Incomplete Arguments

I am mostly compelled that the 1AR should get whatever it wants in response to incomplete 1NCs. Debates are increasingly rewarding blippy 1NCs, causing debates that are worse to judge and I believe judges ought hold the line on what the debate community constitutes a complete argument. If a 1NC DA shell lacks uniqueness, then why should the 2AC be burdened to make link turn args as to how they reverse the deficiencies of the status quo. The logical conclusion of "you have to answer everything" would mean the AFF would have to read impact d to random floating impacts, which is absurd.

(2) Net Benefits

Whatever the net benefit of every advocacy is should be specified in the 1NC. This is low-cost for the NEG and would improve debates/AFF strategy. CX doesn't remedy this because NEG teams take forever to answer, which is unfair for the AFF because the 1A could be asking good, substantive questions. Instead, I have to listen to the 1N say "everything is a net benefit... wait... <>...then the 2N takes 15 seconds to decide and then lists net benefits to analytical con con, states, the one card Security K, a card-less 15 plank advantage counterplan, and a process counterplan. This take might seem extreme, but I believe it is the least arbitrary and most efficient way to resolve net benefit shenanigans (a time limit feels weird). For most counterplans, they are only complete arguments if they have arguments about solvency AND competition in the 1NC. Counterplans that rely on DAs to beat the perm and complete, so it seems logical that the NEG should be responsible for this. Lastly, I want to award bold strategies. The clearer the net benefits are, the better AFFs will be at straight-turning and NEGs will read better DA + CP combinations.

Honestly, I tend to be old-fashioned in that I like a debate round with a good solid case that is argued. I will listen to counter plans and DAs but they do need to be applicable to the case.

I do not mind some speed but I still like there to be some emphasis on speaking skills and presentation.

I will vote on Topicality if it truly is applicable but make sure you are doing T instead of significance.

I have voted for K before but it needs to be good, applicable and succinct.

Be polite, logical and please do not change history.... For example don't say something such as World War II was the only world war. Doesn't the two imply a one?

If you have questions, ask. I always forget something.

Add me to the email chain: alonso.pena91@gmail.com

***The big picture***

1. I have 17 years of involvement with debate. I debated in high school and in college at Garden City (2006-2010) and Kansas State (2011, 2014-2017), respectively. In high school I did "traditional" policy debate, and in college I did critical and performance style debate. I read poetry and talked about queer and trans people of color, Chicanx people, decolonial feminist studies, performance studies, etc. I coached high school debate in Kansas for the last 7 years, and this is my first year coaching at UTSA.

2. Debate is a persuasive activity, so your primary objective should be to persuade me to vote for you.

3. I try to be as open-minded as possible, and I will base my decision on the things that happen in the round. That being said, I embody a lived experience, and I will not pretend that I can separate myself from that. I am a queer chicanx man, and I acknowledge that my positionality influences how I move in the world.

4. Do "you" - Be yourself to the best degree possible, and I will be happy. I believe the beauty of debate is that students get power and control over how they express themselves through argumentation.

5. Please don't annoy me about these two things. Prep-stealing and evidence sharing. When you say you are done with prep, I expect you to be ready to give your roadmap and share evidence.

***The Details***

Disads

Disadvantages are very important and underutilized in debate. I love a good disad debate. To win a disad in front of me you will need (at least) a unique link and an impact. You should explain why the disadvantage turns and outweighs the case, and you should compare impacts. If you're reading politics, then you should know that I am NOT a news watcher, so you should be explaining your politics disad. Also, I generally dislike politics disads because their stories feel like pieced together lies. I'm not saying I won't vote for them, but it'll be an uphill battle for you.

Counterplans

Counterplans are cool. I am more likely to be persuaded by counterplans that do the following: (1) have text that is clear and understandable and/or well explained, (2) solves the affirmative, or at least enough of the affirmative to outweigh the aff impacts, (3) have a net benefit or external impact that only the counterplan can solve.

Process counterplans (such as executive orders CPs, courts CPs, etc.) are typically less persuasive to me, but I will vote for them if they solve the aff and have a net benefit.

PICS (Plan inclusive counterplans) are cool, but they should have some basic theoretical defense as to why PICing out of part of the aff is legitimate and good.

Critiques

I enjoy them. To win a K in front of me you will need to win a framing question, a link to the affirmative, and an impact or implication. You should read an alternative, but I am willing to consider voting for a K without an alternative if you tell me why I should. I have a pretty good foundation on critical literature, but you should not assume I have read your literature base. Dense theoretical concepts should be unpacked. Explain how the alt solves the links/impacts.

On the affirmative, if you don't answer the K's framework I will be less persuaded by the affirmative.

Topicality

I think topicality debates can be really good and fun to watch when they are done well. I am persuaded by the following: (1) A reasonable definition and interpretation (2) A well-defined violation, or an explanation of how the affirmative is outside of the resolution, (3) Standards, or defense of why your interpretation is the best way to determine what is topical/untopical. and (4) voters, or reasons why I should vote on topicality in this particular debate.

If the negative doesn't win standards and voters I am way less likely to be persuaded to vote negative on topicality.

Speed

I don't have the quickest ear any more. I need pen time and I need moments where you are speaking to me and not at me. Spreading on zoom doesn't work for me. I cannot keep up and I'm going to be fully honest about it.

macp@usd383.org

I debated for 4 years in Spring Hill High School in Spring Hill, KS. Now a coach for Manhattan HS (2017-Present)

Top Level: I am definitely a policymaker and will vote for the side/scenario that does the most good while causing the least amount of harm. My view of Policy maker does leave room for in-round impacts. Impact calc in the rebuttals will go a long way with me. An overview is always appreciated. I, like many judges, can get lost in high-speed rounds. Don't just assume I know things or will do any work for you. I default to tech over truth but don't push it. If your evidence is bad, I can't vote on it. I can't pretend like Russia didn't invade The Ukraine.

Speed: I'll keep up alright in higher speed rounds, but always run the risk of getting lost. I'll flow off of the speech doc, but I need slow and clear analytics. Doing your job breaking down the round in the 2NR/AR benefits me.

