Pronouns: (she/her)

Preferred name: Kat

I would like to be on the email chain: cazeaupatricia@gmail.com

*****IF YOU READ/REFERENCE SEXUALLY EXPLICIT/VIOLENT CONTENT I AM NOT THE JUDGE FOR YOU.*****

Debated at Liberty, and I debated policy for 4 years in high school (shout out to Long Branch High!).

My credentials ig:

- 2021 NDT third team

- 2022 NDT First Round (TOP TEN YERRRR)

- First Liberty invite to the Kentucky Round Robin

- Long Branch High volunteer Policy Coach

- Judged Policy, LD, Parli, PF, and speech events

Kritiks:

I'm a black woman with an immigrant background. Do with that what you will.

If you're a K team, I'm a huge fan of K's! I'm familiar with: Cap K, Thoreau, Antiblackness, Afropess, Afrofuturism, Orientalism, Bataille, Nietzsche, Fem, Baudrillard, and I'm sure I'm missing others. Just bc I'm comfortable with these, don't be sure I'll know all of your buzz-words and theory. Explanations are good, detailed explanations are best.

If you win the following, you'll win the debate:

1.) Give me the Link. Just because I consider the truth doesn't mean that you could assert that the Aff is racist, sexist, neoliberal, or whatever without a specific link. If you can prove to me why the foundations of the Aff are suspect and make your impacts worse, you've done your job and the link debate is yours.

2.) Impact weighing. I need clash and impact comparison. Sure, tell me what your impact is and why it matters, but explain why it matters in relation to your opponent's impacts (ie: structural violence is happening now, extinction is far off. Immediacy outweighs).

3.) Alt explanation. I gotta know what it does. In explaining the Alt, you need to explain how it's different from the SQUO, and why a permutation wouldn't immediately resolve your impacts and the links. If you don't need to win the Alt, just gotta explain why not.

4.) Judge Instruction. Give it to be straight, what do you want me to do? What is my role in the discussion/in this competitive space? What are the implications of the ballot?

Do these things, and you're golden. :^)

K-Affs:

Do most of the same stuff as above, only difference is that you should have substantive answers to framework. Again, don't just assert that FW is sexist, racist, whatever WITHOUT a reason why. I jive with K-Affs, and I think performances could be powerful. Just make sure everything is done with a purpose.

Your counter-interpretation is the framing for my ballot as well as the model of debate you advocate for. I'll vote on any, esp if the other team drops it.

ROB's are muy importante in a framework debate.

I'm guilty of wildly-long overviews-- but for your sake pls no more than 2 minutes. Pls.

Policy, because I can't abandon my first love:

I love me some tasty DA's and CP's, as long as the internal link chain makes sense.

I'm sympathetic to Condo as an arg if it's 6+ off. Anything below that and you're on your own, my friend.

Impact turns are cool. I'll vote for anything as long as it isn't death/extinction good and structural violence/racism good.

Framework:

1.) FAIRNESS ISN'T AN IMPACT! It's an internal link to education.

2.) Clash is the most convincing impact to me.

3.) Predictability is sort of a toss-up. If you didn't prepare for Cap or other K's that you knew would come with the topic after the first few tournaments, that's on you. But I will vote for it if you tell me how predictability makes you all better debaters.

Please do not put me in any T or Theory debates. I can't do it.

***PF***

>Impact calc is MUY IMPORTANTE!!! Weigh between your and your opponent's impacts, please. Explain why you outweigh.

>Ask QUESTIONS in Cross-Fire! This is two-fold: 1. "[explains case]... what do you say to that?" isn't a question, and 2. Being POLITE when asking questions is key. Please don't bully the other team.

>Tell me how to write my ballot, and what you're going to win on in this debate.

>I'm a policy person so I don't see a problem with counterplans in PF. This being said, "This is PF, counterplans aren't allowed!" isn't an argument. Attack it instead.

>In addition, speed isn't a problem for me. But do recognize that if the other team makes it a voter, you have to justify your use of speed in that instance.

>And please, PLEASE, answer as many of the opponent's arguments WHILE extending your case. Chances are they didn't answer everything you said.