Kritiks: I am relatively comfortable with the basics of the K, but my lit knowledge base is quite low. I am not receptive to Kritiks of Rhetoric if you can't give me a clear link to the AFF. Don't just say "their security rhetoric is problematic" if you can't highlight that rhetoric for me.

K-AFFs: I'll vote for a K-AFF, but you'll have to do enough work to prove that the ballot of a random Debate judge matters to your aff. A strong understanding of how the debate ecosystem functions will help you here. There are opportunities for a Perf Con debate that I haven't been seeing with enough teams.

Identity-centric Kritiks: Don't use black and brown narratives as just a route to the ballot. Cheapening these narratives because you know you can beat a policy team causes real-world harm. Seeing that you are carrying your advocacy in and out of the round that I am watching matters to me.

Topicality: Topicality violations have to be generally pretty blatant for me. There are fairly standard responses an Aff can make that will generally sway me on Topicality. If the Aff doesn't do some simple work, then I am forced to vote Neg. I default to competing interpretations and will evaluate the standards in a way to determine which interpretation best upholds an equitable debate experience. I have a hard time voting for a potential for abuse. In round abuse (like the aff linking out of everything) will weigh more heavily on my ballot.

Counter plans: I'll listen to a good counter-plan debate, but I have a hard time voting for a Consult CP. They are messy debates.

Politics DA's: I'll evaluate a politics DA, but I always want some great uniqueness evidence and a strong link. Many politics DA's I have been seeing lack the latter. Generic Politics DA answers will often win me over. I don't love the Politics DA

Don't be an awful person. I'll vote you down. Keeping this activity healthy for all students is important to me.

Please feel free to ask me questions. You all knowing my preferences benefit me just as much as it benefits you all. Don't be afraid to ask for additional feedback. If I have time, I'll chat with you :)

Hi,

I’m Alina. My pronouns are she/her. I was mostly a block boy when I debated but I do prefer judging lay style debate rounds. I’m fine with Ks and like open cross x and all that stuff whatever you want to do I just think the most important thing is to have fun.

Hi! My name is Prakriti, she/her. Head coach at Wichita East High school.

Add me to the chain: prakriti.ravianikode@gmail.com. I'm also fine with SpeechDrop.

Policy:

General--

I will not evaluate anything that happens outside the round.

I follow along the doc - if I see you clipping its an automatic L.

Speed is fine, please add analytics to the doc if you're going fast. If I can't understand you, I will clear you! If I still cannot understand you, I will start dropping the speaks.

If you have any other questions about specific arguments please ask before the round.

I don't like case overviews. Just debate down your flow.

I flow cross-ex! I also stop paying attention to cross-ex and speeches once the timer goes off.

I'll vote for anything. Tech over truth. You should be well-versed in your arguments. Nothing annoys me more when debaters stand up for speeches after the 2ac and just read cards/analytics straight down without interacting with your opponents' arguments. Please use judge instruction and tell me exactly how I should evaluate the round.

Kritik--

More familiar with policy args, as far as K's, I'm familiar with Cap and Fem. Other than that you should over-explain. I am not the best with theory so I will need clear judge instruction and voters for K theory args. Also if you are just using jargon without explaining it, I won't understand what you mean and I cannot vote for it. I want to know what the world of the alt looks like and why I should prefer it to the aff.

Topicality--

I default to competing interps. Explain what your model/interp means for the topic. That will convince me more than generic blocks. Pls slow down on the T flow.

DA--

Impact calc is important!! I evaluate the link level of the DA first and weigh it with the impacts of the aff. I am not very familiar with economic literature. If the 2NR is the Econ DA, please give me a story on what exactly the economy will look like in the world of the aff/DA.

My paradigm is a combination of policy maker and "lay judge". I am a former open/varsity debater that competed at the State level for two years. I do not like intensive speed reading due to its effect on articulation. I am capable of following pretty much all complex arguments but would rather hear a well-articulated, simple debate over policy than a convoluted argument with critiques that is hard to follow.

I'm currently a Third Year law student. I debated for four years in high school. Did KDC and DCI but did Oration for national tournaments. I'm on my fourth year coaching for Blue Valley.

I'm not picky on the arguments you run I'll vote on whatever you win on the flow.

In electronic debate, I prefer people to be as efficient in transitions as possible to account for technical difficulties and so I usually count prep until teams have pressed send on their documents in exchanging speeches.

About me/ Preference things-

I debated at Lawrence High School for 4 years and debated in college at the University of Kansas. I have been an assistant debate coach for Shawnee Mission South High School for 4 years.

** Please add me to the email chain rose.haylee2000@gmail.com

LD

I evaluate LD traditionally with emphasis on the V and VC level. However, it is important that you are winning some offense both on the V and VC as well as the contention level debate. Winning top level offense on the V and VC and and describing how that effects the contention level debate is the easiest way to win my ballot.

TL:DR

As for how I evaluate debates, I cannot say that I have a bunch of things that I am for or against so I will just go down the list.

Make arguments to the best of your ability but please just be a good human. As far as how many rounds I have judged I did not judge or teach at a camp this summer so I am a little behind.

T- I debated and went for T quite often in debates but I won't vote for it unless its 5 min in the 2NR and you gotta have a case list and reason why your interpretation is good, what does the aff's model of debate mean for the debate community?

Theory- its fine, be persuasive and tell me why the aff/negs justification for reading a particular argument/set of arguments is bad. I can/will vote for abuse on condo or other theory but getting there may be hard, I think condo is good and it needs to be excessive abuse. Continuing on theory, you as the person reading theory need to be able to prove why their interp is bad and why that hurts you in the round, not just the debate community writ large.

DA's- I enjoy them a lot, you will need to explain each individual part of the DA debate and its implications for the argument overall I won't extend cards when you say "extend my link".

CP's- I like Cp's that are competitive. I also am a firm believer that the CP must have a NB that is not we solve better than the aff. Not a huge fan of "cheating" counterplans but you gotta do what you gotta do to win.

K's- I read and went for the cap k, I am not a K hack or know all of the things that you are talking about. I really enjoy k debates but I will need you to explain things to me and why they matter/ what you win because of each individual part of the K debate. I like techy K debates.

READ ME:

I really enjoy this activity but there are some things about it that I am not too fond of,

1. Charging the Mound, it makes me uncomfortable and probably also makes your opponents uncomfortable as well. If you have questions or do not understand my decision please ask or email me but you are not going to convince me I made the wrong decision, and if you do why does that matter my ballot is already submitted. Let's have a productive conversation about debate

2. Personal attacks at your opponent, there is a line between being sassy and making others feel bad about themselves.

3. Sexist, Ablest, Transphobic, Racist (and other isms) language and behaviors, please be good human.

4. Stealing prep, it's just a pet peeve of mine

Feel free to ask me questions about my judging paradigm before the round starts, and email me if you have any remaining questions after the debate is over. I will always be more than happy to help you all get better at this activity!

I judge more on policy than stock.

I like a good debate so don't spread your opp out of the round, that is not the goal.

Speed- moderate is good. If I put down my pen (yes, I am old school that way) you are going too fast. I am old(er) and my hearing isn't what it used to be.

Road maps are important, tell me where you are going and where I should be putting your arguments.

I debated in high school and have judge many rounds since so this isn't my first rodeo.

Email chain: lfsdebate@gmail.com

Who Am I: I debated four years at Field Kindley High School in Coffeyville, KS, did not debate in college, and have been an assistant coach at Lawrence Free State High School in Lawrence, KS since 2013. I have a Master's degree in International Relations.

General Approach: Tell me what I should be voting on and why. If you want me to evaluate the round differently than they do, then you need to win a reason why your framework or paradigm is the one that I should use. If no one does that, then I'll default to a policymaker paradigm. I don't view offense and defense as an either/or proposition, but if you do then I prefer offense.

Standard Operating Procedure: (How I will evaluate the round unless one of the teams wins that I should do something different) The affirmative has a non-severable duty to advocate something resolutional, and that advocacy must be clear and stable. The goal of the negative is to prove that the affirmative's advocacy is undesirable, worse than a competitive alternative, or theoretically invalid. I default to evaluating all non-theory arguments on a single plane, am much more willing to reject an argument than a team, and will almost always treat dropped arguments as true.

Mechanics: (I'm not going to decide the round on these things by themselves, but they undeniably affect my ability to evaluate it)

• Signposting - Please do this as much as possible. I'm not just talking about giving a roadmap at the start of each speech or which piece of paper you're talking about during the speech, but where on the line-by-line you are and what you're doing (i.e. if you read a turn, call it a turn).
• Overviews - These are helpful for establishing your story on that argument, but generally tend to go on too long for me and seem to have become a substitute for specific line-by-line work, clash, and warrant extension. I view these other items as more productive/valuable ways to spend your time.
• Delivery - I care way more about clarity than speed; I have yet to hear anybody who I thought was clear enough and too fast. I'll say "clear" if you ask me to, but ultimately the burden is on you. Slowing down and enunciating for tags and analytics makes it more likely that I'll get everything.
• Cross Examination - Be polite. Make your point or get an answer, then move on. Don't use cross-ex to make arguments.
• Prep Time - I don't think prep should stop until the flash drive comes out of your computer or the email is sent, but I won't police prep as long as both teams are reasonable.

Argumentation: (I'll probably be fine with whatever you want to do, and you shouldn't feel the need to fundamentally change your strategy for me. These are preferences, not rules.)

• Case - I prefer that you do case work in general, and think that it's under-utilized for impact calc.  Internal links matter.
• CPs/DAs - I prefer specific solvency and link cards (I'm sure you do, too), but generics are fine provided you do the work.
• Framework - I prefer that framework gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
• Kritiks - I prefer that there is an alternative, and that you either go for it or do the work to explain why you win anyway. "Reject the Aff." isn't an alternative, it's what I do if I agree with the alternative. I don't get real excited about links of omission, so some narrative work will help you here.
• Performance - I prefer that you identify the function of the ballot as clearly and as early as possible.
• Procedurals - I prefer that they be structured and that you identify how the round was affected or altered by what the other team did or didn't do.
• Theory - I prefer that theory gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
• Topicality - I prefer that teams articulate how/why their interpretation is better for debate from a holistic perspective. TVAs and/or case lists are good. My least favorite way to start an RFD is, "So, I think the Aff. is topical, but also you're losing topicality."

Miscellaneous: (These things matter enough that I made a specific section for them, and will definitely be on my mind during the round.)

• I'm not planning to judge kick for you, but have no problem doing so if that instruction is in the debate.  The Aff. can object, of course.
• Anybody can read cards, good analysis and strategic decision-making are harder to do and frequently more valuable.
• Individual pages on the flow do not exist in a vacuum, and what is happening on one almost certainly affects what is happening on another.
• Comparative impact calculus. Again, comparative impact calculus.
• You may not actually be winning every argument in the round; acknowledging this in your analysis and telling me why you win anyway is a good thing.
• Winning an argument is not the same thing as winning the round on an argument. If you want to win the round on an argument you've won or are winning, take the time to win the round on it.
• The 2NR and 2AR are for making choices, you only have to win the round once.
• I will read along during speeches and will likely double back to look at cards again, but I don't like being asked to read evidence and decide for myself. If they're reading problematic evidence, yours is substantively better, etc., then do that work in the debate.

Zen: (Just my thoughts, they don't necessarily mean anything except that I thought them.)

• Debate is a speaking game, where teams must construct logically sound, valid arguments to defend, while challenging the same effort from their opponents.
• It's better to be more right than the other team than more clever.
• A round is just a collection of individual decisions. If you make the right decisions more often than not, then you'll win more times than you lose.

I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Last Updated: November 2023

Speech and Debate at Olathe Northwest High School for 4 years (2014-2018)

Speech and Debate Team at Texas Christian University (2019-2021)

Email me with further questions, or just ask in the room: austin.shively@tcu.edu

POLICY DEBATE

* Put me on the email chain

* Racist/sexist/transphobic/homophobic/ableist rhetoric will lose my ballot

* Disclosure Theory: I'm not going to vote on it. Debate is an activity in critical thinking - you should be able to provide argumentation on your opponents claims whether you know their case ahead of time or you find it out in the 1AC.