>Finally... have funsies. :^)

If you're racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, rude, or discriminatory in any way toward your partner or opponent, I will stop the round and your speaks are getting docked. Behaviors like that make the debate space less hospitable. And, yes, that includes extremely 'punking' the other team.

Rhetoric is a voter. If it frames the debate and it's a big enough deal to potentially ruin your debate experience, I'll vote on it.

HAVE FUN!

Email (please add me to the chain!): melanieann88.ma@gmail.com

Top level

I'm Melanie! I debated (mostly kritikally) at Liberty University for three years. I think debate is both exhausting and a form of art, which is why we should come together as a community and treat each other with respect, kindness, and professionalism when we walk into a round. Yes, walk in to win! But also walk in to have fun and remember that even if debate is a game, you're debating real people, so don't be mean.

Policy v Policy

I'll judge off the flow 98% of the time, so give me strong links and impacts that outweigh (doesn't always have to be extinction) and that's how I'll make my decision.

Counterplans -I'm not good at all the little ticky-tacky things in counterpans (i.e. "intrinsic-perms-good, condo-is-bad, process-counterplans-unfair) but if you explain to me the impacts of these things and tell me how to prioritize them I'll vote on them. I think that the net benefits of the counterplan should probably solve the entirely of the plan. (Smart debaters leverage, which means if you're aff, and there is one part of the other team's counterplan that doesn't solve you're off, blow that up.

Disads -Comparisons. On every part of the debate--the links, the internal links, the impacts. I love comparisons: "They have no link to our aff because our evidence says XXX which means YYY, as opposed to their evidence which says ZZZ."

Policy v K

I was a K debater and love a good policy v. K round. You should, however, assume that I haven't read your critical literature and you should still have very warranted and impacted-out arguments based on said literature. Kritiks, I think, work the best when there are specific, contextualized links to the aff. I'm alright if you kick the alternative but I would love "even if" statements if you do this (i.e.: "even ifyou don't believe our alternative works the kritik worsens all the impacts of the plan, this means...").

I'm also not the biggest fan of "reject aff" alts because I think there should be more substance and instruction than just "reject aff" (What specifically to what am I rejecting the aff for? Do I reject other policy affs like it based on this philosophy? How does rejecting the aff solve the impacts of the aff? etc.). But I can always be persuaded otherwise. Just be like, "Melanie, listen, you have to reject their aff to adopt a philosophy of xyz or else the impacts of the case are made worse by our theory because...!" (And if you say this, you should condense and do impact calculus on it).

Case--framework is your best friend. Use framework, tell me how I should frame the round, even if you're not running framework as a separate off-case. Tell mewhyyour specific policy does not link to the K, why investing in your USFG action is net better to solve your and their impacts, why their alternative fails. Tell me why your case outweighs, that you should get to weigh your aff, that fairness is an instrinsic good, etc.

K affs v Policy

K affs can be really fun! K affs hold special places in my heart, but I do think they should have specific ties to the topic, and I do think that they need to be prescriptive rather than descriptive of the status quo. Tell me why you want my ballot in this round (and it doesn't have to be key to alt solvency, either---if you can prove to me how my ballot can check back against violences etc. etc., I'm cool with that!). Policiers, tell me why framework is not policing but is important for debate to thrive, and why topic education is good.

K v K

These also hold special places in my heart! Tell me all the things--why is your method better? Why does your method resolve your impacts plus their impacts? K affs, tell me how there's no link, and Ks on the neg, tell me how they definitely do link. Something I learned that has been exponentially helpful in k v k debates (okay, really in any form of debate) is to take lines from their aff/neg evidence/strategy and formulate that into your argument, you're probably doing something to get yourself in a good spot.

Overall Things

>Ethos! Be fun, have personality, maybe don't be monotone? Even if you lose, I'll give you really good speaks if you a.) make me laugh and b.) sound personable and have inflection!

>I'm not great for impact turns like "Warming Good" or "Nuclear War Good" or "Wipe Out/Spark".

>Notttt a fan of excessive, profane language - I definitely understand things just come out! But, you know, dropping the F-bomb every other word probably cuts into your speech time to make better, more warranted arguments about the substance of the debate.