*Speed:Just make sure I’m on the email chain or SpeechDrop, and that analytical arguments are clear.

*Topicality: If you genuinely think there is a violation of the resolution, go for it! Otherwise, I promise you I'm not going to be sad if I don't hear a T argument. I default to competing interpretations, but I'll accept reasonability if it's uncontested. T debates are all about the standards for me - make sure there is clash. Just because their block says "____ Good" and yours says "____ Bad," that doesn't mean you've refuted your opponents claims. Specificity and actual engagement is how you win on T.

*Theory/Framework: If you feel that a theory argument is a reason to reject a team, be very thorough in your explanation. For framework, really detail why your framework is better than your opponent's.

*DA's: I'll listen to anything. I understand the need for generic DAs, but specific links are always preferred. All DA debates should include discussions of uniqueness, links, and impacts. Strongly against terminal impacts unless you can provide a very, very realistic link story. Impact turns are always great if you can explain it.

*K's: I'm not well-versed in most of the K literature that's out there. I'm open to hearing a K if you are confident that you understand it and can explain it in detail to me. Keep it real, and explain why the K is important. Again, I'm not going to be sad if you don't run a K.

*CP's: Any CP is an acceptable CP if you can effectively prove how it solves the aff. Aff - creative perms or doesn't solve arguments are your best bet. Negative - Advantage CPs are fun.

*Other Notes: Open cross is fine if you can keep it civil. The more "real-world" you can make the debate, the better. Explanations are the key to winning - I care more about how YOU are debating, and what analysis YOU can provide. Simply reading tags, cards, and pre-made blocks will not win you the round.

...

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

* Direct clash is very important to this event. Reference other speakers and analyze the pros/cons of what they are saying.

* If you repeat a pro or con point that is very similar to another speaker, make it meaningful and add something new to the argument. Additionally, explain why the addition you made was necessary/important to recognize.

*Presiding over a chamber is just as important as giving speeches. A nearly flawless PO, who is confident in their rulings, is one of the most impressive things in student Congress.

* Act like you're in congress. That's what the event is for. "At my school" claims and high school jokes are only going to hurt your ranking. Be creative and fun, in a professional matter, and you'll be happy with the results.

*Discrimination or bigotry of any kind will not be tolerated.

Hi, I’m Will Soper. He/him/his. Wsoper03@gmail.com.

I did NDT/CEDA debate for four years at the University of Kansas. I'm currently coaching for Blue Valley North. I worked with a lab at Michigan for a little while this summer and judged a lot of practice debates.

Grumpy stuff. Do not ask for a marked document. If the number of cards marked in a speech is excessive, I will ask for a marked document. Asking what cards were read is either CX time or prep time. Prompting needs to stop. Past the first time, I will not flow the things your partner prompts you to say. Send the email before you stop prep.

I dislike bad arguments. I think most debaters understand what these are: hidden aspec in the 1NC, reading paradoxes as solvency arguments, counterplans which assassinate anyone, etc. If your ideal negative strategy involves more nonsense than specific discussions of the affirmative, we probably don't think about debate the same way.

Presumption/Vagueness. I am willing to (and have) voted negative on vagueness and that the affirmative has not met its stock issues burdens. Similarly, if the negative is reading a CP with an internal net benefit and doesn't have evidence demonstrating that the inclusion of the plan prevents the net benefit, I am willing to vote on "perm do both" even if the aff doesn't have a deficit to the CP. I am willing to dismiss advantage CP planks which are overly vague or not describing a policy.

Evidence matters a lot. Debaters should strive to connect the claims and warrants they make to pieces of qualified evidence. If one team is reading qualified evidence on an issue and the other team is not, I'll almost certainly conclude the team reading evidence is correct. I care about author qualifications/funding/bias more than most judges and I'm willing to disregard evidence if a team raises valid criticisms of it.

Kritiks. The links are the most important part of the kritik. If I have a hard time explaining back exactly what bad thing the 1AC did or assumed, I will have a hard time voting for you. Here are some things to increase your win percentage in front of me if you're extending a kritik. 1. Make link arguments that are specific to the affirmative. If debaters spent even 5 minutes before the debate reading through the 1AC, identifying themes or premises that are kritik-able, and made those into link arguments, their win percentage in front of me would skyrocket. 2. Rehighlight aff evidence to make these arguments. 3. Tell me how your link arguments disprove the case or make affirmative advantages irrelevant. I cannot remember the last time an "ontology" argument was relevant to my decision.

Planless affs. I basically always vote for the team that slows down and starts comparing their impact to the other team's first. The more a team reads blocks into their computer, the less likely I am to vote for them. I am a poor judge for fairness/clash/debate bad.

Topicality against plans. I am more willing than other judges to take a "you know it when you see it" approach to topicality. Overly limiting interpretations that most affs at the tournament would violate are not very persuasive to me. For example, I have voted that adopting medicare for all is not Social Security. I have not, however, heard a compelling reason aff's can't deficit spend. I'm not immovable on either issue, but your debating should be as aff-specific as possible.

Things which will make your speaker points higher: exceptional clarity, numbering your arguments, good cross-x moments which make it into a speech, specific and well-researched strategies, developing and improving arguments over the course of a season, slowing down and making a connection with me to emphasize an important argument, not being a jerk to a team with much less skill/experience than you. I decide speaker points.

You're welcome to post-round or email me if you have questions or concerns about my decision.

Arguments I am a very good judge for (this is a continuously growing list):
The security K
Vagueness
Stock issues
"Permutation do both" against process CPs

Arguments I am a poor judge for:
Disclosure Theory
Speed Bad
Counterplans which compete off of certainty or immediacy
Trolling

Last Updated: Summer 2022

Assistant Speech Coach for 4 years at Lawrence High

Debated at Olathe Northwest for 2 years and Speech all 4 years.

Undergraduate at University of Kansas

Please email me with further questions: easvetlak@gmail.com

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

Experience: I competed in this event from 2014-2018. Have been coaching this event for 4 years.

What I look for:

- Early speeches should both provide general pros/cons for the bill while referencing the bill and what each section is changing.

- Direct clash is very very important to making Congressional debate, debate. However, when referencing speeches, make it meaningful and add something new to the argument. If you are adding to an argument, make it clear why your addition was necessary.

- Presiding over a chamber can be just as important as giving speeches

- Knowing the rules of the chamber and tournament, even when not the PO, is important.

- Discrimination or bigotry of any kind will not be tolerated. It will show up on your ballot and when necessary, be reported.

POLICY

Overall: This is a working paradigm that will and should change with each round and new arguments I see. If you have any questions I would love for you to ask them to me before the round. For most arguments- if you don't understand what you are reading and can't explain it to me clearly, I will not take the time to figure it out myself (understand what you read!!) With that said- I am fine with most basic arguments and as long as you ACTUALLY do the work to explain whatever link, impact, etc. I should be voting on.

Speed: I didn't spread in high school but if you give me the speech docs I can keep up for the most part. Don't be crazy.

T: I really don't care if you run T and don't go for it if it makes at least a little sense. I will vote on T with a violation of the resolution but it needs to be apparent and both teams need to be doing the work and engaging in the debate to tell me what standards I should evaluate.

Theory/Framework: For theory and framework you can run the basics but it would need a walk through. I mean tell me where and why I'm voting.

DA's: Great in front of me long as you can explain to me why their aff links to a DA you can run in every round I have no problem voting on it. I like specific DA's too. With any DA make sure to explain to me the link (or many links) to the aff and do impact work in explaining why the DA is the worst case scenario. I will vote on terminal impacts. And impact turns can be very strategic if done right. This would be a good strategy in front of me.

K's: If you're going to make this argument you have to be going very slow and walk me through it. Probably not the best strategy in front of me but if its important to you and you do it well go for it.

CP's: I like all most CP's. Again, if its complicated walk me through it. If you are going to run a CP as an off case, make sure to explain the net benefit to me (now the NB doesn't have to be a whole new DA, if you can articulate to me a creative NB I will consider it.) Aff- Arguments like no solvency work well for me on CP's.

Other notes:

Open cross is fine but don't be rude.

Don't be Racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

Rude comments about the other teams are also NEVER okay. Like that will show up on your ballot.

I would like the speech docs if you're doing an email chain or in out rounds.

Email: debate.swafford@gmail.com

Experience: Competed in HS (policy debate only), current Shawnee Mission West Speech and Debate assistant coach

Pronouns: He/Him

Non-Policy Notes:

LD: I'm open to just about anything in LD, but I do tend to expect a traditional values debate. If you want to get real philosophical or fun with it, that's fine, just explain your stuff. See if you can glean anything from my policy notes, but as long as you aren't a jerk you're going to be fine. I will always view high school debate as an educational activity - this means I value good, proper argumentation over everything. The basis or motivation of that argumentation is totally up to you.

PF: I straight up just weigh contentions. My ballot will list my decision on each contention and how much I weigh it in the context of the round. Fully winning a single impactful contention will sway my vote more than winning a bunch of less important ones. I don't love having more than 2 or 3 contentions, less is always more. Please don't be chaotic during grand crossfire, some of y'all need to chill.

Policy Notes:

Don't be rude or condescending to me or your opponent. Don't use problematic language. Be nice, have fun, live, laugh, love.

I fundamentally believe this to be an educational activity more than a competitive one, so I tend to lean truth over tech. I'm big on communication skills and proper argumentation. Logical fallacies, bad-faith arguments, lack of warrants, and blatant misuse of data or statistics (I teach math) make me sad. I will almost always prioritize probability when weighing impacts. Clear analysis is key. I always follow along in docs, but will not be doing any additional reading - I've gotten more and more comfortable doing less and less work in a round.

I'm fine with speed (like 7/10) with appropriate signposting and a clear structure. If you spread through absolutely everything and I can't reasonably comprehend something, I won't vote on it. Judge instruction and having good rebuttals can help cover you. I'm not the judge for you if you're just trying to win by out-speeding your opponent. That's boring and, in my opinion, antithetical to the point of the activity. I'm also not the best judge for a highly technical round - I don't have a lot of high level varsity experience and can struggle with processing all the jargon when going fast (think closer to 5/10 on speed for heavy theory). I find theory debates boring at best and inscrutable at worst. The team that can actually explain why I should care (in plain language) will get my ballot. Other than that, I really don't have any opinion or preference on what you run.

Assume I know nothing when reading philosophy, because I likely know very little about whoever you are talking about. I'm comfortable with most standard kritiks, but I don't read (or generally care) about philosophy, so you'll need to help me out there. I do enjoy a good K debate. You do you! All this said, don't be performative. Really think about what you are saying. Running a K just to win a debate is, oftentimes, high-key problematic.

Things I find annoying:

- Wasting time with tech issues (speech drop, email, computer, etc.); always have a back-up plan. In the words of the poet T.A. Swift, "If you fail to plan, you plan to fail."

- Interrupting your opponent during cross ex and then later saying they didn't answer your question.

- Overuse of jargon or abbreviations. Until something is clearly established in a round, I don't want to hear a slang term. Be better communicators.

- No attempt to offer a roadmap, signposts, or any semblance of structure to your speeches.

- Just reading card after card after card without actually saying anything substantive.

- No clash in a round. What are we even doing here?

- Bad rebuttals. At least outline why I should vote for you. I'm lazy, write my RFD for me. Give me some specific cards I should reference in my decision.

- Stealing prep time. You can't "stop prep" and then spend 5 minutes uploading a document. If you are truly that bad at technology, you need to go old school and be a paper debater.

- Don't roll your eyes at the other team, that's such an unnecessarily mean thing to do and being mean is loser behavior.

- Extinction/nuke war outweighing on magnitude is nothing if you can't definitively prove probability. It's hard to do that, of course, so maybe you should all stop escalating everything all of the time and have a reasonable debate instead.