>Conditionality - if I'm honest, I lean more neg in terms of conditionality but I can always be persuaded otherwise, and I think I'm a little bit more biased towards the aff if the neg gets up and reads, like, 11 off, where 8 of those off are counterplans/ks/piks.

>Don't steal prep - not a good time. I won't call you out, but it'll reflect in your speaker points.

Have fun, learn all the things, and you got this!

Yes I would like to be added to the email chain, my email address is lucas.mcintosh21@gmail.com

I am a current junior at Liberty University and have been debating on the University’s Debate team for the past year and counting. I have done policy as well as K debates for the time I have been competing and I enjoy both. I strongly believe that debate is a game, some think it is more, I encourage all who participate to be nice and have fun!

Important for all aspects of debate:

Depth over breadth, explain in detail if you have a lot of off-case.

K’s

I enjoy a good K debate and have expectations for when it occurs. I am biased to the capk but if a K is explained well enough I will enjoy it. The most important aspect at the end of the debate is you must be able to explain your link and please explain your alt and how it functions. One other word of advice: do not forget your aff!

DA’s

Strong impact analysis, as well as logical arguments used with Disads, are preferred.

CP’s

Make sure your counterplan has a net benefit and try to prove its competitiveness.

Theory

When presented well I enjoy theory arguments. A core belief of mine is CONDO GOOD

CX

Cross x is usually the most exciting part of a debate- Do not waste these 3 minutes!

Lastly, please don’t assume I know all the jargon of debate as I am not familiar with the high school topic. In a speech, I look for clarity over speed. For speaks, I care about clarity and how the argument is presented, did you engage the judge? Were you kind to your opponent and your partner? These are aspects I consider when judging. If you have read the paradigm this far, I will reward you with a .2 bump in speaks If you say "That's not very slay" in a speech.

This is a new tabroom account so please excuse the lack of judging history.

I have participated in PF, LD and Policy within the 8 years of me being in the debate community.

Please email me if you have any questions as I continue to update my paradigm thank you.

H.montague1998@gmail.com

OR - If you have any immediate question for PREFS you can always find me on facebook Heaven Montague

UNDER CONSTRICTION:

Tech or Truth?

I am a technical judge BUT I WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY ARGUMENTS THAT MAKE STATEMENTS SUCH AS RACISM GOOD AND ETC.

Philosophy Updated 9-5-17

Nick Ryan – Liberty Debate – 10th year coaching/Judging

Please label your email chains “Tournament – Rd “#” – AFF Team vs Neg Team” – or something close to that effect. I hate “No subject,” “Test,” “AFF.” I would like to be included “nryan2wc@gmail.com”

Too often Philosophy’s are long and give you a bunch of irrelevant information. I’m going to try to keep this short and sweet.

1. I spend most of my time working with our “Policy teams,” I have a limited amount of working with our “K/Non traditional” debaters, but the bulk of my academic research base is with the “traditional” “policy teams;” don’t expect me to know the nuances of your specific argument, debate it and explain it.

2. Despite this I vote for the K a fair amount of time, particularly when the argument is contextualized in the context of the AFF and when teams aren’t reliant on me to unpack the meaning of “big words.” Don’t rely on me to find your “embedded clash” for you.

3. “Perm Do Both” is not a real argument, neg teams let AFFs get away with it way too often and it shifts in the 1AR. Perms and Advocacy/CP texts should be written out.

4. If neither team clarifies in the debate, then I default to the status quo is always an option.

5. These are things that can and probably will influence your speaker points: clarity, explanations, disrespectfulness to the other team, or your partner, stealing prep time, your use of your speech time (including cx), etc.

6. Prep time includes everything from the time the timer beeps at the end of the lasts speech/CX until the doc is sent out.

7. I think Poems/Lyrics/Narratives that you are reading written by someone else is evidence and should be in the speech document.

ADA Novice Packet Tournaments:

Evidence you use should be from the packet. If you read cards that weren’t in the packet more than once it’s hard to believe it was a “honest mistake.”

If you have any questions about things that are not listed here please ask, I would rather you be sure about my feelings, then deterred from running something because you are afraid I did not like it.