- One thing I think about a lot: all you varsity kids spend so much time pouring over each other's stuff, you can't get upset at judges who miss something when we only get ONE shot to follow arguments live. Debate isn't my life and I'm going to miss stuff. I promise you I will give you my full attention, but you have to have realistic expectations.

- Asking for feedback from me after a round; it'll be on the ballot. (I need time to process my thoughts and don't want to say something mean/unhelpful to you on the spot). If I feel like there is something necessary to immediately share, I will. I will usually update my RFD/notes throughout the tournament, so check back at the end for the most detailed feedback. (Note: if the tournament is doing verbal RFD's, feel free to ask questions, don't expect eloquent answers though.)

- Trying to shake my hand (I'm sure you're nice, but, gross).

TL/DR:

- be nice, truth over tech, clear analytics, explain your kritiks, rebuttals are key, don't shake my hand

I debated for four years in High School at Olathe North and am currently assistant coaching there. I have not judged a whole lot of rounds and that is due to the college classes I am also taking at Johnson County Community College and the University of Kansas.

Please share what you plan on reading

email for email chains: swansonator01 @ gmail dot com

Speak clearly especially if you plan on going fast. If you are not clear in your spread...don't spread. I care more about the quality of your arguments rather than the quantity and I also care about how they fit into the flow of the debate.

I am fine with Ks and K affs and I especially care about HOW we achieve the alt if you run a K. ex. Revolution. Also, condo is good.

I will try my best not to intervene save for if you are rude and toxic in the round. Tell me how to vote and why. Run what you want to run and not what you think I want you to run.

If you run T, make sure it is reasonable and I will most likely not vote on it unless it is dropped.

(LD Paradigm below Policy paradigm)

I'm a pretty traditional judge.

I am willing to be persuaded based upon quality of argument/evidence. I do not give wins to quantity of evidence over quality of evidence.

There are no arguments to which I am automatically opposed---save for 2 caveats

1-I don't like fiat carried to Harry Potter/"magical" levels. There has to be some solid grounding in reality for me. Taken too far it gets into "how many angels can dance in the head of a pin?" territory. Most of the topics deal with serious issues that have serious real-world ramifications and they deserve being treated with due seriousness.

2-Having personally spent years arguing that literally nearly everything leads to nuclear war/global death/genocide/extinction etc. etc. , I will not flow said augments. I will NOT-I Repeat WILL NOT punish anyone for making them, as I said, I have done so myself. I simply will not flow such arguments.

Again, quality of argument matters more to me than quantity.

I'm ok with whatever speed debaters want to use. But if you really can out-speed my flow---well, if I can't flow it, then it makes it hard for you to win.

I am not a "blank slate" judge, I will not pretend that I don't know things.

I prefer clash on substantive points. I prefer dealing directly with the topic at hand. I often find highly technical "small ball" debates about debate itself to be unpersuasive.

I also greatly dislike it when debaters miss frame, take out of context or otherwise distort/spin/ etc. their evidence.

Any other question debaters might have, please ask.

LD Paradigm

I am "Old School" when it comes to LD Debate.

Pretty straightforward when it comes to LD--and other styles of debate

The only thing of note would be a deep disappointment with people that attempt to make LD into something like Policy Debates "little brother" or Policy Debates "mini-me."

LD is its own style of debate--it has it own rules, structure, methodology, delivery etc. etc

It is no more appropriate to try and crush Policy Debate methods/arguments/terms/delivery into an LD round than it would be to try and pass off ones Poetry selection as an Extemp speech. You CAN force round pegs into square holes---if you pound hard enough----but it tends to mangle things pretty thoroughly, an unappealing result.

Spreading and cranking up the speed (in general) despite being currently in-fashion, in places, is not really appropriate in LD where Delivery counts. Nor consistent with its historical context and purpose.

Plus if everything is essentially/effectively Policy Debate then there is really no reason at all for any other formats/styles etc. of debate.

Different events require different approaches, methodologies, styles and delivery. Inability or refusal to adapt ones case and methodology to fit the event or the paradigm IMO leads to poor quality debate.

I am not a "blank slate" Judge and as such I will not pretend that I don't know things. Attempts to get things "past" ones opponent that are not factually or logically correct will be noted.

Sincerely sorry if that sounds harsh but being able to adapt ones case/methods to fit the event and judging paradigms is a crucial skill for any competitor--esp. a debater.

I am a judge that only watches a few rounds of debate per year.

As a layjudge, an off time roadmap and clear sign posting is very helpful.

Rate of delivery can be rapid as long as there is articulation and clear points.

Several arguments will help win a round, but not without a firm connection to the case.

Communication is slightly more important than resolution of issues. I need to be able to follow the arguments and match them to the case in order for me to vote on the information presented.

I’m not fond of spending a lot of time on topicality arguments but if one is presented it needs to be defended.

Counterplans need to have a clear advantage over the aff and not contradict other neg arguments.

Generic disadvantages are fine as long as they are tied back to the original case.

Like other types of evidence, kritiks need clear links. Extended argument on the theory of debate detracts from having an actual debate.

I'm an Assistant Coach at Hutchinson High School. I debated for four years in the KDC and DCI divisions.

In general, I prefer a more open style (heavy use of on-case arguments, DA's, and CP's), however, I want debaters to have the freedom to express themselves and do what they want. DO WHAT MAKES YOU SUCCESSFUL!! I will have an open mind when I submit my ballot. A couple of notes for those who want it:

Speed: Speed in the constructives is whatever. I'd prefer a slower debate, but I can keep up. I would prefer rebuttals be slightly slower, but it's up to you. I'll do my best to not miss anything.

Kritiks: I was never a huge K debater in high school, so I'm not up-to-date on the literature (although I have a baseline understanding of the most popular arguments). Make sure that if you read a K, actually explain its relevance in the round. I will vote on it, but you need to do more work for me than you would on judges who are more familiar.

You will win my ballot by giving me some impact stuff in the 2nd rebuttals and telling me why you have won. I'll vote on whatever framework is presented in round, but I default policymaker/impact calc. It would be great if a team did the math for me instead of having to do it myself. What will the world of the aff be vs the world of the neg? Analysis like this will win you the round most of the time.

PLEASE signpost and provide clash. I'll do my best to write a solid RFD on every ballot so y'all understand why I voted the way I did, even if you might not agree with it :)

Email for email chains if that's how you want to share evidence: royalsandchiefs333@gmail.com

I've evolved as a judge which has unfortunately been interpreted as I'm inconsistent or unpredictable. As an assistant coach I understand that creates frustration, which I want to avoid, so if there is anything below that is not 100% clear, please ask me prior to the round. I would much rather have a brief discussion and give you some sense of understanding my thought process than you walk away from the round thinking you don't know what you could have done to win my ballot. I assure you, there have been people who have asked and learned how I evaluate, and those individuals found me to be consistent even if it wasn't always in their favor (though it often was).

Let's start with the foundation. Once upon a time I would give myself the label of "games player" because I appreciated good strategy. I still evaluate if I think a team is being strategic or clever, but I am strongly TRUTH OVER TECH. If you tell me that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and your opposition does not respond, that DOES NOT mean I accept something that is not true. I think it is especially critical in an environment of "fake news" or "relative facts" that we champion the truth above spin. So you will find that if your argument is only theoretically plausible, it is going to be much less persuasive than if you stick to simple truths.

This leads me to two conclusions you should be able to draw about how I evaluate a round. 1st, magnitude does NOT overwhelm probability. In fact magnitude rarely plays any part in my decision. I have listened to the same authors for 25+ years predict the next war will be over water or food or that we're all going to starve or that terrorists are moments away from having nuclear weapons. Empirically all of these authors are wrong. The have no credibility with me. Which means I give zero weight to an impact that I have zero probability of believing it will happen. You hear judges say all the time that they are tired of nuke war impacts. You want to know why? Because I have lived my entire life with the doomsday clock at least 7 minutes to midnight. The "experts" have cried wolf for far to long to be believed. The only chance you have to win on magnitude is if you extend very detailed warrants about why this time is different and the facts your author has looked at to draw the conclusions. If you don't know what facts the author looked at, don't bother.

2nd, links and link stories matter much more than uniqueness. I believe students like to debate uniqueness because it is easy. It is eacy to try to find evidence about the current state of the world. What is hard is predicting the consequences of taking any action. This is why solvency and link turns on case are extremely effective as well as indicting internal links on a D.A. to make it go away. I will assign 0% solvency or 0% risk of a link so defense can make an entire flow seemingly go away. This is especially apparent on politics scenarios! Pundits who try to predict elections or votes on legislation are less accurate than the weatherman! I will not assume that just because the Affirmative plan is topical that it will lead to any consequence other than the ones that are by fiat. I have listened to debaters who were incredibly informed on specific congressional leaders and how certain pieces of legislation are being used as a political football, and those debaters were persuasive. If you just aren't that debater, there is no shame in that, but you will find your politics scenario just isn't persuasive.

Let's shift gears and talk a little about topicality. Here is my single belief: the affirmative team must affirm the resolution. When I write affirmative on the ballot that means the affirmative team has successfully convinced me the resolution is true. The affirmative plan is an example of the possible reasons the resolution is true. The affirmative doesn't have to prove all instances of the resolution are true, but at least the affirmative plan should be adopted and if the affirmative plan is an example what could be under the resolution, then the resolution is true. This view of the resolution is nearly non-negotiable (we'll talk about K's in a minute). This means the affirmative plan is a proof of the resolution or it isn't. Period. I don't evaluate if it is fair because that is subjective. There will be an interpretation that I either believe or don't believe, it is always all or nothing. When it comes to competing interpretations, I will walk into the round with an interpretation in my mind (no one is a blank slate) and that will be my default. I can be persuaded that there is a different interpretation, but the reason must be more compelling than an appeal to emotion and warranted in facts. I will admit, topicality is the one place that I will suspend the truth until it is argued. There are countless rounds in which the foundation of an affirmative plan hasn't been established, it isn't prima facia topical, and I don't get to pull the trigger because the negative is silent. That frustrates me because I don't get to vote on what I see is the truth. That doesn't mean run topicality no matter what, because you hurt your credibility by running the wrong violation or running it to run it. It's not a strategic time suck. Both the affirmative and negative need to ask themselves if they would vote on if the affirmative is topical and make their best case. It probably goes without saying, but I believe the plan text must be topical, not the solvency of the plan. I believe the plan text must be sufficient to justify the resolution. If you need to do something in addition to the resolution to show the plan should be adopted, then you have shown the resolution should not be affirmed because it is insufficient.

I said I'd talk about K's, so lets get it over with. For years I said I didn't like them or worst wouldn't even listen to them. I'm much more open minded now, but here is the truth. You have 26 minutes to convince me of some philosophical position that I might not agree with. That is ridiculously hard when I've studied most of these positions for entire semesters, or life long, and have true biases. Flat out, I believe in Capitalism. I've studied Marx, and I happily participate in a Capitalist society. I have voted on Cap Bad because the round called for it, but my default is Cap Good. I could go through several popular K's, but you get the point. You will either 1. have to get lucky and preach to the choir on something I already believe or 2. knock me off my preconceived notion about the world. That's either luck or quite difficult. And I will caveat all of this with one big factor. If you are making a social criticism, you better walk the walk. You cannot be a hypocrite. If you performatively contradict your position, your link to the K will be far stronger than anything you say for your opponents because you should have known better. For example if you say animal suffering is always immoral and you are wearing leather shoes, you better be able to prove the cow died of natural causes! I LOVE to vote against the team who presents a K and link back into it. Speaking of K links, I will not assume the K links, you need to have a story (see my take on D.A.'s). And your alt must actually solve (see my take on solvency).

From K's to their cousins the CP. I am old and still believe that a counterplan must be an opportunity cost to the affirmative plan. We can't do the CP and the Aff (mutually exclusive) and the CP is better than the Aff (competitive) so we should do the CP instead of the affirmative. Futhermore the CP must be non-topical or else the affirmative gets to simply say the counterplan is one more example of why the resolution is true. See, the affirmative could present 2 or more plans to prove the resolution is a good idea. They don't do that because it puts them more at risk because they must advocate for everything they present, but they can just freely have the CP if the CP is topical. This is a strong belief of mine so theory to tell me otherwise is not persuasive. This isn't to say PIC's are off limits, it just means the PIC must be extra topical (see my take on why extra T doesn't justify the resolution). There are plenty of strategic CP's that work with this paradigm, but ultimately it needs to be an opportunity cost to the affirmative. CP's can be permed, thus they are not mutually exclusive and therefor not an opportunity cost to the affirmative plan. A CP can link to a D.A. so it isn't competitive. I appreciate counterplans and their usage, but they need to be that opportunity cost to the resolution.

The rest of theory type stuff is a coin flip and situational. I've voted on condo good and bad. I'm willing to pull the trigger on something, but you need to explain it and warrant it. I don't fill in the gaps for blips.

To be clear, I don't fill in anything. Just saying a couple of key words like "perm do both" or "pull the impacts" may not be sufficient. If I understood what you said earlier, perhaps, but I'm not going to insert what I think you mean by shouting out debate jargon. This leads to the overused question of speed. This is a verbal activity. I almost never read cards because I want to evaluate what I heard. If I hear the warrants in a card, great. If I'm not able to process the warrants then all you've done is make a claim in your tag. Speed is very rarely the issue, it is a matter of clarity. And it is unusually pretty obvious if I've given up on flowing. The only time I usually ask for evidence is when I personally am questioning myself on what I heard and I think it is my fault I'm unsure. As far as I'm concerned the authors are there to lend credibility, you are making the arguments, so I'm not going to evaluate what your author said, I'm going to evaluate what you said. If you author lacks credibility, you might as well just say things in your own words. Which honestly is often not a bad thing. I think debaters are way too dependent on quoting an author and treating it like a fact. If your author makes a claim but doesn't warrant it, just because they are an author doesn't make it true. This is more common in K debates where quoting a philosopher is treated like an absolute truth, but it can happen anywhere in the debate. Again, I want the truth over tech, so facts with logical analysis will outweigh a card in most situations.

Finally, I am human. I am biased. I have emotions. Why is this relevant? Because my bias and my emotions can make somethings seem more persuasive than others. Your credibility matters. If you destroy your credibility, you might say you won on the flow, but I'm not believing you so what is on the flow carries no weight. Treating your opponents poorly lowers your credibility. "Put away your impact defense, my card beats them all" is insulting because it shows that you care more about what your opponents think about how cool you are than persuading me that your argument is actually sound. Tag team cross ex tells me through your actions that "I don't trust my partner. My partner is stupid so I'll speak out of turn. What I have to say is more important." That is pretty damning to your partners credibility and frankly makes you a jerk. Prompting arguments says the same thing. Prompting "slower" shows you are trying to assist with something they might not realize in the moment but giving an argument and having them parrot it word for word so it "counts" is about the worst ways to attempt to persuade me. If you cause logistical issues such as being late to the round because what your assistant coach had to say was more important than my time, or stealing prep time while you fiddle with your computer, or take significant time to pass evidence, all of these things I notice and leaves an impression on me. You might be shocked by this, but humans like to reward people they like and punish those they don't like. That isn't to say I'll immediately vote against you because you rearranged the entire room so you could plug in your laptop, but it makes your job harder if I'm rooting against you. Just don't give me a reason to want to vote against you and we'll be fine.

Oh, and I don't shake hands. I'm not as adverse as Howie Mandel, but I prefer not to physically touch strangers. I just don't see any reason to do it. I know you respect me as a human and I respect you as a human without our hands touching.

Mitch Wagenheim

4 years debated in HS, assistant coaching since 2015. Last updated September 2022

If we’re still doing email chains, I’d prefer to be on them: mwagenheim@outlook.com 

Overview: 

My basic paradigm is that I will vote on almost anything so long as you win the argument and demonstrate that argument is sufficient to win the round.  I used to be more of a policymaker judge but have become less attached to that framing. I firmly believe in tech over truth within the scope of the round. The only exceptions to this are arguments or types of discourse that seek to exclude people from the activity (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) If your arguments fall into the above categories, you will lose my ballot regardless of anything else on the flow. I am wiling to vote on almost anything. What follows are my general views on arguments and I can be convinced otherwise on any of them. 

Specifics: 

1. For theory arguments, you need to specify a compelling reason to reject the team. Saying “reject the team, not the argument” is not actually an argument. 
2. Topicality is often an underdeveloped argument in rounds I’ve seen. 
3. If you are running a K aff, it should have something to do with the resolution. It doesn’t need to be topical in the same way a policy aff does, but there should be a clear reason why it’s directly relevant to the topic. If you don’t want to engage the topic for whatever reason, you’ll need some strong framing why. 
4. I can generally follow the theory of your K, but make sure to clearly articulate your arguments and don’t just read blocks. Your alt needs to be supported by the literature base and somehow mutually exclusive with the affirmative. ROB/ROJ arguments are extremely helpful.
5. In terms of familiarity with critical arguments/authors I’m pretty conversant in Fem/Fem IR/Security/Foucault/Heidegger as well as the basic Cap/Imperialism/etc. arguments. Topics like Afropessimism/Queer IR or less common authors (Baudrillard for example) I can generally follow, but am less knowledgable about. 
6. DAs should have a clear link story and generic disads generally don’t hold much strategic value.
7. Smart analytics are just as valuable as cards. 
8. Clarity is substantially more important than speed. If you are unclear, I’ll give you a warning if you’re unclear but it’s up to you to make sure you are communicating. If I miss something because you’re unclear, that argument won’t be considered. 

Overall, do what you are comfortable with as best as you can. Don’t let my preferences discourage you from running your strategy. 

As a former forensics competitor and coach, I pay a good deal of attention to delivery (you need to speak at a rate such that I can understand you!). Just rattling off info without emphasis or proper inflection damages your credibility for me. Logical arguments are important. Finally, professional and courteous conduct is always appreciated!